Louisa County Seal, click for homepage Louisa County Seal, click for homepage
Contact    Sitemap    Search    

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
and the
Louisa County Planning Commission
Joint Public Hearing
February 23, 2005
7:00 P.M.



Board Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, *Allen B. Jennings, David B. Morgan, Eric F. Purcell, and Jack T. Wright

*Allen Jennings arrived at 7:13 p.m.

PC Members: Tommy Barlow, Brooks Besley, Richard Havasy, Jack Speer, P. T. Spencer, and John Winston

PC Members Absent: Lisa Price

 
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; and Mary Jackson, Deputy Clerk


CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Barnes called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.  Mr. Purcell moved to reconvene the meeting, which was seconded by Mr. Wright, and carried by a vote of 6-0. Mr. Wright led the invocation followed by the pledge of allegiance.

        Chairman Barlow called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. that was followed by a roll call to confirm the Planning Commission members that were present.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Review of Comprehensive Plan in Accordance with Section 15.2232 of the Code of Virginia

Pat Morgan, County Attorney, identified two issues for public hearing that involve the construction or use of production wells that were developed by Spring Creek and donated to the County in compliance with its conditional zoning request when the Board considered the development of the Spring Creek Subdivision and resort development. Mr. Morgan said that under State Code, for an item that is not considered part of the approved Comprehensive Plan, there is a review to find whether or not these improvements are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Board has to determine if the use of these wells for residential purposes would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Morgan stated that staff determined that the use of these wells connecting to the existing public service area is within accord of the Comprehensive Plan.

The Board clarified that the purpose of the public hearing is to affirm that the County is in compliance with its own Comprehensive Plan and questioned what the result of this determination would mean.

Mr. Morgan replied that they would be confirming that the wells have already been developed and donated to the County and that the use of them is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Morgan said that the second hearing would put conditions on those that would ensure reasonable use.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. along with Chairman Barlow.

*Mr. Jennings arrived at 7:13 p.m.

During the public hearing, the following individuals spoke in opposition or in favor of the Comprehensive Plan and the wells in the Zion Crossroads area expressing their concerns and comments about the impact the wells could have on ground water supply, the use of the wells for industrial and commercial growth, lack of recharge studies, designation of mixed use for the Zion Crossroads area in the Comprehensive Plan, preserving the rural character of Louisa County, fiscal responsibilities, implementation of a properly designed monitoring program, wanting more businesses in the County for job opportunities and additional revenue, concern for uranium in the ground water in the Zion Crossroads area; Tracy Breyfogle, Green Springs District; Martha Brice, Patrick Henry District; Amanda Welch, Patrick Henry District; Rae Ely, Green Springs District; Charles Purcell, Patrick Henry District; Rex Murphy, Green Springs District; Robin Patton, Patrick Henry District; Nick Evans, Barboursville, Virginia resident; Jean Moss Holland, Jackson District; Jamie Daniel, Cuckoo District; Dr. G. W. McLaughlin, Louisa District; David Bailey, Beaverdam, Virginia resident; Gerald Harlow, Green Springs District; and Charlotte Morford, Patrick Henry District.

Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. along with Chairman Barlow and brought the topic back for further discussion with the Planning Commission beginning first.

The Planning Commission questioned if the Spring Creek wells were separate from the original Conditional Use Permit and whether there was an agreement made that requires the inflow and outflow of the Spring Creeks wells to be monitored.

Mr. Morgan confirmed that these wells are separate and that there is a requirement for the wells to be monitored.

Bar Delk, Louisa County Water Authority Director, reiterated that each meter is monitored separately and that the Water Authority would be able to determine if Spring Creek was withdrawing more water than allowed.

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Winston, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission agreed that the consistency of the wells and the use of the wells are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

The Board clarified that the Comprehensive Plan is general in nature because it is considered to be more of a guide. The Board discussed the designated growth areas of the Comprehensive Plan with Dr. Morgan saying that he does not feel that mining water from an agricultural zone to provide water to the Spring Creek development promotes the rural character of the plan; therefore, he does not believe that this would be in compliance.

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Dr. Morgan voting against, the Board agreed that the consistency of the wells are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

CUP04-05, The County of Louisa by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Applicant/Owners

Mr. Morgan summarized the request as being for a Conditional Use Permit for Louisa County to add three new community wells that will supply water to residential and commercial users in the Zion Crossroads designated growth area. Mr. Morgan provided the history of the established service area highlighting the conditions of the prior C. U. P. Mr. Morgan said that staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for wells SC-1, SC-2, and SC-3 with three conditions.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. along with Chairman Barlow.

During the public hearing, the following individuals spoke in opposition or in favor of the Conditional Use Permit for the three new wells in the Zion Crossroads area expressing their concerns and comments about how the infrastructure could help bring businesses to the County that would increase the tax revenue, intelligent growth, impact on subsurface water, Boards lack of understanding of how an aquifer system works, balanced approach for growth in Louisa County, and the requirements for the Conditional Use Permit; Bob Cramer, Patrick Henry District; Sam Forrest, Patrick Henry District; David OLeary, Green Springs District; Rae Ely, Green Springs District; Rex Murphy, Green Springs District; Robin Patton, Patrick Henry District; Thomas Bowles, Patrick Henry District; David Bailey, Green Springs Historic District Representative; and Pete Bradshaw, Planning Real Estate Developer Consultant for Spring Creek.

Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. along with Chairman Barlow and brought the topic back for further discussion with the Planning Commission beginning first.

The Planning Commission discussed this item in great detail with Mr. Spencer questioning why they are placing a permanent obligation on the County to supply water to Spring Creek since the County is currently working on getting a permit to pull water from the James River. The Planning Commission pointed out that the Spring Creek development would not be using any of the well to water their golf course. The Planning Commission questioned what kind of testing and resources the County has put into testing the quantity of water and aquifers in this area. The Planning Commission questioned where a citizen would find monitoring data for water inquiries.

Mr. Delk explained that the County has put in three productions wells, which they were required by the Health Department to run 48-hour pump tests on all three wells simultaneously with the same tests being conducted on the Spring Creek wells. Mr. Delk said that the Health Department had them run all six wells simultaneously to test them and from this information, the Health Department established the regulations for the water amount that Spring Creek could pump. Mr. Delk said that any citizen could request information from the Water Authority for water monitoring data. The Planning Commission decided to add a condition that states that Spring Creek would not withdraw any more for residential use than what it contributes and to remove the first “reasonable” from the proposed resolution listed under item 2, b.

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission agreed to forward this to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of approval with limits to the specified conditions to remove the word “reasonable” from the proposed resolution listed under item 2, b and to add the provision for Spring Creek to not be able to withdraw more water than what they contribute.

The Board discussed this issue in great detail and questioned if they would be obligating themselves to provide water to other residential areas in the future by accepting these wells. The Board pointed out that the County has held meetings to attempt to get water supplied from the Rivanna River, James River, and the North East Creek Reservoir. Mr. Harper suggested that they create a requirement to ensure that the developer discloses this information to the potential buyer. Mr. Purcell said that he would like to strike item 2, b in its entirety due to the potential obligations this places on the Board. Mr. Wright questioned if there would be any legal repercussions if item 2, b were eliminated. Mr. Purcell questioned if they could include the verbiage that states, “Water would be administered pursuant to the Louisa County Water Authority rules and regulations”.

Mr. Morgan responded that this would not set a precedent since the water supply has a specific service authority area designated. Mr. Morgan said that he feels that the Board should keep something in the C. U. P. to indicate that consideration for the water supply in Green Springs is important to the Board. Mr. Morgan suggested that they include the verbiage that “this would be subject to any permits that are granted by the state”.

Mr. Purcell said that he would like to make the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit with two conditions.

Mr. Jennings seconded the motion.

Chairman Barnes requested a roll call to verify those that are in favor of the motion and those that are not in favor.

PRESENTVOTE
David B. Morgan, M.D.No
Eric F. PurcellYes
Jack T. WrightNo
Fitzgerald A. BarnesYes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr.Yes
Willie L. HarperNo
Allen B. JenningsYes

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 4-3, with Messrs Harper, Wright, and Dr. Morgan voting against, a resolution was adopted approving the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit relating to Public Utility Facilities with two conditions that state, “In order to protect natural resources, the applicant shall apply for and obtain all required environmental and health permits for the operation and reasonable use of the Spring Creek Wells as a source of drinking water” and that “Wells SC-1, SC-2, or SC-3 were developed for the purpose of providing an adequate water source for the residential development of Spring Creek, paragraph 1.D of the Conditional Use Permit 8-98 shall not apply to these production wells”.

Amendments to the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances

Mr. Morgan identified the proposed change to Section 66-82 of the Louisa County Code that talks about road requirements and things of that nature. Mr. Morgan stated that both the Planning Commission and the Board have already held public hearings on this subject, so there is no need to hold a public hearing on this, but this should be considered after the other amendments have been considered. Mr. Morgan explained that the first proposed ordinance change is to amend Section 66-2 to add nieces and nephews to the list of family members who can receive property as a family subdivision. The second change is to amend Section 86-2 to modify the definition of a subdivision and eliminate the definition of a minor subdivision. The third change is to amend section 86-72 that would allow the division of up to twenty lots in A-2 zones and provides for increased density if affordable housing is included in the subdivision. The fourth change is to amend Section 86-75 to repeal the provision for increased lots in minor subdivisions if the developer obtains a Conditional Use Permit. The fifth change is to amend Section 86-76 to provide that the minimum lot size for a multifamily dwelling would be 1.5 acres per dwelling unit. The sixth change is to amend Section 86-80 to address the minimum side lot requirement between units of a multifamily dwelling, which has been suggested that they add a provision that the drain field serving two lots would only be permitted if allowed by the Department of Health. Mr. Morgan informed the Board that he had received an email from Paul Mahoney, Roanoke County Attorney, discussing the Virginia Department of Transportation requirements of discontinuing all private roads, which he had asked if any other localities had experienced this. Mr. Morgan said that in order for a locality to qualify for Rural Addition Funds from VDOT has to be a state maintained road if it were going to serve three or more lots. Mr. Morgan said that similarly, he received the same response from Sterling Rives, Hanover County Attorney, saying that he experienced the same situation. Mr. Morgan said that they had received similar replies from Prince William County, Boutetourt County, Scott County, and Orange County, which he wanted to point out so that when the Board is considering the other provisions would recognize that a left in provision to allow private roads if developers desired, but they would have to be built to state standards in order to qualify for Rural Addition monies. Mr. Morgan said that another comment he had received was provided by Robert Lowry who suggested that they keep minor subdivisions in if there were two lots or less.        

The Board and the Planning Commission expressed several concerns with Mr. Morgan regarding his presentation. Mr. Gentry said that he was concerned about the additional information that they received during the presentation due to the serious nature of the information they had to review, which made him feel as though the Board would not be able to make any final decisions this evening. Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Morgan to clarify if he was stating that the County could no longer have private roads and still be able to take advantage of VDOTs Rural Addition monies, which he understood that as long as the roads were built to state specifications, then it wouldn't matter whether they were maintained by VDOT or not. Mr. Gentry said that he understood that they had considerable correspondence with VDOTs Central Office that had said what they proposed would meet their satisfaction for Rural Addition monies and questioned if this had changed. Mr. Harper stated that he doesn't believe lots that are 1.5 acres in Agricultural Zoning should not be allowed to have farm animals.

Mr. Morgan replied that he was told that VDOT would withhold Rural Addition money if they provide for private roads. Mr. Morgan explained that at the time they were proposing striking out all of the provisions about private roads. Mr. Morgan said that there is a provision in the state code that is not in 15.2 under the Right to Farm Act that says if you have agricultural zoning, then you have to allow agricultural purposes in it.

Mr. Barlow stated that he had downloaded the guidelines for analyzing the adequacy of the subdivision ordinance for Rural Addition funds and pointed out that they do not specify that the roads have to be maintained by the state. Mr. Barlow quoted, “VDOT in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General interprets a provision to mean a qualifying counties ordinance must require that all streets established after the effective date of the ordinance to meet or exceed the standards that qualify the road for VDOT acceptance.” Mr. Barlow pointed out that this excludes family divisions.

Chairman Barnes opened the hearing to the public at 10:04 p.m. along with Chairman Barlow.

During the public hearing, the following individuals spoke in opposition or in favor of the proposed amendments expressing their concerns and comments about preserving the rural character of the County, the size of lots in Agricultural Zoning, costs associated with building roads that are constructed to state specification, potential impact on the water supply with the number of lots that would be allowed in Agricultural Zoning, good development tool by increasing the number of lots allowed in an Agricultural Zoning to help justify the costs associated with building state roads, restricting 1.5 acre lot sizes to Residential Zoning, recognized the effort put forth by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, having better roads in the County, having a better definition of affordable housing to allow all developers to be on the same level, taking mitigation into consideration, having managed growth, the impact of growth and what effects it would have on the infrastructure for the existing roads, adding nieces and nephews to the list for family land subdivision, the rapid pace of growth that is occurring in the County, having off road development, comparing the costs associated with the proposed amendment to increase the number of lots to what is currently allowed for developing a subdivision with a Conditional Use Permit for fifteen lots and a private road, the increase in residential development that exceeds the industrial and commercial growth that is needed to balance the tax base, increased density in Agricultural Zoning, having better road access for emergency response calls, loss of proffers and impact fees from developers, and the additional revenue this would bring to the County: George Goodwin, Cuckoo District; Brenda Christensen, Patrick Henry District; Todd Chisholm, Patrick Henry District; Pete Perkins, Patrick Henry District; Doug Whitlock, Mineral District; Tara Dean, Jackson District; B. J. Blount, Jackson District; Mary Johnson, Cuckoo District; Jim Lillie, Mineral District; Dr. G. W. McLaughlin, Louisa District; John Jackowicz, Patrick Henry District; John Carroll, Cuckoo District; Jean King, Louisa District; Stanley Gonyo, Jackson District; Cliff Trainham, Patrick Henry District; Charles Purcell, Patrick Henry District; Robin Patton, Patrick Henry District; Bernie Meyer, Richmond, Va. Resident; Dave Stone, Louisa County Forester; William Hale, Cuckoo District; Gerald Harlow, Green Springs District; Randy Tingler, William A. Cooke, Inc. President; Joseph Yancey, Patrick Henry District; William Goodman, Jackson District; Dennis Schultz, Jackson District; Ethan Call, Mountain Road District.      

The following individuals filled out a speakers card, but did not verbally speak; however, several of them checked the “opposed to” box on the card for the proposed subdivision and zoning ordinance amendments: Wayland Winston, Mountain Road District; Reverend Charles Sims, Patrick Henry District; Irene Mitchell, Mineral District; and Dan Patton, Patrick Henry District.

Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 11:00 p.m. along with Chairman Barlow and brought the topic back for further discussion with the Planning Commission beginning first.

Meeting Extension Time

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to extend the joint public hearing past 11:00 p.m.

        On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission agreed to extend the joint public hearing past 11:00 p.m.

Continuance of Public Hearing on Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Amendments

The Planning Commission identified the proposed changes and discussed them in great detail expressing concerns about the proposed number of lots allowed in Agricultural Zoning, the lack of a consensus for the number of lots allowed between them, and the lack of having a Planning Director during this process. The Planning Commission recommended changing the number of lots allowed in Agricultural Zoning to either ten or fifteen. The Planning Commission discussed the associated costs and benefits of having roads that are built to state specifications.  

Item 1, Section 66-2:

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Speer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission agreed to amend Section 66-2 to add nieces and nephews to the list of family members who can receive property as a family subdivision.

Item 2, Section 86-2:

Chairman Barlow stated that the “minor subdivision” that is currently in place has an initial review fee of $1,000. Chairman Barlow questioned if they would be charging the standard fee of $2,000 that is currently charged for “major subdivisions” if they remove the definition of “minor subdivisions”.  Chairman Barlow recommended that they remove “private lane” from the proposed definition since it only applies anything less than two lots.

        On motion of Mr. Besley, seconded by Mr. Speer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission agreed to amend Section 86-2 to modify the definition of a subdivision, eliminate the definition of a minor subdivision, and remove the words private lane from the definition.

Item 3, Section 86-72:

        Mr. Winston motioned to approve the proposed twenty-lot division in Agricultural A-2 Zoning and was seconded by Mr. Barlow, which failed with a 2-4 vote, with Messrs Besley, Havasy, Speer, and Spencer voting against.

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barlow, which carried by a vote of 3-2-1, with Messrs Havasy and Speer voting against and Mr. Besley abstaining, the Planning Commission voted to adopt the proposed change with only allowing for a fifteen-lot division in an Agricultural A-2 Zone.  

Item 4, Section 86-75:

        On motion of Mr. Speer, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission agreed to amend Section 86-75 to repeal the provision for increased lots in minor subdivisions if the developer obtains a Conditional Use Permit.

Item 5, Section 86-76:

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission agreed to amend Section 86-75 to provide that the minimum lot size for a multifamily dwelling be three acres per dwelling unit.

Item 6, Section 86-80:

Chairman Barlow said that if they are going to allow for multifamily units, they would be eliminating the use of the multifamily units if they do not allow a duplex to be built on an individual lot.

Mr. Morgan suggested that they amend the provision to allow for construction of duplexes on single lots. Mr. Morgan said that if they decide to do this, then they would also have to add a provision that a single septic system would only be allowed if approved by the Health Department.

        On motion of Mr. Besley, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission agreed to amend Section 86-80 that addresses the minimum side lot requirement between units of a multifamily dwelling as it has been proposed.

Item 7, Section 66-82:

Chairman Barlow recommended modifying the proposed change to reflect “divisions of less than three lots” rather than the word subdivision that is referenced and change the “subdivision roads serving less than three lots” to private lanes serving less than three lots.

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission agreed to amend Section 66-82 to reflect the verbiage “divisions of less than three lots” and “private lanes serving less than three lots”.  

The Board discussed the proposed amendments in great detail with Mr. Purcell requesting that they consider an addendum that he presented that defines a multifamily dwelling. Mr. Wright pointed out that the Board is only modifying what is allowed “by right” and that an individual could have more lots in an A-2 zoning if they were to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Harper expressed concerns about the proposed lot size in A-2 zoning saying that 1.5 acres lots are not suitable for farm animals. Dr. Morgan stated that he feels that twenty lots is too much for Agricultural Zoning, which he believes higher density belongs in residential and designated growth areas. Mr. Gentry said that currently someone could build fifteen lots in A-2 with a C. U. P. and would have to put in roads that are built to state standards. Mr. Gentry suggested that they consider adding five additional lots to the fifteen to allow for multifamily housing. Mr. Jennings expressed the need to implement a provision for affordable housing. Chairman Barnes pointed that this ordinance would allow farmers to sell a piece of their land to help with financial burdens without having all of the additional expenses. Chairman Barnes said that the income level that the Board had in mind when talking about affordable housing was a median household income of $52,000. The Board agreed that they wanted to create more off road development in the County to have roads that are built to state specifications and that a better definition for affordable housing was needed. The Board could not come to a consensus on how many lots should be allowed in A-2 zoning.        

Mr. Purcell made the motion to accept all of the recommendations as they have been submitted and to include his addendum for the definition of affordable housing.

Mr. Jennings seconded the motion.

Chairman Barnes requested a roll call to verify those that are in favor of the motion and those that are not in favor.

PRESENTVOTE
Eric F. PurcellYes
Jack T. WrightNo
Fitzgerald A. BarnesYes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr.No
Willie L. HarperNo
Allen B. JenningsYes
David B. Morgan, M.D.No

        With the votes reflecting 3 - 4, the motion failed.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Dr. Morgan, which carried by a vote of 5-2, with Messrs Barnes and Purcell voting against, the Board agreed to vote on each one of the amendments separately.

Item 1, Section 66-2:

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to amend Section 66-2 to add nieces and nephews to the list of family members who can receive property as a family subdivision.

Item 2, Section 86-2:

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to amend Section 86-2 to modify the definition of a subdivision and eliminate the definition of minor subdivision.

Item 3, Section 86-72:

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which failed with a 3-4 vote, with Messrs Gentry, Harper, Wright and Dr. Morgan voting against, the Board did not agree to amend Section 86-72 to allow the division of twenty lots in A-2 zones.

Item 4, Section 86-75:

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to amend Section 86-75 to repeal the provision for increased lots in minor subdivisions if the developer obtains a Conditional Use Permit.

Item 5, Section 86-76:

Mr. Purcell motioned to approve Section 86-76 to provide the minimum lot size for a multifamily dwelling to be 1.5 acres per dwelling unit replacing dwelling unit with per multifamily dwelling.

Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.

Chairman Barnes requested a roll call to verify those that are in favor of the motion and those that are not in favor.

PRESENTVOTE
Jack T. WrightNo
Fitzgerald A. BarnesYes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr.Yes
Willie L. HarperNo
Allen B. JenningsYes
David B. Morgan, M.D.No
Eric F. PurcellYes

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 4-3, with Messrs Harper, Wright, and Dr. Morgan voting against, the Board agreed to amend Section 86-76 to provide the minimum lot size for a multifamily dwelling to be 1.5 acres per multifamily dwelling.

Item 6, Section 86-80:

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to amend Section 86-80 to address the minimum side lot requirement between units of a multifamily dwelling.

Item 7, Section 66-82:

Mr. Purcell said that he wanted to go on record saying that he doesn't believe that it is right for them to say that they are going to require roads built to state specifications because this takes away a right that people currently have with their property; however, since they haven't decided what they are doing for item three, then this leaves them nothing in return.

Mr. Gentry motioned to amend Section 66-82 as the Planning Commission recommended it.

Mr. Wright seconded the motion.

Chairman Barnes requested a roll call to verify those that are in favor of the motion and those that are not in favor.

PRESENTVOTE
Fitzgerald A. BarnesNo
Willie L. Gentry, Jr.Yes
Willie L. HarperYes
Allen B. JenningsNo
David B. Morgan, M.D.Yes
Eric F. PurcellNo
Jack T. WrightYes

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 4-3, with Messrs Barnes, Jennings, and Purcell voting against, the Board agreed to amend Section 66-82 as recommended by the Planning Commission.

ADJOURNMENT

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adjourned the February 23, 2005 Joint Public Hearing at 11:57 p.m., along with the Planning Commission.



BY ORDER OF
FITZGERALD A. BARNES, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA