Loading...
1978-10-04NOctober 4, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 4, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindst'rom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. I. Meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M.~ by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Fisher read the following letter into the record: "September 25, 1978 Lettie E. Neher, Clerk Albemarle Co. Board of Supervisors 202 County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Miss~N~her: Subject: Route 601 (Free Union Road) Project 0601-002-150~C-502~ RW-201, B-629 Albemarle County This is to let you know that on September 21, 1978, the Highway ~nd Transpor~.ation Commission approved the location and major design features of the above project as pre- sented at the public hearing, subject to a grade adjustment in the ~cinity of the Ancona property to place the roadway and a portion of the entrance abo~e the 10 year flood frequency level. Also that 1/2:1 cut slopes be utilized with a 5 foot "fall out" zone and if blasting is necessary, a survey be made of the Sherman home to establish condition before construction as well as seismic control during construction and a follow up com- parison upon completion of the road. Your interest in this proposed highway development is appreciated. Sincerely, (Signed) D. B. Hope District Engineer" Mr. Fisher next noted a meeting to be held by the Privileges and Elections Subcommittee on October 18, 1978 at 10:00 A.M. At this hearing in Fredericksburg they will be considering amendments to the State Constitution. He noted several of the items scheduled for discussion on the agenda, and said this was for Board members information only. Mr. Fisher said a report on land use and suggested values for 1979 has been received from Mr. Ray Jones, and recommended discussion of this report at next weeks meeting. Agenda Item No. 2. Helen Mundie: Application for a central well permit for a well on property off of Route 621, County Tax Map 62, Parcel 53. Mr. Agnor said a letter was received from Mrs. Mundie on behalf of her mother, Mrs. Lila Sandridge. A test of the well by the Engineering Department showed the well producing sufficient water per minute to adequately serve the three connections requested. Motion for approval was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-78-42. Ann Robins Haskell and Motorola Communications and Electron ics, Inc. To locate a 2-way radio communications tower and building which will co-exist with present use on 234.165 acres zoned A-1. Located on Carter's Mountain kehind Mi~i~eTavern near existing radio towers. (Deferred from September 20, 1978). Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: Character of the Area There are currently five towers located in the orchard (two, Jefferson Cable; Motorola; WVIR television; C & P Telephone). The existing Motorola tower is 200 feet high. Staff Comment Motorola is seeking to establish a second multi-use tower to provide local two-way radio service. The current tower provides service to about 50 customers, both private=business and public agencies (Albemarle County Service Authority, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority University of Virginia Police Department; University of Virginia Transportation Department thus reducing the need for a proliferation of smaller individual towers. The proposed October 4, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) tower is expected to serve about 80 additional customers and to satisfy the need for such service for about ten years. The existing tower cannot be further utilized since the design loading factor has baen reached. The proposed tower Would be 200 feet high and would contain eight to ten antennae (22' fiberglass). Staff recommends approval subject to: 1. FAA approval. Mr. Tucker noted the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 2 in favor. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, and first to speak was Mr. Jim Tucker, Regional Sales Manager for Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc. Mr. Tucker said this tower would serve many more customers with better service than if each customer attempted to install and individual tower near their office area. He also said it would help keep towers from appearing on top of every hill in the County since it did serve so many at one time. Mr. Dale Shultz, also with Motorola, described the location of the tower on Carter's Mountain. He said it would not require lighting, would be dealing with ultra-high-frequency radio waves, and also has received F.A.^. approval as noted in the conditions. Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation said he wished to go on record that the entrance road up to the towers on ~rter's Mountain has inadequate sight distance, and is a potential hazard to those who use it. He suggested a new access road be constructed. Mr. Shultz said company usage of the access road would only be about one car per week, and that if necessary, there is another access which is usable only in dry weather, as it is only dirt covered. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve the request for a tower by the Motorola Corporation, with two conditions: 1) F.A.A. approval, and 2) a road sign indicating the problem of poor visibility at the entrance to ~he access road on Route 53. Other Board members were opposed to the condition of the road sign, and Dr. Iachetta offered as an amendment a statement "no further development of this property without approval of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for the entrance. "Mr. Dorrier accepted Dr. Iachetta's amendmenl and Dr. Iachetta seconded the amended motion. Mr. Lindstrom said with the addition of the second condition, he wished to abstain from the vote, as his firm represented Mr. Conte, owner of Michie Tavern. Roll was then called and motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta-and Roudabush. NAYS: None.~ ABSENT: Mr. Henley. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 4. Albemarle Farm Equipment Site Plan Appeal. (Mr. Roudabush requested he be allowed to abstain from discussion and vote on this item as his firm prepared the site plan in question.) Mr. Robert Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: ALBEMARLE FARM EQUIPMENT SITE PLAN Location: On the west side of Route 742 (Avon Street extended) just north of 1-64, previously the City landfill. Acreage: Part of 2?.9 acres. Zoning: M-i, Industrial Limited History: Request for ZMA-78-12: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, on August 29~ 1978, recommended to the Board of Supervisors that an area of approximately 3.8 acres be rezoned from A-i, Agricultural to M-I, Industrial Limited. The Board approved the rezoning of 300 feet perpendicular from the right-of-way of Route 742 on Tax Map 77, Parcel 11; from the~ort~er~mo~s~ boundary to 1-64 for a total of !,340.75 feet. Proposal: To locate a ~,000 square foot building for a farm machinery business at the northern end of the rezoned property. Staff Comments: Staff recommends approval of this plan, subject to the following con- ditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Health Department approval. 2. Fire Official approval of 1,000 gall~m gas tank. 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of ~ommercial entrance, location and design, also 150 foot deceleration lane and 150 foot taper. 4. Grading permit. 5. C~unty Engineering Department approval of curbing on northern and western edges of t~e parking lot (not necessarily concrete; railroad ties, etc), drop inlet. 6. Existing trees shall remain undisturbed except those areas designed for construction, lot coverage~and septic field. 7. County Ser~ce Authority approval. 441 October 4, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Staff approval of a landscape plan. Staff recommends ornamenta! trees in addition to the spreading Juniper along frontage; shrubs (azaleas) around concrete curbs into parking area; ornamental trees or white pines along northern border of property and clustered white pines along southern edge of developed area; mulched beds with orna- mental trees around southern corner of building and mulch bed with azealas in area between showroom and service entrance. Mr. Tucker noted that Mrs. Norma Diehl of the Planning Commission requested this to be brought before the Board of Supervisors because of the possibility of methane gas accumulation~ underground in areas used in the former dumping site. Also, the inability of the applicant to fulfill the requirements of a 200 foot deceleration lane. Mrs. Diehl was present and expounded on her letter submitted earlier to the Board. "September 28, 1978?'~ To Board of Supervisors: After a great deal of consideration, I feel that I must request the site plan for Albemarle Farm Equipment be called before the supervisors for further attention. My reasons for such a request are as follows: On Tuesday, Septe~er 19, the ~lanning Commission approved the said site plan with the attached conditions. The staff suggested the first seven, the eigh~was added by the commission. At the time, it was pointed out by a ComMissioner that the gas tank was not included in the site plak reviewed by the site review committee, and the placement and possible attendant problems were questioned. The staff felt that condition number 2 spok adequately to the situation, and that the fire marshall would address the placement in his approval. The staff was also questioned as to whether any possible state or federal criteria or requirements that apply to reclaimed landfills existed. They were not aware of any such information or regulations. After subsequent investigation and reading, I have found several areas not addressed in our conditions, and generally recognized as possible problems by sanitary engineers, that concern~~ me. 1. Although it is standard practice in closing sanitary landfills or dump sites, there is no gas venting system of any type at the Avon site. This was not pointed out at the Commission hearing. I feE1 it should be a necessary condition of any land ~ development on this property, that a venting system between the building area of 150 feet and the landfill area properly be established. I believe, in communication wit~ the city engineering dept., they are considering such a procedure; it should still be a stated condition, in my opinion. Even though the city has apparently worked out an agreement with Mr. Barnett concern- ing the gas monitoring of the site, it would be of benefit to the county to include this as a written condition, with reports of regular monitoring and readings of gas levels sent to the county engineers when the readings are made. We should also be informed of the methane levels at this time, in order to have a comparison figure on file. There are strongly suggested criteria in numerous publications concerning the safe- guards against gaseous collections within structures on or adjacent to landfill sites (Because of gas migration and leachate seepage, adjacent sites are just as susceptibl as actual landfills.) These criteria for safe building include special precautions of layered sand and plastic sheeting, or other gaseously-impervious materials, laid over the foundation and before the slab is poured. I think all structures built on this land should be required to include such safeguards, to insure the general wel- fare of the public and the developer. The placement of the gas tank continues to concern me. It was routinely approved by the fire marshall last week. According to several references, all metal (and con- crete) placed in or adjacent to old landfill sites are subject to accelerated corro- sion due to the strong acids formed in debris decomposilimn. It is further stated that all sub-surface materials susceptible to corrosion should be protected. This indicates to me that protective measures of some sort should be insured for not only the tank, but for the metal utility lines within the site, the concrete of the septi:c system, and any other sub-surface metal. The gas tank presents the additional hazard of probable gas leakage should extensive corroding take place, and therefore should be shielded with special care. Additional venting for methane gas release should be provided along the length of the septic System. The inherent danger here is that the trenches dug and filled with gravel and pipes will simply act as conduits to allow the methane to collect and concentrate within and around the building. This may also be true of the utility pipelines leading into the structure. It is my feeling that perhaps a note should be added to the plat, or as a condition, that building structures be limited to 150 feet, or the limits of the undisturbed land, without additional engineering studies. " __i~¢.&~,~, important to note that this is only the first of several parcels at this site to be developed· It seems only logical to be most cautious in establishing guidelines for the future use of the rest of the re-zoned property. However, please understand, I am not against approval of this site plan. I voted for acceptance of the site plan based on the information we had at the time. I do feel 0ctober 4~8 (Re ular Ni ht Meetin_g) 442 ~ ... -. ,.,.,,, ..... ~.,-,bi-lity to r?o~e a. ae-. quatei'y prov'iae 'a safe and reasonabl'e 'place 'of' busi'nes's for'. both 'the' lanaowner aha the citizens of the area. I believe this site can meet the necessary requirements if providec with additional safeguards. I do not feel the further suggested conditions would hinder the property development or cause undue ~ar.d~h~p on the owner." She said she would like to see as conditions of approval the monitoring of gas levels underground, and also protective measures of all sub-surface metals in the structure and gas tanks. Mr. Tucker then read six additional conditions which the Planning Department felt woul( help with the site plan problems. Plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed engineer which accomplishes the f~611ow±ng: a. That all structures contain properly engineered ventilation systems; b. Any structure related to the use of Albemarle Farm Equipment, which is to be located underground, shall be protected on all surfaces from corrosion; c. A venting trench filled with aggregate stone surrounding all structures with an impermeable barrier on the building side. 2. Undergound utilities shall be sealed at junction boxes leaving the site. Monitoring stations should be provided off-site where gas is likely to follow utility lines or other fissures to adjacent properties. Leachate shall be collected and properly disposed of in accordance with the State Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. Comply with the State Water'Control Board, Air Pollution Control Board, DiVision of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, and Health Department requirements relating to landfill operation. Shift building or entrance southward in order to allow for an adequate deceleration lane of 200 foot length with a 200 foot taper. Discussion among Board members ensued regarding the proposed additional conditions suggest ed by Mr. Tucker. Mr. Agnor related his past experience as Charlottesville City Public Works Director regarding the landfill while it was in use. Mr. Randall Barnett, the applicant, and his attorney, Mr. Jack Kegley, said they wished to do all possible to make the structure safe from the Possibility of methane gas explosions, but that they felt it was the City of Charlottesville's responsibility to provide the venting system. Also, he did not cause the leachate problem.- Shifting the building to accommodate the deceleration lane would be a burden. At least 2/3rds of the buildings are located on solid ground. Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommended that the turn lane be omitted unless the Board sees fit to allow the structure to be placed further south on the site. Mr. Fisher said the possibility of off-site monitoring should not be the responsibility of the landowner. The problem of leachate is something that must be studied further and possibly also handled by the City to protect neighboring streams and property. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the site plan with the eight conditions placed by the Planning Commission adding the following conditions: Plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed engineer which accomplishes the following: That all structures contain properly engineered ventilation systems including on-site methane monitor. 10. Underground utilities shall be sealed at junction boxes leaving the site. 11. Domply with the State Water Control Board, Air Pollution Control Board, Divisiongf Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, and Health Department requirements relating to landfill operations. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: MR. Henley. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Fisher requested that Mr. Agnor write to the State Water Control Board about the leachate problem mentioned tonight. At 9:lS~P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a short recess. Meeting was reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Agenda Item No. 5. To amend the R-2 Residential and R-3 Residential zones of the Zoning Drdinance to provide for the sub4division of duplexes. (Deferred from September 20, 1978.) October 4 , 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Frederick 'Payne, regarding these propbs'ed 'amendments'.~ ~t was the 'co~se~sus. of'.Board' members that the amendments were too confusing as presented, and may already be referred to in some form in the Ordinance. Motion was made by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier not to adopt the amendments and to leave the ordinance as it presently stands. Discussion continued, and Mr. Lindstrom suggested the present ordinance language be re- tained, adding a statement allowing the land to be subdivided, but making no additional chang~ in present lot size. M~. Dorrier said he wished to withdraw his second to Dr. Iachetta~s motion, and Mr. Lindstrom offered a new motion as follows: Amend and re-enact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Sections 5-4-1, 5-4-2, 6-4-1, 6-4-2 with language recommended by th Planning Staff with the addition of a sentence reading: "For each a~ditional permitted~.use, there shall be an addi~mna! width of ten feet at the setback line." Also instead of using the word "both" in Sections 5-4-2 and 6-4-2 use the words "other than". Mr. Lindstrom said his reason for suggesting this amendment was to allow property which is presently r.~nted to be privately owned. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Fisher said he had grave misgivings regarding this amendment and would not vote in favor of same. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. (Note: The amendments as adopted are set out in full below.) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 5-4-1, 5-4-2, 6-4-1 AND 6-4-2 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ~ONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Sections 5-4-1, 5-4-2, 6-4-1 and 6-4-2, be amended and reenacted to read as follows: 5-4-1 For a permitted use thirty-five (35) feet or less in height~serv~d by both a central sewer system and a central water supply,~thc minimum lot width ~' ~ ~ .... ~ ,' ~.~ the m~nimum lot width at the setback line shall be sixty-five (65) feet. A structure containing more than one dwelling unit may be subdivided providing that the combined lot widths at the setback lines shall hetnot less than sixty-five (65) feet. For each additional permitted use, there shall be an additional width of ten (!~) feet at the setback line. 5-4-2 For a permitted use thirty-five (35) feet or less in height served by ~ther than a central sewer system and a centra~iwater supply, the minimum lot w~dth at the setback line shall be eighty (80) feet. A structure containing more than one dwelling unit may be subdivid6d provided that the combined lot widths at the setback lines shall be not less than eighty (80) feet. For each additional permitted use, there shall be an additiona1 width of ten (10) feet at the setback line. 6-4-1 For a permitted use thirty-five (35) feet or less in height served by both a central sewer system and a central water supply, the minimum lot width at the ~setback line shall be sixty-five (65) feet. A structure containing more than one dwelling unit may be subdivided provided that the combined lot widths at the setback lines shall be not less than sixty-five (65) feet. For each additional permitted use, there shall be an additional width of ten (10) feet at the setback line. 6-4-2 For a permitted use thirty-five (35) feet or less in height served by other tha~ a central sewer system and a central water supply, the minimum lot width at the setback line shall be eighty (80) feet. A structure containing more than one dwelling unit may be subdivided provided that the combined lot widths at the setback lines shall be not less than eighty (8~) feet. For each additional permitted use, there shall be an additional width of te~(lO) feet at the setback line. Agenda Item No. 6. Amend Sections 17-6-4 and 17-6-6 to establish zoning inspection fees and to require notification by the developer to the Zoning Administration for phased site inspections. (Deferred from September 6, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said a public hearing ~as held on this on September 6, 1978, but vote was deferred at the reque~ttof the Blue Ridge Home Builders until it could be determined when the fee would be charged. This question has been settled to their satisfaction. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following ordinance: ANO~NC~TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 17-6-4 and 17-6-6 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. BE ~ ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Sections 17-6-4 and 17-6-6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 17-6-4 Ail county and state officers and employees responsible for the supervision and enforcement of this article shall have the right to enter upon the property at all reasonable times during the period of construction for the purpose of makin periodic inspections for compliance with this article. It shall be the respon- sibility of the developer to notify the zoning administrator when each stage October 4, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) 444 ~.'~Of-the development 'shall be ready for inspection for compliance with the approve site plan in accordance with schedules and regulations promulgated by the zoning administratar and as approved by the board of supervisors. 17-6-6 (a) The developer shall pay to the county a fee for the examination and appro~'~ val or disapproval of site development plans submitted pursuant to this article, such fees to be paid one-half at the time of filing of the plan and the re- mainder prior to final approval. Such fees shall be calculated as follows: 1. less than 5 acres -- $50.00 2. 5 - 10 acres -- $75.00 3. more than 10 acres -- $100.00 plus $1.00 for each acreain excess of 10 acres. (b) In addition, for site plan field inspections as the site is developed, the developer shall pay to the county a fee as Prescribed by the fee schedule of the building inspections department. (c) All fee's shall be paid prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Mr. Fisher noted that no members of the public were present in the Courtroom to.speak. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None.- ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. RoudabuSh, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 5 ~f the Albemarle County Code, Section~5~3, Permit Fees, be amended by the addition of the following sub-section: Section 5-3. Permit fees. (e) * * * * * (f) Zoning inspection fees: Laying of foundation of main and accessory structures Laying of surface water drainage pipes and culverts (as to size and location) ........... $10.00 per inspection . $10.00 per inspection Final site inspection before requesting a certificate or temporary certificate of occupancy. (48 hours prior notice is ~.¥~ requested ..................... $10.00 per inspection Roll was called and motion carried by~tke~fol!o~ing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Not Docketed: Mr. Roudabush requested the Planning Staff to obtain a copy of a site plan being presented to the Charlottesville City Council for erection of a radio tower. He said he had been informed by County residents that said tower was not within 500 feet of any City residents, but was not 500 feet from County residents. Mr. Tucker said he would look into the matter. P.M. At 9:58~motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters, land acquisition and legal matters. Mot~n'.~was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. 445 October 4, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 7.~ Meeting was reconvened from executive session at 11:00 ~P..M., and immediately motion was offered by Mr.!D~rrier, seconded by Mr. RoudabUsh ~tor"~d~urn to- ' October 5, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. at City Hall for a meeting with City Council. Roll was called and motion carrie~ by the following recorded vote: ~YES: ~AYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. October 5, 19~8 (Adjourned from October 4, 1978) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 5, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. in the Conference Room of the Charlottesville City Hall; said meeting being adjourned from October 4, 1978. ?resent: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and C. Timothy Lindstrom. Absent: Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Officers Present: &ttorney. Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive and George R. St. John, County Charlottesville City Council Members Present: Mrs. Nancy K. O'Brien and Messrs. Thomas Albro, Laurence Brunton, Francis Buck and Edward W. Gatewood. Meeting was called to order at 7:36 P~M., by Charlottesville City Mayor Lawrence Brunton and Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald~E. Fisher. The purpose Of this joint meeting was to ~iscuss and review plans for the conversion of the old post office building into the new library. Mr. Fisher said mu~h time was spent studying the building prior to it purchase,~ but that he was dismayed to see at the last meeting of the Library Building Committee, several changes such as no public connection between the McIntire Library Building and the post office build- ing. He also stated his concern about the ability ~f the architect to meet the budget proposed for this project. Mr. Jack Rinehart, Architect, said many hours had been spent with the Building Committee before they approved the design. He noted and described the building design using blueprint type maps and drawings to show the Board and Council haw the proposed building should look. He said the grmund floor level of the post office bui!ding is level with the basement level of the McIntire b~lding. He said McIntire would be used as the bookmobile outlet. The lower floors of the post office building would be used for storage :af books due to .their weight, and that the third floor of the post office building would be used for ~ffice space and community meeting rooms. ~ Mrs. O'Brien asked if it would be possible to put the library administration offices on the third floor of the MCIntire building. Mr. Rinehart said it could be done, but that it would only save about $100,000 and would be far less efficient. . S m ~ Mr. Dorrier asked what the total use of the McIntire building ~ould be Mr. Bob troh~ Chairman of the Library Board, said the ground floor would be for the bookmobile, and that the upper floor~, would eventually be restored to meeting rooms for public use. Mr. Christopher Devan presented some statistics on how the library system is scheduled to grow along with the predicted populati6n of the area it is ~o serve. Mr. Gatewood of City Council noted that no matter how the plans look, the plans are still $200,000 above the approved budge~. Mr. Stroh said a 10% penalty is being paid due to being unable to build the third level of the post office at the same time as the rest of the library~ ~his is because of a lease held by the Federal Government on office space. Mr. ~!oyd Smith requested the Board and Council to appropriate the money immediately so they could invest it and at least make up some of the difference~in interest on the investment. ~r. Fisher pointed out that the governing bodies already have all monies invested to earn interest which cuts down on the amount of tax money which must be collected. Both Mr. Agnor and Mr. Hendrix concurred with Mr. Fisher's statement about government money being invested. Mr. Stroh said he could probably get more private donations if the plan proposed is firmly upported by Council and the Board. F~l'~wing some additional dis'¢ussion by Board and Council members of possible ways to rearrange office space to cut expenses, 'Mr. Fisher recommended that the Board not take action tonight, but request the County Executive to place thismatter on a Wednesday day meeting agenda. Mr. Fisher added he would not be "~ressured" into making an appropriation on a verbal ~iscussion. He wanted the entire matter in writing before the Board at the time of presenta- tion. He assured Mr. Stroh a decision could be reached in a week's time. Mayor Brunton agreed ~ith Mr. Fisher, and off~red a similar recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Brunton then ~ecommended that Mr. Stroh and Mr. Albro get together and made exact recommendations to ~r. Agnor and Mr. Hendrix who will in turn bring wrTtten recommendations before their governing ~odies.