1979-03-21NMarch 21, 1979 (Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on March 21, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr~
Fisher, in the hallway of the County Courthouse. Since Court was still in session, motion
was offered by Mr. Dorrier to adjourn said meeting to the Board Room of the County Office
Building. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.-
Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom.
At 7:40 P.M., Mr. Fisher called the meeting back to order in the Board Room and proceeded
with the following agenda items. Ail members were now present.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-79-03. William W. Stevenson and Alton F. Martin. Rezone
13.15 acres from R-2 to B-1. Located on the northwest side of Route 29 North Just north of
the intersection of Routes 631 and 29 North. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 94. Charlottesville
Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 7 and 14, 1979.)
Mr. Lindstrom said he had previously abstained from discussions on requests from these
applicant's due to his firm being their attorneys. He is now with a different firm and will
participate in this discussion.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the following staff report:
"~equested Zoning: B-1 Business (With Proffer)
Acreage: 13.15 acres of 32.6 acre parcel
Existing Zoning: R-2 Residential Limited
Staff Comment: Staff has not recommended favorably on two previous requests
for increased commercial zoning for reasons stated in attached staff reports.
Conditions proffered in this request address staff concerns:
- Under existing zoning, development of the entire tract could generate 9150
vtpd as compared to a potential of 8250 under proffered conditions;
- The applicant has proffered a limit of two entrances to Route 29 North,
~a limitation which would be otherwise difficult to enforce.
In addition to the foregoing, the Highway Department has recently completed a
special corridor study of Route 29~ North. ImProvements recommended in the study
6o Not indicate that this particular portion of Ro~t~ '29 would b~ restored to an
arterial character.
Staff recommends approval of this petition for the following reasons:
12.
As calculated with assistance from the Highway Department, traffic impact
(both vtpd and side friction) could be reduced due to the proffered
conditions;
Access to adjoining properties as proffered could further reduce traffic
impact (vtpd and side friction);
The request complies with the land use recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan."
Mr. Tucker said the following letter was received from the applicants on February 28,
1979:'
"As a part of our rezoning application for an additional 13.15 acres of
B-1 property on Route 29 North, being Tax Map 45, Parcel 94, we hereby proffer
conditions to be applied to the property, including the existing 6.15 acres of
B-1 property, and become part and parcel of the rezoning application:
1) There shall be no more than two commercial entrances to U.S.
Route 29 North along the entire 938 feet frontage.
2) Access easements will be provided to the adjacent property
owners, being Tax Map 45, Parcel 105 and Tax Map 45, Parcel 108, at
locations to be determined at time of site development;
3) Landscaping shall be provided to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Albemarle County Planning Commission between the B-1 property
and-All adjacent residential property;
4) Shrubbery along the frontage of t'he property along Route 29
f0r ~he beautification of Route 29 shall be provided at time of site
development to the reasonable satisfaction of the Albemarle County
Planning Commission for the purpose of beautification; and not for the
purpose of the screening of any legitimate business uses;
5) Vehicle trips per day shall be limited to 400 per acre of
business property so long as Route 29 North remains in its current
status of two through lanes of traffic."
Mr. Tucker then presented the following comparative impact of the existing zoning
verY'us the proposed zoning with the proffered conditions:
"An attempt has been made to be site-specific in evaluating traffic impact
under this application. This was prompted by receipt of more detailed information
from the Highway Department, which is in basic agreement with the resultant traffic
estimates. These estimates were based on the following assumptions:
Existing Zoning- The existing strip c. ommer.cial frontage would ultimately
develop in similar character t6~ bther' strip commercial a~ong Route 29-North.
-The following uses were employed_~and each was allotted 30,000 square feet,
resulting in eight uses:
Use
Drive-in restaurant
Drive-in bank
Convenience market
Service station
Peak Hour Tri~s
Vehicle Trips Per Da~
AM PM
T~4 1-53 1135
123 101 620
134 96 1150
74 93 835
8 uses ~ 935 vtpd :7480 vtpd
plus 26.75 acres R-2 R 62 vtpd :1659 vtpd
TOTAL 9139 vtpd
Average 935 vtpd
Vehicle trips/day calculated by staff: vtpd = 10 (ave. of AM & PM peak).
Other information supplied by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
p~oposed Zoning - For larger commercial tracts of greater depth, the Highway
Department has recommended using 432.30 vtpd per acre. Compared to strip
development, trip generation would be less because of the following assumptions:
A greater mix of uses including less-intensive traffic generators;
Multi purpose trips (i.e.-one-stop shopping) to the site as opposed to
single-purpose trips under strip development.
~yoposed Zoning (with proffer)
19.0 acres of B-1 ~ 400 vtpd
13.6 acres of R-2 ~ 62 vtpd
7600
843
~-~vtpd"
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on March 6, 1979 unanimously recommended
approval of ZMA-79-03 with the above proffered conditions.
Mr. Fisher asked the status of condition #5 when Route 29 North is improved. Mr.
Tucker said it would not then be applicable and there would be no limit on the vehicle
trips per day. Mr. Roudabush asked if the vehicle trips per day were determined by the
type of businesses to be located there and the amount of area to be occupied. Mr. Tucker
said the Highway Department makes their determination from estimates for particular uses.
As uses are applied for through the site plan process, a determination will be made. If
the limit is exceeded, the applicant may be restricted to what can be located on the property.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Speaking first was Mr. Ed Bain, attorney
for the applicants. He felt concerns expressed previously by the Board about limitation of
entrances has been resolved with proffered condition No. 1. The other concern of the Board
was vehicle trips per day. Proffered condition No. 5 resolves that concern because it
allows less traffic than what can be generated on the property under its existing zoning.
Mr. Bain said there is a purchase contract pending for two acres of the subject parcel.
However, a condition of the contract is approval of the requested zoning. Mr. Bain said
the proposed business will not detract from the remainder of the tract and will not generate
much traffic.
Mr. William W. Stevenson, applicant, was present. He hoped the proffered conditions
resolved the concerns expressed by the Board. Mr. Alton F. Martin, applicant said they
have no desire to p.ut a string of fast food establishments on the property regardless of
what happens with this request. With no one else present to speak for or against the
petition, the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Iachetta felt the proffered conditions diminish the concerns of the Board. He
then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-03 with the proffered conditions set out above. Mr.
Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-79-04. Ronald L. Smullen. Rezone 10 acres from A-1 to RS-1.
Located on the east side of Route 678 approximately 500 feet north of the C and 0 Railroad.
County Tax Map 58, Parcel 86. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on March 7 and 14, 1979.)
Mr..Roudabush said he would abstain from discussion of this matter since the applicant
had received some advice from his staff.
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Requested Zonin$: RS-1 Residential Suburban
Acreage: 10.15 acres
Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture ~ .. : : ~ ·
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 58, parc~'~ 86, is located on the
east side of Route 678 at Ivy.
. M ~ra ~ch 21~_~__ Z.79 ~Ni ht~~tin )
Character of the Area: This property is bounded by Meriwether Hills on the
north and east. Larger residential properties are to the south and west.
Cqm~ehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends Ivy for a population of
about 1,000 by 1995. A density of one dwelling per acre is recommended for
villages.
Existing Zoning. in the Area: Meriwether Hills is zoned RS-1 and West Leigh is zoned
R-1. Other properties in the immediate vicinity are zoned A-1.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
Public water is or will be available;
The request complies with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan;
3. The requested zoning is compatible to Meriwether Hills zoning."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on March 6, 1979, unanimously recommended
approval subject to the applicant's proffer to upgrade Leed's Lane of Section II, Meriwether
Hills to state standards prior to approval of a subdivision plat. Mr. Tucker then read the
following proffer received from the applicant on March 15, 1979:
"It is understood that the upgrading of Leed's Lane to State standards is
a condition required in order to get approval of rezoning and of a subdivision
plat plan for approximately seven acres of land, Tax Map 58, Parcel 86.
Accordingly, I, Ronald L. Smullen, or assigns, conditioned upon approval of
a subdivision plat, agree to upgrade Leeds Lane to State Standards at the time
that the necessary road work is performed on said subdivision.
This road work will be performed with expediency, following approval of a
subdivision plat, but in no case will be performed later than eighteen
months following the date of approval of said subdivision plat."
Mr. Tucker said a request from an adjoining pr®perty owner to abandon Leed's'Lane
(discussed by the Board on February 14, 1979) was also discussed by the Planning Commission.
The Commission felt they could support a rezoning of this property if Leed's Lane was
upgraded and taken into the state system. Therefore, the above proffer was made by the
applicant. Mr. Fisher was concerned about the procedure and whether this was advertised as
a proffered zoning matter or whether it was proffered after it got to the Planning Commission.
He felt the Planning Commission's action appeared to be conditional zoning. Mr. Tucker
said the Code states that a proffer must be made prior to the Board's taking action. It
does not mean that the proffer has to be made at the Planning Commission stage or prior to
their action. Mr. St. John said the proffer must be made prior to the first public hearing
of the governing body and be from the applicant. He had examined the proffer and did not
find-anything wrong with it procedurally. He noted that the proffer must be made voluntarily
and suggested that the applicant state such for the record.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Ronald L. Smullen, the applicant, was present
and stated that the proffer was voluntary.
Mr. Richard Shannon, petitioner for the abandonment of Leed's Lane, was present. He
appreciated the proffer to upgrade the road and said his main concern is the upgrading of
Leed's-Lane to state specifications and he had no opinion as to the rezoning request.
Mr. Fisher asked if there are any problems with septic facilities in this area. Mr.
Tuckers. was not aware of any and the requirements of the subdivision and zoning ordinances
are met in terms of density. Mr. Shannon said there will be water pressure problems.if the
system is hooked into the four inch water main in West Leigh.
Dr..Iachetta then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-04 with the following proffer:
Upgrade Leed's Lane ~from Section II,~Meriwether'Hills to State standards prior to approval.
of a subdivision plat. Mr~ Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush.
Mr. R6udabush then returned to the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4.
Plans for Scottsville School and Budget Request.
Dr. James Walker, Vice-Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present.
noted the following resolution adopted by the School Board concerning the Scottsville
project:
WHEREAS, planning for the addition to the Scottsville Elementary School
has reached a stage that permits~a reasonably accurate estimate of the cost
of that project to be made, and
WHEREAS, the budget projected for this addition was grossly underestimated
When the need first became a part of the School'Board's Five-Year'Building Update
Program in 1975-76, and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board considers the Scottsville
addition to be its number one building priority need at this time, and
WHEREAS, the architect has nearly reached the end of preliminary planning,
and the School Board wishes to expedite the plan for this project so that
construction can begin early in the 1979-80 school year.
He
229
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County School Board
endorses the school building concept incorporated in preliminary plans developed
by the firm of Vickery ~nd Associates for the Scottsvi!le School addition, and
after meeting with people in the Scottsville School on March 19, 1979 to
~ear that community's appraisal of these preliminary plans, the Board and the
architect will be prepared to proceed with more detailed plans.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the School Board requests the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to increase the appropriation fo~ this project fr6m $660,000
to 1.4 million dollars in order that the planning and construction of this project
can proceed without delay.
Dr. Walker also noted the attachment of updated construction cost estimates received
from Vickery and Associates, architects engaged to do the work. Although the increase is
$768,000 more than the original estimate, the School Board feels it is the number one
project in their five-year building program and urges the Board's support of same.
Mr. Robert Vickery was present. He said when his firm was appointed to do this work,
they had requested a committee composed of School Board personnel, citizens of the Scottsville
community and the staff at the Scottsville School to assist them with the design. This
committee was appointed and has met. A public hearing was held before the design of the
School began. Dr. Irving Driscoll, Principal of Scottsville Elementary School, and his
staff drew up the preliminary program to which was attached square footages and teaching
spaces. The program is based on a school for 300 students. The present student population
of the school is 215 but it is split between the new Scottsvil~e POD and the old Scottsville
School. Mr. Vickery said the number 300 was selected because of the following: 1) It was
felt to be the size needed for a modest but not substantial growth; and 2) The ideal
number for teaching at a minimal elementary facility level is 300. Mr. Vicker¥ said when
the program began, there were four design goals in mind: 1) Renovate the POD in such a
way as to make it more pleasant and more efficient as a teaching space. He noted that the
parents do not want an open POD. 2) The POD as redesigned will hold two kindergarten and
two first grade classes and leaves two more learning areas. Each will have an outside
window and outside door. This permits the windows and doors to be opened for air circulation
and light and also helps in terms of fire codes and ratings. 3) No crossing of traffic ~
from the public areas in the school to classrooms in terms of getting to playgrounds. 4)
Create-a~pleasant circulation system~whiCh becomes a learning canter itself.. Mr. ¥ickery ~
then described the POD. He noted that no new plumbing or mechanical systems are proposed.
The cost of a total building of 29,700 square feet is $1.4 million.
~Mr. Fisher expressed his concern about energy requirements. Mr. Vickery said the
finat~mechanical system has not been designed. However, studies have been made on the cost
of the efficiency of an eight-inch block filled with foam. The approximate energy cost per
square foot of wall area is 6.95 a year for eight-inch block filled with foam. By putting
brick on the building, the figure would be reduced to 5.25 a year. He noted that energy
systems have been studied and the most likely to be used is the central boiler, oil fired,
to supply hot water heat. This will be done through wall units and the advantage is that
the fan on the units can be used on warm days for automatic air circulation in the classrooms.
Mr. Vickery said the major change has been to increase the size of classrooms and use less
glass~
Mr. Fisher said he was angry when he received the report. He noted it is the second
school project that has been 100% over the amount of funding requested in the five-year
capita~budget. If the School Board feels that this is their number one priority of all
projects, then he will support same. However, the other projects in the five-year budget
may~.h~ve to be delayed.
Mr. Dorrier felt education is the most important item in the budget and if' the projects
for schools are needed, some items included in the Capital budget, such as parks improvements,
may ~ave to be deleted. He supported the project and noted that the present situation at
Scottsville is very difficult, having to Cook lunches at one location and transfer them by
bus to another location.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the School B~ard must de~ide what had to be done.
postponing projects save~ any money.
H~ did not feel
Dr. Iachetta was also upset when he received the report. He felt the problem before
the Board is a doubling of school needs in the fi~e-year Capital budget. Therefore, he
suggested school needs be restudied.
Mr. Roudabush asked the importance of other requests in the Capital Budget. Dr.
McClure said most were actually future site acquisitions. The figures used in the plan
were de~eloped in 1975-76 at which time Stony Point School was included. Since that time,
the populat~ion of Stony Point School has decreased to about 125 students and the $225,000
for that project may not have to be used.
Mr. Agnor said in the five year period covered by the current Capital Budget, there is
$3.7 million for school needs. If $1.4 million is to be spent on this one project,~ that
should be decided by the School Board in advance of budget review. Since this review will
not begin until May or June, the School Board is faced with the problem of the timing of
this project. Mr. Agnor said he had explained that it is difficult for the Board to deal
with this request without prior knowledge of what-resources can be funneled into the capital
budget to meet inflationary costs. Mr. Agnor said the current year of the Capital budget
carries a total of $1.37 million. There is $1.68 million anticipated for 1979-80. Therefore,
there is enough money available without making any changes, but there is no assurance of
any other monies in the future. Mr. Fisher asked if it was reasonable for the Board to
endorse this project. Mr. Agnor said the money has already been appropriated for the
current fiscal year, but the School Board does not have the total amount needed for this
one project.
March 21, 1979 (Night Meeting)
Dr. Iachetta felt the Capital budget should be studied and the School Board give the
Board of Supervisors an estimate of their needs. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. Dr. McClure said
other feasibility studies are being conducted and should be received in three to four
months. He also noted that the Building committee is working and other projects may come
to light of which the School Board is not aware. He said he would be disappointed if this
request is denied since they would not be able to proceed with plans for having constructio~
start this fall. Also, delaying this project is asking the School Board to make too many
decisions on the situation at Meriwether Lewis, Murray, Crozet and Greenwood in too short a
period of time. He felt the resolution states that the School Board feels this is their
number one priority.
A resident of Scottsville was present in support of the request.
-Mr. Henley agreed that the situation in Scottsville is a problem and supportad the
project. Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Walker if he wanted the Board to take action on this project.
Dr. Walker said he would stand by the resolution. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to
approve the revision of the 1979-80 school priorities in the Capital Improvements Budget to
allow'-an allocation of $1,428,000, the amount necessary for the Scottsville Elementary
Schoo'l Project with the allocations for the next four years being reviewed and any difference
in budget amounts or changes in priorities being reported as soon as possible. Mr. Dorrier
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
The Board recessed at 9:45 P.M. and reconvened at 9:55 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution: Seminole Trail Fire Company.
Mr~ St. John said a resolution is needed by the Fire Company in order to seek Farmers
Home Administration funding for a building. The resolution has been examined by~ his office
and'~the, facts are correct. He also asked Mr. John Dezio, Attorney for the Seminole Trail
Fire Company, to certify that the facts are true. A letter certifying such has been
received. He recommended adoption. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following
resolution. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that after careful investigation it has been determined that Seminole
Trail Volunteer Fire Department, Incorporated has complied with all of the
statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia pertaining to its incorporation and
pertaining to its current annual status and that the said Seminole Trail
Volunteer Fire Department, Incorporated has complied with all County and State
requirements in its operation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there are no other regulations required of the
said company and that it has met all requirements of the Department of Treasury
for complying with Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) to qualify as exempt
from federal income tax as provided therein.
Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment: Sign Committee. No one had a nomination.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appoint Committee for Off-Site Highway Improvements.
At the March 14, 1979 meeting, Messrs. Lindstrom and Roudabush were requested to
prepare a list of names for appointment to this committee. Mr. Lindstrom said he and Mr.
Roudabush do not feel a Board member should be a permanent member of this Committee.
However, they will go to the first meeting to state the Board's frustrations and concerns
about off-site highway improvements. In the past committees have found a formal charge
restrictive and based on that, he did not feel such should be made to this committee. He
~then recommended the following persons be appointed: Mr. Randy Wade, special interest
person; Dr. Lester Hoel, citizen at-large; Messrs.. Layton McCann and Jim Skove, Planning
Commission members; one planning staff member; and the County Attorney. Mr. Roudabush said
a member from the Virginia Department of Highways and.Transportation was not included but
will be called on to provide background information and furnish any information needed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to appoint Messrs. Lester Hoel, Layton McCann, Jim
Skove and Randy Wade to this committee. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Agnor said he would designate someone from the Planning Staff after consulting
with Mr. Tucker. Mr. St. John designated himself. . ~ ......
March 21 1 Ni ht Meetin
Agenda Item No. 8. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application
from the Meriwether Lewis PTO for a raffle to be held March 23, 1979. Motion ~was offered
by Mr. Dorrier to approve the request in accordance with the Board's adopted rules. Dr.
IachStta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYE~S~~ Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appropriation.
Mr. Agnor said on August 9, 1978, an application for state and federal funds for the
Watershed Management Plan Committee was approved by the Board. The funds are now available
an~ reimbursement has been requested by the County Engineer. Since an appropriation was
no6~made at that meeting, such is now needed in the amount of $20,000 from the General
Fund. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ~irginia, that
$.20,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded
to 10A-103.1, Watershed Management P-lan - Consultants.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Fisher noted letters received from Mr. J. Kenneth Robinson, regarding
the AMTRAK resolution sent to him in March. Mr. Robinson notes that the House Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce has scheduled hearings on this matter for April 3 and 4.
He will bring the resolution from the Board to the attention of the Chairman of said Committee
The[~tter also extends an invitation to anyone who desires to attend the hearing. A
letter was also received from Senator Harry Byrd regarding AMTRAK. Senator Byrd states
that the Secretary of Transportation has said that AMTRAK will continue serving 91 percent
of.the existing ridership. However, Senator Byrd recogniZes that a reduction in Virginia
serVice, will have a significant impact.
Mr. Fisher said the 1979 session of the Legislature has ended. He noted that House
Bill 1081 terminates extraterritorial rights of cities and towns on June 30 as far as
approval of subdivisions, are concerned. Based on that, Mr. Fisher felt the Board may want
to consider amending the County's Ordinance after July 1 to change the review process for
the City of Charlottesville and the town of Gordonsville.
Mr. Fisher then distributed a list of counties which are immune and ones likely to
have annexation suits against them.
Mr. Fisher also noted letter from Mr.. George T. Omohundro, Jr., Submitting his resignati¢
from the Albemarle County Service Authority Board. (Action on this was taken at an earlier
meeting.)
Mr. Agnor said request has been received from Dr. Richard F. Edlich of the University
Burn Center to join with other localities in Virginia proclaiming April ~ as Burn Prevention
through EducatiOn Day. He noted that the General Assembly has proclaimed this day. Motion
was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the requested proclamation. Mr. Henley seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom arid Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. At 10:15 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn to
A~ril 4, 1979 at 3:~0 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Mr. Dottier
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: '~None.
CHAIRMAN