Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-09 adjApril 9, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) ~ O00001 (Page 1) ~ An adjourned meeting of the Board o~ Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 9, 1996, at 7i00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,!Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from April 3, 1996. ~ PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Larry W. Davis; Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Nitchmann. Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meetinq with Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Jacquelyn Huckle, Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Mr. William J. Nitchmann and Ms. Hilda Lee-Washington. ABSENT: Mr. A. Bruce Dotson, Mr. William Finley and Mr. David Tice. ADDITIONAL STAFF: Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning. Agenda Item No. 2a. ZMA-95-04. The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation. Public Hearing on a petition to rezone approx 525 ac from RA, PD- IP, R-1 and LI to PD-IP. The property is located S of the North Fork Rivanna River between Rt 29 & Rt 606. TM32, P's 4B,6,6A, 19,19C. Rivanna Dist. The site (in the Community of Hollymead) is recommended for Industrial Service by the Comprehensive Plan. This request also includes the following special use permits: SP-95-40, Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical; SP-95-41, Supporting commercial uses; SP-95-42, Hotels, motels, inns. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 25 and April 1, 1996. Mr. Loewenstein read a Transactional Disclosure Statement (filed with the Clerk of the Commission) certifying that he is a faculty member of the University of Virginia, but it does not prevent him from participating in the review of this request in a fair and objective manner and in the public's interest. Mr. Keeler summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. He pointed out three panels which depict a conceptual development of the park. The first panel identify areas that are restricted to development for certain reasons, i.e., soil, steep slopes, etc. The next panel identify details for the internal development and gateway entrance. He also pointed out an illustration of the open space plan, stormwater management plan, phasing of development, conceptual land use plan and zoning application plan. Mr. Keeler indicated that the zoning application plan and the stormwater management plan are the official plans for the submit- tal. He also indicated on the map areas that would be available for uses under a special use permit, i.e., laboratory, medical and pharmaceutical, hotel and conference and support commercial. Mr. Nitchmann said the applicant requested this public hearing after realizing errors had occurred in posting of the signs on the property. Also, the applicant has revised some previous proffers to addr(~ss concerns which were raised at the prior hearing. Since there were no questions for staff, Mr. Nitc~ann opened the public hearing for comments from the applicant. The applicant was represented by Mr. Leonard Sandr3. dge, Executive Vice President of the University of Virginia .and a member of the University Real Estate Foundation Board. He first thanked the Board and Commission for agreeing to this public hearing and agreeing to receive additional information regarding the North Fork Research Park. On several occasions over the past two ]~ears he has appeared before the Co~nission and Boar([ about this project. He will not take time tonight to go over all the reasons previously discussed about why this project is important to tlhe University's future and in particu- lar its instructional and research programs. Mr. Sandridge stressed that the applicant has, throughout this process, made every effort to respond to issues raised by the Commission, Board and public. He believes the applicant has gone well beyond what any other developer has done to ensure the quality of a similar project. The applicant wants this to be a good t~roject for the University, the County and the citizens. Mr. Sandridge thanked the Board and Commission for their patience, and willingness to hear this again and respond to the additional information. He then introduced Mr. Tim Rose, Chief Operating Officer for the University Real Estate Foundation. Mr. Rose submitted a letter, dated December 19, 1995, which the appli- cant had written to the Lake Acres residents in response to concerns the April 9, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) 000002 residents had raised. He handed the letter to Ms. Carey and asked that it be included in the Clerk's file. Mr. Rose said because of the new development density phasing proffer (500,000 square feet in the first year and 200,000 square feet each year thereafter), he believes this application is more favorable than the one approved by the Commission in December, 1995. He said the Planning staff and the County Attorney's office have researched the applicant's proposed proffers and prepared a summary report which shows that their proffer statement represents a significant contribution by UREF over and above that which could be required by the County. The Planning staff has reported that this applica- tion provides four proffers to control the timing and intensity of develop- ment, which are concerns of this community. The Planning staff's reported research shows that a variety of factors make the prospect of a large reloca- tion to the North Fork Park unlikely. Mr. Rose said at every step of the process the applicant has tried to address concerns raised by various constituencies. For example, the applicant spent significant time with the Lake Acre residents. The applicant has incorporated changes into the proffers that were based on concerns expressed by the Piedmont Environmental Council. Proffers were added regarding the fire station, hazardous materials handling, water usage restrictions and develop- ment density phasing to address concerns expressed by the previous Commission, Board and citizens who have attended these meetings. The applicant has closely followed the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan in correcting this application. The Planning staff in Section IV of its November 21, 1995 report to the Commission concluded that: "Staff opinion is that the North Fork rezoning proposal substantially complies with the detailed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan under CPA-94-1." Mr. Rose said approval of this plan does not mean that North Fork will build out over night. It is envisioned that this will be a 20 to 30 year project. Given the density phasing proffer the buildout cannot occur earlier than 14 years from the date of the rezoning approval. Mr. Rose said the restrictions associated with this application provide significantly more assurances to the community as to how development will proceed than develop- ment under the currently zoned 225 acres, which has a by-right potential of nearly 7.0 million square feet and very few proffers to guide the quality or pace of development. As Mr. Sandridge mentioned North Fork will be developed by the University, an entity with probably the biggest single stake in this community and this region, which will ensure that its commitment to North Fork's success will always remain. Mr. Rose.urged favorable review of the rezoning application. At this time, Mr. Nitchmann opened the hearing for comments from the public. Mr. Brian Carlson, past Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and Regional Vice President for State Farm Insurance Company provided a handout (copy on file) showing the benefits of a quality employer. He stated that the Univer- sity has done an outstanding job in developing a professional park which should attract high quality businesses to this area. Mr. Carlson then summarized the handout stressing the community benefits provided by State Farm. He concluded by stating that in most cases a quality employer brings a financial impact and a caring attitude to an area. Also in support of the project was Mr. Ronald D. Flack, Chair of the Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of Virginia. Mr. Flack said he continuously looks for means to improve the academic and research efforts of his department. Ventures with forward- looking aggressive companies like Motion Control and MicroAire are important to the University's programs because: 1) they allow them to enhance and expand their graduate programs; 2) they assist in the recruitment and reten- tion of world class faculty in that there will be a natural path for collabo- rative research efforts; 3) as State and Federal funds continue to dwindle, relationships with these companies will take on much more financial signifi- cance to the educational system; and 4) these industries will have a positive impact on their academic programs. Mr. Flack said this year his department initiated a new cooperative education program in which undergraduate students have opportunities to gain "real-world" industrial experience while at the University. Motion Control has indicated it will join this effort. Such local industries thus can supplement classroom education. Moreover, the University can help local industries. For example, the Engineering School's work in composite materials and other topics apply directly to Motion Control's desire to create a better product. Overall, the research park will allow the University to have the kind of enhanced relationship with the private sector which only can occur by having such industries in its backyard. The University's two largest regional competitors in Engineering are Virginia Tech and North Carolina State, both of which have large successful and growing research parks, with only positive effects on the universities and communities. Mr. Flack said if the University is to maintain its world-class standing, it will have to improve its relations with the private sector. Next to speak was Mr. Tom Jackson, a State Farm Agent, a resident for the past 23 years and this year, Chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce. He represents the Chamber's 1200 membership in support April 9, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) 000003 of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Jackson said the Chamber hopes that the County and its elected officials will agree to foster an economic environment that would offer jobs with good pay and benefits for its citizens. The businesses that have been attracted to the North Fork Park are small to medium size occupants that afford attractive facilities and a talented work force. Studies show that the occupants of the Park will employ between 50 and 200 employees, pay top wages and benefits~ and most of the work force will be hired locally. MicroAire and Motion Control are well-financed with attractive facilities, and both offer attractive pay and benefits for their employees. These companies are starting very small, with little relocated work force and are growing after they arrive and open their facilities. The Chamber's theme this year is "On line to meet change". The changes that the Board and Commission are voting for can create quality jobs and benefits for local resi- dents. He encouraged support of the rezoning. Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmen- tal Council, said PEC is not in opposition to this proposal; however, it does have some concerns about the proposal. The proffers have been a major focus of attention. He thinks there is a fair appreciation in the community that these proffers will provide benefits to the community and in some cases it may be perceived as justifying approval of the proposal. He has read the staff's analysis and he thought the presentation was excellent. He does disagree with staff about how a court might apply some of these proffers, but they are not here to present legal niceties tonight. He thinks the essence of the report is correct. In his estimation, the bottom line is that there are some substantive proffers which the County could not require. The three million square foot cap on development is a substantive proffer which the County could not require. If the application was denied, the landowner would have the right to the zoning on the southern 220 acres of this property. That zoning has been variously described as allowing five to seven million square feet of space, but he thinks that virtually every analysis of the topography indicates it would be a stretch to get two and one-half million square feet given the County's slope, flood plain and setback restrictions. The 200 acres of open space is a substantial proffer, but a large amount of that acreage is in critical slopes and the flood plain and could not be developed under County ordinances. The ball fields and the fire station are substantial proffers, both of which could not be required by the County. The transportation proffers, which are probably the most expensive, are somewhat more questionable. He thinks that as the County Attorney has adequately and accurately pointed out, many of these transportation proffers are things which the County could require under existing ordinances. There is some question about the improvements on Route 29, the Proffit Road interchange and the dedication of right-of-way for a new interchange for the Meadow Creek Parkway. In his opinion, the County Attorney and staff are accurate in how much of the traffic and the needs for those improvements can be attributed to this development. He suspects that much of those improvements could be attributed, and he would cite the applicant's own transportation analysis which indicated, for example, that a third lane southbound on Route 29 would be recommended by its own transportation analyst. Mr. Lindstrom said on the balance, he thinks the County has some important proffers that it could not require, and he thinks it is true they are going to be costly to the applicant, but so is the development of this project. He urges the Board and Commission to study these proffers in light of the impact they will have on the community, and then decide whether there is a substantial public benefit associated with the rezoning application to justify accepting the proposal on its face. Mr. Lindstrom said that is where PEC parts company with the applicant. PEC does not object to the concept, but is concerned about the amount of development the proffers and rezoning would allow to happen at one time. The applicants have said they anticipate this development will occur over a 20 year period. If the zoning insured phasing along those lines, he does not think PEC or many citizens would be concerned. The proffers and the zoning do not limit the phasing. There are two proffers which specifically address the amount of development which can happen at one time. The first one is the cap allowing only 125,000 gallons of water consumption per user. To put that in some perspective, State Farm has an average daily usage of 60,000 to 70,000 gallons per day. General Electric has an average daily usage of 30,000 to 40,000 gallons per day. This proffer substantially will exceed the largest users in the community outside of the University. In addition this is per user, so there could be a number of different users all of whom could have up to 124,000 gallons average daily consumption and not trip the cap. With all respect, he does not think the water cap is particularly effective. He thinks the latest proffer is an important and significant step, but it also must be taken in the context of this community. For that purpose he has prepared a couple of graphs (copies on file) which will help illustrate the point he is trying to make. The first graph is entitled "Median square footage industrial/office buildings approved 1987-1994 vs. square footage proffered by UREF". The proffer limits the amount of development annually starting in the first year to 500,000 square feet and each year thereafter allow an additional 200,000 square feet. The square footage not used in any one year could be carried forward and accumulated until the applicant reached the total of three million square feet. According to the County Attorney's analysis, that means that if only 100,000 square feet is used for the first April 9, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) OOOO04 four years, in the fifth year the applicant would have accumulated the right to develop 900,000 square feet in that one year. That development could be for a number of different facilities or for one facility. Looking at the graph he provided, the median size of the commercial office and light indus- trial facilities which have been actually approved by the County since 1987 through 1994 was about 25,000 square feet. In comparison, the first year UREF would be allowed 500,000 square feet and the accumulative amount in the fifth year 900,000 square feet. That obviously represents a significant increase over the existing experience of the community. The other graph he provided shows the "Average square footage of County industrial uses approved annually from 1987 through 1994 vs. LrREF". This is the total amount of light industri- al/commercial office square footage approved in a site plan by the County for those seven years. The average is about 175,000 square feet per year. Mr. Lindstrom said the proffer may seem to be an important step, but it is not meaningful in terms of limiting the amount or size of a facility that could be built in one year. PEC is concerned about taking the decision regarding something this significant away from the public's review. To address this concern, he proposed the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance so that for uses which are single users of a significant size, possibly 50,000 to 75,000 square feet, a special use permit would be required; below that size would be by-right. That would protect the character of the community and insure that the development under the UREF proposal would be consistent with what the applicants anticipate and also ensure that it came in digestible sizes the community could absorb. He then handed out (copy on file) proposed language for a zoning text amendment. Action on UREF's proposal could be deferred until the County acts on the proposed text amendment. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not have any questions about the intent of the University as stated and presented, but this is like all projects. The County does not know who will own this property next year or ten years from now. UREF has established a practice of selling these parcels. There is no guarantee that some future owner will not have a substantially different concept of what is appropriate for this community. There is no way to predict that future except through the zoning. Finally there is a concern that has been expressed to him that if the County proposes this zoning text amendment or basically asks for more substan- tial proffers on phasing, UREF will "walk" and drop this project. He asked where that would leave the County. In response, one-half of this property would be zoned for Planned Development Industrial Park and the other one-half zoned for Rural Areas. He would suggest that the Board and Commission look at these proffers and analyze what the County is getting, what the public is getting, and the development potential of the southern half of the property. This is not a risk he would advise the Board and Commission to take in a flippant manner, but it is a risk that should be considered in view of the substantial impact to the community's changing character that this proposal could visit upon the community because there is no meaningful limit on the amount of development which can be realized in any one year. That is the heart and soul of PEC's concern. He thinks the proposed layout is fine; it is a well-developed and well-conceived proposal, but the County should not open the door to a private developer being able to make the decision as to whether a single user employing several thousand people can come into this community from somewhere else and employ substantially all of its people from outside. While that is not a likely possibility, it is a real possibility under this zoning proposal. This kind of limitation should not interfere with UREF's expectation to phase this project over 20 years. He urged the Board and Commission to strike a compromise with this proposal and give the public a good project, but one which allows them the essential control over the fate of the community. Ms. Kathryn Hobbs, President of the League of Women Voters, said they have consistently advocated citizen involvement in the legislative process and for the sustainable allocation and stewardship of the County's natural resources. The League commends UREF for its sincere effort to work with the County which has resulted in proffers that reflect responses to public concerns. However, the impact of this project and others in the North Fork Rivanna service area on the infrastructure necessary for water supply and sewage treatment and disposal for the whole Charlottesville/Albemarle urban area is a concern. One of the proffers, "Proffer 4.4 ~ Water Conservation", proposes that a use which will require more than 125,000 gallons per day average daily consumption must obtain a special use permit which the County may issue if it finds sufficient capacity exists". A major problem is that the proffer does not address the cumulative water usage by companies that use less than 125,000 gpdo According to this proffer, it appears to be the County's responsibility to determine whether sufficient capacity exists not only for the North Fork Business Park and for others in the North Rivanna service area, but also for all the development in the entire urban area., While the density proffer (Proffer 5) provides a development schedule based on transportation needs, there exists no requirement for the phasing of the development to match water and sewer infrastructure capacity. Providing that infrastructure is the responsibility of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA). The RWSA and ACSA must treat the combination of the South Fork Rivanna and North Fork April 9, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) 000005 Rivanna systems as a single water supply for both the City and the County urban area. The South Rivanna system (Observatory and South Rivanna water treatment plants) currently serves the urban area up to Airport Road. North Fork Rivanna serves properties north to G. E. and Piney Mountain. When the North Fork supplies become limited (under 2.0 million gpd) a pumping station on the South Rivanna will be necessary to supplement the North Rivanna system. These upgrades will be at the ACSA's expense as will be the costs of providing pumping and a gravity sewer system to Moore's Creek wastewater treatment plant when capacity of the Camelot sewage treatment plant is reached. These expensive improvements are ultimately paid for by ACSA customers. By 2015, the safe yield of the combined systems will be only 15.8 million gpd, down from today's 19.2 million gpd. Sedimentation will cause the South Rivanna's safe yield to decrease from today's 11.8 million gpd to 8.4 million gpd in 2015. Demand in 2015, according to RWSA's consultants Black and Veatch, will be about 14.6 million gpd, necessitating that Buck Mountain be "operational" by 2012. The "demand" figures represent only "average daily demand", not the peak demand on which utilities size their facilities. For instance, average daily demand today is about 11.5 million gpd, but peak demand has reached as much as 14 million gpd. Authorities will tell you that during half-time of television football games, the demand for water surges. To provide for peak flow, local utilities provide not only extra storage capacity, but may possibly move up the date for Buck Mountain. RWSA says that the earliest would be 2003 based on seven years lead time. According to the staff's report the density proffer would allow build out of the business park sometime around 2010 to 2015. UREF has estimated water usage of between 400,000 gpd to 800,000 gpd. Current North Fork demand is about 250,000 gpd. The projected build out occurs about the time that the supply for the North Fork Rivanna area and the whole urban system is down to the 15.8 million gpd capacity mentioned earlier. Meanwhile, demand will be rising not only in the North Fork Rivanna area but also in the growing development south of the City. The County's Master Water and Sewer Study, Table 4, p. 1'7, summarizes the projected demand for water and sewer services for the North Rivanna, South Rivanna and Observatory water treatment plants and the Camelot and Moore's Creek wastewater treatment plants. Although their figures are estimates, they are based on current growth and development patterns. The League believes they show that until Buck Mountain is opera- tional, there will be a period within the next 10 to 12 years when there may be a scramble to get in line for water service, particularly since the ACSA has a first-come first-serve policy. Of course, Chris Greene Lake may yield more than Black and Veatch predicts, or the Conservation Plan, which the community must put in place to satisfy regulatory requirements, may decrease demand. Certainly these variables will give the County more time. However, there was one factor in all this that Black and Veatch did not know about; that is the time it takes the City and the ACSA to argue over the share of the costs each pays. It took months of sometimes acrimonious debate before the two could agree on how they would share the cost of buying the land for Buck Mountain. Faced with a $26.0 million price tag for Buck Mountain alone, the cost of the infrastructure necessary for growth may take more than a bit of quiet discussion. In conclusion, Ms. Hobbs said the County will have the responsibility to make sure that development does not exceed the ability of the RWSA and ACSA to provide the infrastructure necessary for development not only in this area, but in all areas that share the utilities' water and sewer services. Mr. Larry Taylor, a resident from the Lake Acres area, said most of his concerns have been voiced. He provided a handout (copy on file) which showed some additional information on the Forrestal Industrial Park in New Jersey and the impact this park had on that area. It follows the same concerns that most of the public have. Mr. Charles Trachta, Vice-President of the Woodbrook Community Associa- tion, said at the last public hearing he supported this proposal. He has been in contact with many of the community leaders in the County. Even though the Association supports the proposal, they are concerned about the proposed water usage, the affect it will have on the schools, roadways and other support services in northern Albemarle. He also supports the comments made by PEC. Mr. Trachta then invited the applicant and others to meet with community leaders to discuss all of the concerns. Ms. Lisa Harman, President of the Earlysville Area Residents' League (EARL), applauded the University on the work it has done, but the residents are most concerned about water usage and phasing of the development. As has been stated previously, the cumulative water use for the entire development is not being considered. She is a little unclear about what constitutes a user in this proposal. She asked if a user is one building or one company. The accumulation of square footage is a concern. It is her understanding that MicroAire and Motion Control are excluded from the 500,000 square feet, at this time. She also wondered if the remainder of the original 225 acres are excluded from the 500,000 square feet in the first year. She thinks the County needs to be prepared for any eventuality. Ms. Karen Dame, speaking on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle, said the impact of the UREF North Fork project on the resources of Albemarle County is the most important issue facing this community. Ms. Dame provided a handed April 9, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) 000006 out (copy on file) outlining the potential project's population impact on the community. Ms. Dame said the magnitude of the project described in the rezoning application, or any project like it, demands more management than would be appropriate to a small-scale project. Citizens for Albemarle advocate further deferral of the application until changes have been made to the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, Citizens for Albemarle supports PEC's proposal for special permit review for all industrial uses above a certain size. In addition, a current special permit requirement for industrial uses of private water supplies in excess of 400 gallons per day should be expanded to include industrial users on public water above a certain threshold volume. The threshold would need to be examined, however the applicant proposal of 125,000 gpd per user sounds very high when one considers that 125,000 gpd is one-half of the total daily usage of the North Rivanna water treatment capacity at this time. She asked that the Board and Commission not make the mistake of turning Albemarle County into a Fairfax County. Mr. Tom Olivier, a resident of the Scottsville District, asked that the Board and Commission take whatever steps are necessary to allow ongoing oversight by the County of developments at the North Fork Park. He supports the PEC special permit proposal. He asked the persons present who support PEC's proposal, but who do not intend to speak to stand (six people stood). Mr. Olivier said the North Fork Park does provide an opportunity for creation of high quality jobs that are rare in this community. He commended UREF and the University for the work they have done. He feels the danger to the community is that the resident work force in this region might not be able to fill these jobs. As a result, job creation might promote more growth. The risk of promoting a growth spurt can be reduced if development of the site is staggered over time, and if relevant job training opportunities are made available. He believes the creation of good jobs at the North Fork Park will benefit the most needy residents only if additional adult job training opportunities are created in concert with the site development process. Lastly, Mr. Olivier said at build-out the North Fork Park will require perhaps 700,000 gallons of water a day, a major slice of this community's remaining uncommitted supply. He does not think the County can support many more developments of this scale. He cautioned the County to review this proposal carefully and approve it only after we are convinced it is right. Mr. Angus Arrington, Jr., representing Lawnscape of Central Virginia, said he feels the North Fork Park would provide an opportunity for labor- oriented jobs for individuals in the community, i.e., construction, mainte- nance, etc. There are different levels of jobs being provided, not just those hired by MicroAire and the other occupants in the Park. Mr. Paul Grady, a general contractor who lives in the Ivy area, said he has no problem with what the University is planning to do on this property. His concern is what will happen if VDoT decides to make Route 29 a limited access highway. He does not think it would be wise to approve this project until VDoT has decided what it is going to do. There being no other comments from the public, Mr. Nitchmann closed the public hearing. He asked the applicant if he wished to address any of the questions which were raised. Mr. Rose responded "no". Mr. Nitchmann asked if Board members had any questions of the applicant at this time. Mrs. Humphris asked staff to respond to a question raised in a letter she received which was if the drinking water supply intake for North Fork is just below the stormwater dumping area for the UREF Park. Mr. Glenn Brooks, from the County Engineering Department, responded by pointing out the location of the intake area on the plan. He explained that the applicant is proposing to channel the runoff past the intake, with a small section next to Jacob's Run draining into the North Fork Rivanna, but it is not a significant portion. Mrs. Humphris asked how did Mr. Brooks rate significant. Mr. Brooks responded very small in relation to the rest of the Park. Also representing the applicant, Mr. Dean Cinkala of Stonebridge Associates, said in Section XII of the application, he created a table which discusses how the applicant proposes to mitigate the impact on the raw water intake. He said there are three acres of developed, vegetative fill slope that will actually flow into the raw water intake. Everything else is redirected into the master stormwater management system and ultimately into the North Fork below the raw water intake. Mr. Nitchmann commented that three of the Planning Commission members are absent tonight. The Commission will not be voting on this issue at this time, but would be discussing it at its next regular meeting. He asked the applicant to be present for that discussion to respond to questions. There were no other comments from Board or Commission members. Motion was then made by Mr. Loewenstein, seconded by Mrs. Huckle, to defer ZMA-95-04 until April 23, 1996. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 000007 April 9, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) AYES: Mrs. Huckle, Mr. Loewenstein, Mr. Nitchmann and Ms. Washington. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Dotson, Mr. Finley and Mr. Tice. The Board offered no comments. It was noted that the Board would schedule this item for discussion, after it has received a recommendation from the Commission. Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. At 8:15 p.m., with no further business, the meeting of the Board of Supervisors was adjourned.