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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
March 20, 2006
5:00 P.M.



Board Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell, and Jack T. Wright
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 March 20, 2006 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Wright led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

There were no Constitutional Officers that wished to address the Board.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD

There were no citizens that wished to address the Board.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Gentry said that he would like to add a VDOT study request as a topic for discussion.

Mr. Purcell said that he would like to add the review of the Comprehensive Plan review process as a topic for discussion.

Chairman Barnes said that he would like to add staffing as a topic for discussion.

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the March 20, 2006 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATION

Piedmont Virginia Community College Update

Dr. Frank Friedman, Piedmont Virginia Community College President, informed the Board that he was here this evening to provide them an update. Dr. Friedman said that enrollment last fall was just under 4,200 students in their credit classes, which should remain the same for this spring. Dr. Friedman said that from this count, 239 students enrolled from Louisa County, which is around 6% of their enrollment. Dr. Friedman said that part of this enrollment included seven dual enrollment classes that are offered through the high school. He said that the dual enrollment classes had a total of 152 credits, which was made up of 63 different students that averaged about two courses each. Dr. Friedman pointed out that they have been trying to offer more courses through the Internet to make access to their courses easier. Dr. Friedman said that they had a total of thirty-nine Internet courses that had a total enrollment of 1,024, which included 706 different individuals taking courses on line. From this, thirty-seven of these students were Louisa residents. Dr. Friedman said that part of their fall enrollment included twenty-nine graduates from the high school that graduated in 2005. Dr. Frank Friedman said that they are in the process of preparing Piedmont for the next five to ten years by expanding their facilities while raising funds to help with the expenses. Dr. Friedman said that they are currently undergoing a $5,000,000 renovation of their main academic building, which would create a large lecture room, additional classrooms, new cafeteria, bookstore, student lounge, and library. Dr. Friedman said that part of this renovation includes work on their infrastructure to replace the fire alarm system, sprinkler system, and power. Dr. Friedman said that this summer they will be going to bid on a new Science Building, which they are anticipating somewhere around $9,000,000 for a 35,000 sq. ft. structure that will provide all new science labs. Dr. Friedman explained to the Board that they are hoping to enter into a partnership with the Piedmont YMCA where they would build a Y on their campus to serve the community, students, and staff. Dr. Friedman said that they have raised $3.5 million locally over the past three years and $11.5 million through state and federal grants. He said that these funds would enable them to add the necessary equipment for the science labs, hire the faculty, and basically fill this facility. Dr. Friedman pointed out that these programs offered at this facility would allow them to expand the scholarships that they offer.

The Board extended their appreciation to Dr. Friedman for the update he provided. Mr. Gentry said that he would like to ask whether the 6% enrollment for Louisa County was good or bad and what percentage it should be. Mr. Wright extended his appreciation to Dr. Friedman for the participation that his organization has with the Piedmont Workforce Investment Board along with the other organizations that participate. Chairman Barnes praised the Dual Enrollment Program and the benefits that it brings.  

Dr. Friedman replied that it would be hard to factor what percentage it should be considering that Louisa County is a shared County within the community college system; therefore, students have an option where they attend. Dr. Friedman said that they would have to add the figures together from the other community colleges to see how it is benefiting Louisa County.

Resolution - Commending Matthew Nelson and Matthew Johnson on Receiving the Boy Scouts Highest Award of Eagle Scout

Chairman Barnes read the resolution for all to hear and presented a plaque to each Eagle Scout congratulating them on their achievement.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted commending Matthew Johnson and Matthew Nelson for receiving the Boy Scouts of America highest award of Eagle Scout.

Department of Social Services Overview

Paul Oswell, Director of Social Services, identified the Social Services Board members to the Board along with their staff of forty. Mr. Oswell said that Social Services is committed to providing quality services to the citizens of Louisa County. Mr. Oswell explained that their agency offers cradle to grave programs and activities to ensure the most vulnerable citizens of Louisa County have access to adequate food, medical care, self-sufficiency, protection from abuse and neglect, and a myriad of other services. Mr. Oswell said that the Louisa County Department of Social Services has three divisions within their office for benefits programs, service programs, and administration. Mr. Oswell identified the services that are offered under each of the programs mentioned along with the expenses incurred for each program. Mr. Oswell identified several highlights for his agency that occurred in 2005 as receiving a RAFI Grant, Hard to Serve Grant, Safe and Stable Families Grant, a collaborative suite providing office space for various agencies to utilize, and provided two Mental Health Counselors in their office two days a week. In closing, Mr. Oswell said that the services provided by Social Services for 2005 was a total of $19,277,024.

The Board extended their appreciation to Mr. Oswell for the update and all of his hard work and dedication. Mr. Wright commended Mr. Oswell on his work, saying that he has always made a good honest effort to try to keep local funds from having to be used as other sources of money.

OLD BUSINESS

Affordable Housing

Darren Coffey, Community Development Director, informed the Board that he had sent them a memorandum on March 14, 2006 outlining the issues the Affordable Housing Committee was asked to address. Mr. Coffey said that they had met on March 1, 2006 to discuss how to phase the implementation of the recommendations previously presented to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Coffey said that the committee reaffirmed that they believe a holistic approach to affordable housing would be the more effective. He said that this would include density bonus incentives for the A-2 Zoning District, use of accessory apartments for rental housing, and the creation of a housing trust fund.

The Board discussed this topic with Chairman Barnes saying that he had asked
Howard Evergreen, Housing Director, to attend this evening to address some of their concerns. Chairman Barnes said that they recently received a presentation pertaining to the Habitat for Humanity and asked Mr. Evergreen where his organization fits in with the affordable housing piece from a Housing Foundation standpoint.  

In response to the Boards question, Mr. Evergreen said that they manage the Section-8 Rental Assistance Program that currently has around 75 vouchers for Louisa County. Mr. Evergreen said that they receive between $100,000 to $120,000 of federal funds each year, which is used towards down payment assistance and replacement houses. Mr. Evergreen said that his department also shares a Habitat for Humanity employee that is housed in his office. Mr. Evergreen said that they recently purchased two lots from the Food Pantry that will be used in conjunction with Habitat for Humanity and the state to build a home for a lady who lives in one of the older mobile homes and the other lot is going to be used to build a home for a County employee that qualified for the program they were offering. Mr. Evergreen said that between the cost of putting a road in a subdivision and the cost of buying a lot, is almost the same as what they used to build houses for making it difficult for them to do. Mr. Evergreen said that due to these additional expenses, this is the reason for the proposed Housing Trust Fund. Mr. Evergreen explained that the trust fund would help buy down some of the costs. Mr. Evergreen said that they believe that some of the bonus incentives would encourage developers to provide some lots at a reduced rate to meet the density bonus.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Evergreen if the single most barrier of having affordable housing is due to the cost of land. Mr. Gentry questioned whether a home had to be constructed on a state maintained road due to other funding that is involved. Chairman Barnes questioned what they would be able to do with $100,000 in a trust fund with matching funds. Chairman Barnes questioned if they would be able to do more if they were to have fifty acres instead of the $100,000. Mr. Purcell asked if their committee has done any investigation about the Health Department pertaining to their increased requirements for well and septic on individual lots. Mr. Purcell said that a lot of the lots that are for sale have not sold because they dont meet the 2006 Health Department Standards of having 100% reserve. Mr. Purcell said the reason he is saying this is because with their holistic approach, it underscores Mr. Coffeys point that he makes all of the time about having water and sewer infrastructure being tied very closely to this enterprise. Mr. Purcell said that it is extremely hard to talk about affordable housing without talking about having water and sewer infrastructure in place since this would help some of the other issues vanish. Mr. Harper pointed out that the idea is to disburse this across the County and questioned why they were only looking at A-2 zoning for density bonuses and not in residential zoning.

Mr. Evergreen confirmed that land is the largest barrier that they face. Mr. Evergreen stated that building costs have increase on the average of 10% every six months, which also adds to the overall cost. Mr. Evergreen said that they have to find a way to either obtain land at a lower cost or subsidize the prices back down, which a trust fund would help. Mr. Evergreen said that it is a rural development requirement to have a state maintained road for a dwelling. Mr. Evergreen said that if they had a parcel of land that was not on a state maintained road, then they would be required to have a road maintenance agreement. Mr. Evergreen said that they would be able to help two families with $100,000, but if they were to do this over a period of time, when the funds were being paid back, the amount continues to grow. Mr. Evergreen confirmed that they would be able to do more with the fifty acres. Mr. Evergreen stated that the land is the driving force. Mr. Coffey said that the committee has work extremely hard to address this issue from various standpoints and a density bonus would work just as well in residential zoning as it would in A-2. Mr. Coffey said that the reason they provided the information for A-2 zoning was because there was a larger number of A-2 zoning in the County.    

Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Coffey to work with the committee to come up with their top five recommendations for the Board to look to allow them to begin implementing affordable housing. The Board extended their appreciation to the committee for all of their hard work.  

Comprehensive Plan Review

Mr. Purcell said that he had sent an email to the Board addressing concerns that he has pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan review process. Mr. Purcell said that when they initiated this, they voted to define the growth areas, affordable housing and to add Shoreline Management. Mr. Purcell said that at the time, he thought it would be a simple matter of going through and further defining the growth areas by not being parcel specific and add the Shoreline Management. Mr. Purcell said that this would consist of the area around the I-64 corridor, Lake Anna, and both Towns. He said that he was subsequently informed that there were going to be multiple meetings and that it would take longer, which he responded with a message informing them that they arent defining that much detail at this time. Mr. Purcell said that the compromise of this was that there was going to be one, all day public meeting that would be held this week, which he understood that at this meeting they would have parcel specific maps to allow the public to comment on. Mr. Purcell said that his understanding now is that it is not going to be parcel specific maps; therefore he would like to have a better understanding of what their process will be. Mr. Purcell said that they have to decide whether they are going to do it parcel specific or not because this is what the public would be commenting on; therefore, if they are not going to be parcel specific, then he doesnt not see the point of having the meeting. Mr. Purcell said that he believes the process is being made more complicated than what is necessary; therefore, he would like to have a better understanding so he knows how to respond to his constituents. Mr. Purcell asked Mr. Coffey if within his experience as a planner, if he had a Comprehensive Plan that was parcel specific, if it would be easier to work with and to amend. Mr. Purcell said that he believes that they would have more individuals wanting to amend the Comprehensive Plan if it were more specific than if they were to keep it general in nature. Mr. Wright pointed out that the state statue says that a Comprehensive Plan shall be general in nature.  

In response to Mr. Purcells concerns, Mr. Coffey said that being parcel specific in defining their growth areas was never a consideration to him, nor has he proposed it. Mr. Coffey said that he intended on showing existing future land use maps at their meeting to allow individuals to make their comments on whether they like it or not. Mr. Coffey said that his staff would then look at the area and make their recommendations to the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffey said that what they do as staff, once they have compiled all of the comments, they look at the overall areas. Mr. Coffey said that he would look at specific parcels when reviewing this information because when they look at it through the GIS System, they look at it with different information. He said that these parcels are taken out of the final product, which then reflects a concept map. Mr. Coffey stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide for the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Coffey said that it has been his experience that when an applicant submits a rezoning application that does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan, they typically can identify two or three different things with their project that shows the plan would support it, then they could do a Comprehensive Plan amendment simultaneously with the application. Mr. Coffey said that the advantage to this is that if the Comprehensive Plan and land use clearly supports this use and the rezoning application has all of the elements that the Board likes, then legally everyone involved is on solid ground.      

Roadside Litter

Chairman Barnes reminded the Board that he had asked
Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, to inquire about the inmate program to help with litter pick up due to complaints that he received from constituents.

Mr. Lintecum explained to the Board that they have made several inquiries asking for this program to be reinstituted. Mr. Lintecum said that Major Lowe has been able to work with the judicial system to have individuals that are required to perform community service do so by specifically identifying clean community efforts for the roads in the County. Mr. Lintecum said that he has spoke with
Jerry Hall, Litter Coordinator, informing him that there are funds in the budget that would cover the expense of the guards supervising the inmates from the regional jail; therefore, they are looking at a program to utilize these funds to pay individuals to help clean. Mr. Lintecum said that from his understanding, the jails are experiencing difficulties in having people that qualify for this type of service.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that when he was driving towards the Zion Crossroads area, he saw a VDOT sign stating that this road had been adopted by the Regional Jail, which he was unsure of whether it was their employees or inmates cleaning the litter up. Chairman Barnes said that the main routes into the County are often times the first impression and a lasting impression of individuals traveling here. Mr. Harper said that this has become a frustrating situation because they were told that they were unable to work the inmates eight years ago due to insurance purposes, which they proved to be a myth. Mr. Harper said that after that point, they began the program with the inmates where they collected thousands of bags of trash. Mr. Harper said that he believes that sending a letter to the Judges in the region requesting a meeting to discuss this issue could be beneficial for them to see how they could reinstate this program. The Board agreed to have Mr. Lintecum address a letter to the appropriate bodies to schedule a meeting to address this issue.

NEW BUSINESS

VDOT Traffic Speed/Safety Study for Douglas Road

Mr. Gentry said that he would like to pass a request to VDOT to have a speed and sign review of Douglas Road in the Contrary Forest Subdivision.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of    7-0, a resolution was adopted requesting VDOT to perform a speed/safety study on State Route 1025 (Douglas Road) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all its citizens.

Staffing

Chairman Barnes said that during their Retreat on March 17, 2006, they had several staffing requests. Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Lintecum to ensure that the staffing changes they discussed were in line with the staffing audit that they had and report back to the Board at their regular scheduled meeting on April 3, 2006.

Resolution - For Support of a Bonded Industrial Access Road in Louisa County

Bob Gibson, Economic Development Director, informed the Board that as part of the process with The Department of Transportation on an application with an industrial access road requires that a resolution be passed by the Board of Supervisors supporting it. Mr. Gibson said that there wouldnt be any liability for the County, nor would there be any obligation for funding. Mr. Gibson said that they are required to submit their paperwork by mid April in order for VDOT to discuss it at their June meeting.

Chairman Barnes pointed out that this is a time sensitive situation. Chairman Barnes said that if the information were not submitted in time to VDOT, then it would fall to the next years allocation for the road. Mr. Wright said that during their last meeting, Mr. Gibson has said that the County would not have any responsibility for this access road. Mr. Wright stated that he does not see any verbiage in this resolution that holds the County harmless and asked if they had a separate agreement in place that would absolve them from the responsibility of paying these funds back if it doesnt meet the development of it.

Mr. Gibson said that this resolution does not have any contingent liabilities of any description to it. Mr. Gibson said that when they send the resolution and application to VDOT and if they approved the grant in June, this would be the time they would have to sign an agreement guaranteeing them that if the industry did not come, then they would pay the amount of the grant back. Mr. Gibson said that they have an agreement with the Cooke Foundation where they agreed to reimburse the County for any funds that they are required to pay VDOT. Mr. Gibson said that this is a formality because VDOT does not work with third parties.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Wright pointed out that the resolution reflects two separate paragraphs that clearly states, “Whereas, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors guarantees that all ineligible project costs not specified would be provided by other sources other than those administered by VDOT.” Mr. Wright said that it goes on further to state, “be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to provide a surety bond that is acceptable to and payable to VDOT in the full amount.” Mr. Wright questioned why these two statements are in the resolution if the County did not have any responsibilities. Mr. Wright asked what protection the Board had.

Mr. Gibson replied that the resolution is a VDOT standard form. Mr. Gibson said that the Board passed a similar resolution when they applied for the industrial access road for the Library Park and the same for every other community. Mr. Gibson said that the Board would be protected by the agreement with the Cooke Foundation.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Chairman Barnes reiterated that this is part of the application and even if it were approved, this is not a binding document unless they sign the final papers to guarantee the industrial access road. Mr. Wright asked if they could have a letter from them stating that they would provide the agreement if this is approved. Mr. Gentry said that he believes that Mr. Wrights concerns could be addressed if they were to add another “whereas” in the resolution saying that there would be a forth-coming agreement between VDOT and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Wright commented further that he believes that peoples perception is that a surety bond is like insurance that they only pay a premium and then that is the end of it. Mr. Wright said that a surety bond says that if there were any bond paid by the surety company, the person providing the bond would reimburse the insurance company 100% of what they pay out. Mr. Harper said that he shares the same concerns that Mr. Wright has; therefore, he would not support this without the appropriate documents. Mr. Purcell said that this is not the first time that the Board has done this. Mr. Harper said that the Board has not done this for a private owner. (Note: Mr. Harper reported the next day that he had checked with the County Attorney and was told that an agreement was in place when the Board previously passed the resolution pertaining to the access monies at Zion Crossroads, which is a private development.) Mr. Purcell said that he knows that this has been done before, but he would like to know if they have ever asked for them to provide private surety to the County in advance to applying for the VDOT Grant. Chairman Barnes asked if it were possible to get an agreement from the Cooke Foundation to protect the County prior to the Board approving this resolution.  

Mr. Gibson assured the Board that they would have a written agreement signed with the Cooke Foundation to protect the County well before they submit the application. Mr. Gibson informed the Board that
Pat Morgan, County Attorney, wrote a general agreement today stating that the Cooke Foundation would reimburse the County of $450,000. Mr. Gibson read the agreement for all to hear.        

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-2, with Messrs Harper and Wright voting against, a resolution was adopted for support of a Bonded Industrial Access Road in the Louisa area that would connect with Davis Highway (Route 22) for the purpose of industrial development.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Wright reminded the Board that they had asked Mr. Jennings and himself as representatives on the Building and Grounds Committee to meet with Mr. Oswell to look at the Bunting property to discuss the potential use. Mr. Wright said that they have asked the rural CSA group, which consists of five localities, to provide them some type of written proposal as to the proposed use of the home to include what they felt the overall savings would be to Louisa County potentially under the CSA Comprehensive Services Act if they were to use this as a group home. Mr. Wright said that they have also asked what the rental reimbursement would be to the County for them to recoup the amount that they have invested in this building. Mr. Wright said that he and Mr. Jennings would bring this information back to the Board as soon as they can.

Mr. Gentry said that he would like to remind everyone that the Volunteers of Louisa are currently accepting applications for nominations of volunteers in Louisa County. Mr. Gentry said that the deadline is March 31, 2006 for submitting the applications. Mr. Gentry said that if someone would like to obtain an application, then they could ask
Brenda Martin, Executive Manager, in the County Administration Office.

Chairman Barnes said that the IDA had met last week where they discussed the annual picnic as one of their topics. Chairman Barnes said that the invitations would be going out to the Board soon.  

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

The Board did not make any appointments during this meeting.
        
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT

Mr. Lintecum presented his report highlighting the following items:

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has enclosed a memo from Mike Schlemmer, Emergency Services Coordinator, regarding the radio system, cell towers, and what he feels that Emergency Services is facing now and in the future.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Harper saying that this committee is made up of quite a few individuals that are not that familiar with radio systems. Mr. Harper said that the committee worked with Mr. Schlemmers predecessors, relying on them and the advice of Clear Communications. Mr. Harper said that this piece mill was put together because the towers were not available. Mr. Harper said that the whole process involved Clear Communications, Sheriffs Department members, and the Emergency Services office, and was the result of the new equipment sitting unutilized for over a year; allowing the warranty to expire before it was installed. Chairman Barnes said that he would like to have a map of Louisa County reflecting all of the locations of the towers, where the County has equipment co-located, and all of the dead areas in the County to help the Board determine what is needed. Mr. Gentry questioned if the County had equipment co-located on the 390 tower that is located on Indian Creek Road. Mr. Gentry asked if they have equipment co-located on the State Police Tower. Mr. Wright said that the initial problems that stemmed from this committee during one of their meetings that he attended was that it was a Motorola meeting and not one for the County. Mr. Wright provided the history of the proposed use for the State Police Tower, which fell apart because they were told the tower, did not have the capacity from a weight standpoint to support the additional equipment that the County had. Mr. Wright said that Mr. Schlemmers predecessor was told to ensure that each tower was engineered to support the appropriate equipment.  

Mr. Schlemmer said that all of the committee members included their staff. Mr. Schlemmer said that they do not have equipment on the tower that is located on Indian Creek Road. Mr. Schlemmer said that he has been out on Indian Creek Road checking on other issues, which he found that the tower is at its capacity. Mr. Schlemmer pointed out that that this tower does not solve the problem of the communications gap on the east end of the County. Mr. Schlemmer said that they have a receiving site at the east end of the County, but for transmissions out, they use the Shannon Hill Tower for the east end of the County. Mr. Schlemmer said that they do not have equipment on the State Police Tower due to his predecessor not taking the appropriate actions. Mr. Schlemmer replied that he would put together the map as they have requested.    

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has enclosed a memo from Mr. Coffey pertaining to the E911 addressing.

Mr. Coffey said that this proposed ordinance was first drafted about a year ago. Mr. Coffey said that now that they have brought the GIS System in house and have the capability to assign E911 addresses when they issue a building permit, they wanted to bring the ordinance back before the Board. Mr. Coffey said that from an administrative standpoint, he would recommend that they implement this ordinance. Mr. Coffey said that administratively, prior to them issuing a building permit, they require a road base to be in to the inspectors satisfaction with street signs posted so there is safe ingress and egress for construction crews, emergency crews, and also that you could find the location of the street. Mr. Coffey said that they then issue the building permit accordingly.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that he has a concern with requiring the residents to get the sign. Mr. Wright said that these individuals would place the signs where they want, which he would prefer that they have some type of consistency with the signs. Mr. Wright said that he would rather have an additional fee on the building permit application to reimburse the County the expense of installing the signs to have consistency for the Emergency Services Department. Mr. Purcell suggested that if they are going to implement this, he would like to have Mr. Lintecum send a letter to the Resident Administrator at VDOT since some of the developers are at their mercy waiting to receive the brown signs that are issued until they have enough homes developed to qualify for the green signs.  

Mr. Schlemmer explained to the Board that they include a memo to every citizen that is issued an address plate identifying where their sign should be posted. Mr. Schlemmer said that the contractor they were using for the road signs and the address plates has gone out of business; therefore, they are behind on the process. Mr. Schlemmer said that his office is the one that actually installs the street signs.  

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that
Bob Hardy, Information Technology Director, would like to have their approval to upgrade the phone switches. Mr. Lintecum said that this would require $40,000 that is in the budget.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the $40,000 to upgrade the phone switches for the County.

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that they have received the Financial Achievement Award once again.

CONSENT AGENDA

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to adopt the Consent Agenda for the two scheduled public hearings that will be held on April 17, 2006 and the following two resolutions.

Resolution - Declaring the Month of April as Spring Roadway Clean Up in Louisa County

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted declaring April 2006 as Clean Up Louisa County Month where the Board of Supervisors appreciates and commends the citizens, business, and churches of Louisa County for their volunteer work, unselfish devotion, and efforts to promote Louisas pride as a clean community.

Resolution - Supplemental Appropriation for State and Federal Revenue Received for the Department of Social Services

        On the motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving a supplemental appropriation of $162,907 for state funds and $216,515 for federal funds received for the Department of Social Services.  

APPROVAL OF BILLS

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Messrs Barnes and Gentry abstaining from reimbursement checks pertaining to them, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the first half of March 2006 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $379,982.08.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Purcell said that under their Committee Reports on page 300, he would like to have it noted that he did not say that he was pleased with the two designs that the architect came up with, but that he was pleased that they were able to come up with designs to meet the Boards demands.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of March 3, 2006 as amended.

DINNER BREAK

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Harper, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess for dinner at 6:34 p.m.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 6:59 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZ15-05 - Donald R. and Karen Raybuck

Mr. Coffey summarized the request as being for the rezoning of approximately 33.65 acres from Agricultural (A-1) to Agricultural (A-2). Mr. Coffey said that the property is located on the west side of Route 601 (Bumpass Road), approximately .25 mile north of Route 652 (Kentucky Springs Road) and is in the Jackson Magisterial and Voting Districts. The Comprehensive Plan of 2001 designates this area of Louisa as agricultural. Mr. Coffey said that the Development Review Committee met on January 25, 2006 to review the application and voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 9, 2006 and voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board. Mr. Coffey said that the request appears to be compatible with the area land use and zoning patterns, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of agricultural, and does not appear to represent spot zoning.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.

Jim Lillie, Attorney at Law, Applicants Representative, said that he has nothing to add to the staff report, but he would be more than happy to entertain any questions that the Board might have.

Eddie Gill, Jackson District, informed the Board that he had not heard about this request until he received the notification for this public hearing. Mr. Gill said that he owns 38 acres that adjoin this property. Mr. Gill questioned what the purpose was to have the parcel rezoned from A-1 to A-2.

Mr. Lillie explained that the applicant has requested this rezoning because a division is not allowed in A-1 zoning, which is allowed by A-2 zoning. Mr. Lillie said that this would allow the applicant to further divide that parcel into residential building sites. Mr. Lillie said that the applicant has proffered a maximum of ten lots.

Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.

The Board discussed this topic with Chairman Barnes asking Mr. Coffey if the adjoining property owners were notified of all scheduled meetings.

Mr. Coffey confirmed that Mr. Gill was listed as an adjoining property owner and should have received notification identifying all of the dates for the various meetings. Mr. Coffey said that he would review his file to verify if Mr. Gill received the certified notification. Mr. Coffey said that the applicant offered two proffers with this request that states that the property would be used for residential building lots with the maximum number of lots being ten, with a main road going in to access nine out of the ten lots and the tenth lot being accessed by an existing state road.    

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the rezoning request of approximately 33.65 acres from Agricultural (A-1) to Agricultural (A-2) identified as tax map parcel 63-60 in the Jackson Magisterial and Voting Districts along with the two proffers that the applicant submitted.  

REZ16-05 - CHS Land Trust

Mr. Coffey summarized the request as being for the rezoning of approximately 4.07 acres from Agricultural (a-2) and Light Commercial (C-1) to Residential General (R-2) along with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for multi-family residential construction. Mr. Coffey said that the property is located on the west side of Route 15/33 (James Madison Highway), at the intersection of Route 860 (Klockner Road) and is in the Green Springs Magisterial and Voting Districts. Mr. Coffey said that the 2001 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the County as community service bordering mixed use with the Gordonsville Designated Growth area. He said that mix use areas in the Comprehensive Plan are partially described as containing residential uses at varying densities interspersed with or adjacent to retail, office, or other business/industry uses. Mr. Coffey said that there are five proffers that have been included with this request that were submitted by the applicant to have 3 acres of common area green space, a buffered area on the side property line, guarantee of 10% affordable housing, owner-occupied only covenants, and specific architectural features. Mr. Coffey said that the Development Review Committee held a meeting on January 25, 2006, where they voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval with the submitted proffers to the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 9, 2006, where they voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board for the rezoning request and the CUP along with the acceptance of the proffers and six conditions. Mr. Coffey said that this request appears to be compatible with land use and zoning pattern consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this areas designated growth area. Mr. Coffey identified the six recommended conditions that were set forth by the Planning Commission for the CUP.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that if he understood this correctly, there is a total of 4.07 total acres with 3 acres being dedicated to open space. Mr. Wright questioned if the proposed forty-four townhomes would be located on 1.07 acres. Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Coffey what their definition of affordable housing was.

Mr. Coffey confirmed that the forty-four townhomes would be constructed on 1.07 acres. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission had asked about this and the applicants architect verified the math. Mr. Coffey replied that affordable housing by their definition is a home that is $200,00 or below.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.

Joe Kerley, Applicant, said that he has nothing to add to the staff report, but he would be more than happy to entertain any questions that the Board might have.

Cary Branham, Green Springs District, informed the Board that he is opposed to this request due to several concerns. Mr. Branham commented that he is amazed that they would be able to get 44 townhomes on 1.07 acres and still have 3 acres of open space with a retention pond. Mr. Branham pointed out that this is a dangerous intersection since Route 860 is being used as a bypass to Gordonsville. Mr. Branham said that he understands that this project would only be accessed off of Route 860 with dual turning lanes, which he feels will create a dangerous situation in this area. Mr. Branham stated that the amount of units for the size of the property is too much. Mr. Branham said that he is concerned about the runoff from the paved parking area and the impact that it would have on his land. In closing, Mr. Branham said that he believes that this is the wrong project for this particular piece of land.

Brian Smith, Applicants Engineer, explained to the Board that the common area of three acres of open space includes the parking. Mr. Smith said that the townhomes would be constructed on 1.07 acres and the remaining land would consist of the paved area, grass, and the storm water retention pond. Mr. Smith said that one of the item Mr. Branham mentioned was the intersection, which the Red Rooster currently has two entrances off of Route 33 and one off of Klockner Road along with one entrance for the residents off of Route 33. Mr. Smith said that out of these four entrances, three of these would be closed and one entrance would remain open and lined up with Klockner Road. Mr. Smith stated that after reviewing the plans with VDOT, they requested that the applicant add a right turn and left turn lane to enter into the subdivision. Mr. Smith said that the question of runoff came up, which this project is somewhat of a fortress, where the buildings would be located on the exterior and the parking would be located on the interior that would have curb and gutters to direct the storm water into the retention pond. Mr. Smith explained that the retention pond would serve two purposes of slowing the release of the water down to predevelopment rates in accordance with state code and provide an area for them to plant BMP plants to absorb any of the pollutants that might come onto the surface.

Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Wright asked for further clarification if the three acres were to include the parking area, would this meet their definition of common green area. Mr. Wright asked if this would create a problem if they were to approve the request with the way that it is worded.

Mr. Coffey replied that it certainly is not considered green space. Mr. Coffey said that when they were discussing this project, they were discussing affordable housing and proffering architectural façade features. Mr. Coffey said that the proffer came in as worded, which he did not recommend a change. Mr. Coffey said that this is a broad interpretation of open space. Mr. Coffey said that he does not foresee this being a problem in terms of what they mean, but he would recommend that they remove the green space and just leave it as common area; however, it could not be modified at this point. Mr. Coffey explained that this is something that the applicant proffered and is a mute point since it was not the focus of this project.  

Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Harper questioned whether Mr. Coffey saw this as a compromise of what they intended when they refer to green space. Mr. Havasy commented that he has had the opportunity to follow this since its inception since he was on the Planning Commission. Mr. Havasy said that one of the items that he liked about this request was the applicants proffer of committing to 10% of affordable housing with the other units being almost affordable housing. Mr. Havasy said that this is a perfect fit when you dont have to consider the well and septic systems along with the price of the land; therefore, he feels that this is a perfect fit for the area. Chairman Barnes said that he was going to abstain due to his professional relationship with the Engineer.

Mr. Coffey replied that the site plan that was proffered showed specific open space and buffers, which is what he was focusing on.  

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Barnes abstaining, a resolution was adopted approving the rezoning request of approximately 4.07 acres from Agricultural (A-2) and Light Commercial (C-1) to Residential (R-2) and the issuance of a CUP to construct a multi-family residential neighborhood identified as tax map parcels 9C-(1)-A and B in the Green Springs Magisterial and Voting Districts along with the acceptance of the five (5) proffers submitted by the applicant and the six conditions identified on Resolution number RES06.049 that is on file in the County Administrators office.

CUP09-05 - Robert and Beverly Bean

Mr. Coffey summarized the request to be for the issuance of a CUP Home Occupation Class B, for the purpose of operation of a metal and woodworking shop. Mr. Coffey said that the property is located on the west side of Route 604 (Roundabout Road), north of the intersection of Route 640 (West Old Mountain Road) and is in the Louisa Magisterial District and the Patrick Henry Voting District. Mr. Coffey said that no one was present at the neighborhood meeting that was held on January 11, 2006. Mr. Coffey said that the Development Review Committee met on January 25, 2006 where they voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission with eight conditions. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission held their public hearing on February 9, 2006. He said that it was the census of the commission to recommend to the Board that the fee be reimbursed to the applicant particularly since the amendments to the ordinance have been proposed. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board. Mr. Coffey said that it appears that the request would be compatible with the neighborhood as a home occupation. Mr. Coffey said that there would not be any additional traffic on site and from a visual aspect; it wouldnt appear to be anything more than residential garage as constructed. Mr. Coffey said that staff suggests that the eight conditions and any others that the Board deems appropriate be included in the CUP.

Chairman Barnes explained to the Board that this is the one that they had a lengthy discussion about the fees, since they are rather extravagant for individuals who are trying to start a small business. Chairman Barnes asked if this issue has been addressed.

Mr. Coffey explained that the Planning Commission through the Long Range Committee began working last year on uses and definitions, which resulted with them revising Home Occupation Class A and B as part of their work. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission has scheduled their public hearings for April 13, 2006 and for the Board on April 17, 2006. Mr. Coffey said that if these amendments were adopted by the Board at this time, then these type of use would be considered by right, where under the current ordinance, it requires the applicant to have a CUP because it uses an accessory structure.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. With no one wishing to speak, Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.

The Board discussed this topic with Chairman Barnes saying that he has always been an advocate of small business people. Chairman Barnes said that he fully understands what their intent was when they implemented the ordinance, but he feels that the fee is large for a small business owner to pay. Chairman Barnes passed the gavel to Vice-Chairman Gentry to allow him to make the motion. Mr. Purcell seconded the motion. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that he would like to make a comment because he thinks that in the application it also refers to VDOTs approval, but with this being a residential parcel, VDOT would not be involved with requiring anything for their entrance; therefore, he would like to have that condition removed. Both Chairman Barnes and Mr. Purcell agreed to amend their motion and second to remove the VDOT requirement.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the issuance of a CUP Home Occupation Class B for the establishment and operation of a metal and woodworking shop that would be located on Tax Map Parcel 69-(13)-1 in the Louisa Magisterial and Patrick Henry Voting District with the inclusion of seven conditions as outlined in Resolution number RES06.050 that is on file in the County Administrators office.

Chairman Barnes said that he would like to make the motion to remove the application fee associated with this CUP. Mr. Purcell seconded the motion. Mr. Harper said that he understood the amendments to the ordinance were forthcoming, but he doesnt agree with waiving just this one if they have not done it for others. Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Coffey to research how many applications were processed for a CUP Home Occupation Class A and B and report back to the Board.

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Harper voting against, the Board agreed to reimburse the applicant, Robert and Beverly Bean, for the application fee in the amount of $635.00.

Vice-Chairman Gentry returned the gavel to Chairman Barnes.

CUP10-05 - Quarles Petroleum

Mr. Coffey summarized the request as being for an amendment to their original CUP to remove condition number three that required fencing. Mr. Coffey said that the Development Review Committee recommended forwarding approval to the Planning Commission to remove the condition all together. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board. Mr. Coffey said that this property is located in the Green Springs Magisterial District and the Patrick Henry Voting District. Mr. Coffey said that the application is to simply amend the conditions to remove number three in its entirety.

The Board briefly discussed this topic with Mr. Wright asking what type of fence they were requiring.

Mr. Coffey said that the applicant would like to install a three rail fence instead of the chain link fence that was recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission is recommending to the Board that there be no fence requirement. Mr. Coffey said that the fencing was only going to be on three sides to delineate the leased portion of the property.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hear at 7:39 p.m.

Mary Johnson, Belle Surveys, Applicants Representative, explained to the Board that the reason why the entire recommendation was removed from having any fencing at all was due to potential future use that might require more security rather than having a three rail fence. Mrs. Johnson said that in order to allow this flexibility, the Design Review Committee felt that if they removed the requirement, it would allow the applicant to have full pleasure of what they would like to do.

Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion. Chairman Barnes turned the gavel over to Vice-Chairman Gentry to allow him to make the motion.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the amendment to condition number three of CUP05-05 to remove the fencing requirement in its entirety as identified on CUP10-05, for a portion of Tax Map Parcel 51-(1)-7, located in the Green Springs Magisterial and Patrick Henry Voting District with the inclusion of eight conditions as outlined in Resolution number RES06.051 that is on file in the County Administrators office.

Vice-Chairman Gentry turned the gavel back over to Chairman Barnes.

CUP11-05 - Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (REC)

Mr. Coffey summarized the request to be for the issuance of a CUP for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 300 self supporting communications tower with associated equipment. Mr. Coffey said that the property is located on the east side of Route 33, south of Route 612 (Halls Store Road), north of Route 657 (Apple Grove Road) and is in the Cuckoo Magisterial and Voting Districts. He said that the request is for a 300 tower, 12,000 sq. ft of office warehouse space, covered parking facility, and a graveled storage area. Mr. Coffey said that there were four individuals present other than the applicant that attended the Neighborhood Meeting held on January 11, 2006 where they questioned the type of lighting requirements for the white strobe light during the day and red strobe at night, why they required a 300 tower to meet RECs needs, type of tower, emergency service need, the provision of broadband service, and numerous other conditions outlined in the staffs report. Mr. Coffey said that the Development Review Committee met on January 25, 2006 where they voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission with thirteen conditions listed and an additional fourteenth condition that required all lighting to be that of dark sky lighting for ground facilities. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission held their public hearing on February 9, 2006 where they agreed that the benefits of the tower of this height and location outweighed any negatives and voted 6-0 to for a recommendation of approval to the Board with the fourteen conditions.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.

Robert Ellis, REC Vice President, informed the Board that REC currently serves 10,598 homes and businesses in Louisa County with an additional fifty-three homes that were recently added within the last forty days. Mr. Ellis said that their service territory is approximately 60% of the Countys landmass that is primarily in the eastern half. Mr. Ellis stated that they are experiencing significant growth in Louisa County, which they expect to continue with the number of undeveloped lots. Mr. Ellis explained that REC currently serves Louisa County from their Bowling Green District Office in Caroline County, Virginia. Mr. Ellis said that their response time takes anywhere from an hour to one and a half hours for their large service buckets and other trucks to travel to Louisa County. Mr. Ellis stated that one of RECs core values is service, which they would like to improve the level of service and response to the citizens of Louisa. Mr. Ellis explained to the Board that in 1993, REC anticipated this need and purchased the twenty-five acre site on Route 33 in order for them to build a service facility. Mr. Ellis said that the property was zoned industrial at this time, which they now feel is the appropriate time for them to follow through with their plan. Mr. Ellis said that in addition to the growth that has occurred throughout their service territory, their voice communications and data systems have changed as well. Mr. Ellis said that today, they find themselves in a wireless world of high-speed electronic data and with a customer base that expects faster and better service. He said that they also find themselves in an environment that requires improved business continuity plans and the ability to directly control the technology and the facilities that are needed to perform the essential voice communications and electronic data transmissions to their trucks and facilities. Mr. Ellis said that their expert voice and data consultants have determined that they need a 300 tower to provide the coverage needed for their truck radio systems and their line of sight high-speed microwave data transmission requirements. He said that they had evaluated other towers in the County and found that none of the other towers met their specific needs for elevations, design efficiency, and asset control. Mr. Ellis said that the proposed microwave system to be located on their tower would also provide REC with a looped ring data system, where by if any one link were to go down, their data could flow to all four of their service centers through the loop. He explained that they currently only have a radio system. Mr. Ellis said that business continuity and systems reliability are critical today in providing essential electric service. Mr. Ellis said that there are several additional direct benefits to be derived from their tower for Louisa citizens that include high interest and support for the project from the Louisa County Emergency Services Department, as radio coverage in the eastern end of the County can be difficult at times. Mr. Ellis said that the Emergency Services Department intends on co-locating a radio repeater station on this tower. Mr. Ellis said that this tower would also provide space for up to three cellular co-locaters. Mr. Ellis said that they are also working on bringing wireless broadband Internet service to Louisa County, which this tower would serve as a central hub for this technology. Mr. Ellis said that this would provide a significant tool to enhance economic development. In closing, he said that with regard to the fourteen conditions that Mr. Coffey referenced in the staff report, he assured the Board that they accept and would abide by all of these conditions.

Bruce Stone, Cuckoo District, informed the Board that he resides about 100 yards from this proposed tower. Mr. Stone said that he is here this evening to support the request. Mr. Stone said that he believes that this tower would be in the best interest of the citizens of the area. Mr. Stone said that he would like to go on record of saying that the AT&T Tower that is located across the street from this proposed site is a dead tower, which he would like to see it done away with.

Frank Boxley, Jackson District, informed the Board that he supports this project and feels that it would be greatly beneficial in the long run and urged them to support it.

Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright commenting that he has had several lengthy conversations with Ricky Bywaters, Fire Association President, Mr. Boxley, and Marty Hart, Holly Grove Fire Chief. Mr. Wright said that in their conversations, they talked about the severe problems that Holly Grove has experienced with radio communications. Mr. Wright said that he feels that this tower would be beneficial to their area. Mr. Wright said that he received a call from Dan Byers saying that his phone call kept fading in and out, which he finally lost him, but Mr. Byers had called back when he asked him if he were driving on Route 33 in Louisa County, which Mr. Byers confirmed. Mr. Wright said that it has been his experience in the past that Route 33 is probably one of the worst roads that Louisa County has as far as maintaining consistent transmission for cell phones. Mr. Purcell said that he would like to thank REC for providing the high speed Internet access capability for future reference because more and more people are taking courses on line that requires these connections. Mr. Havasy said that he agrees with Mr. Purcell and that high speed Internet access is a way of the future. Mr. Havasy said that he understands that a lot of people do not like to look at towers, but in the future, they are going to be something you see, but you really dont, much like telephone poles. Mr. Havasy pointed out that if they want to have economic growth in the County, then it would be hard to justify to a CEO that he has to go outside on his porch to get a connection on his cell phone. Mr. Havasy said that on top of this, he feels that it would be beneficial to the customers that they serve providing a faster response time during emergency operations. Chairman Barnes said that this is certainly something that is needed, but he still would like to see a map identifying all of the towers and the coverage areas. Mr. Gentry said that he would like to make a few comments regarding this proposed request. Mr. Gentry said that he has been on the phone all day regarding this tower, which none of the individuals that he spoke with was in favor of it. Mr. Gentry said that his concern, just as he had for the last proposed tower, is that the applicant makes a good presentation and there is obviously some need for towers in the County, but he does not have an understanding of how all of this fits into a plan. Mr. Gentry said that an example of this is that REC is showing that a 300 tower would cover the entire County, but the County already has a 300 plus tower here at this building, and a 395 tower on Indian Creek Road. Mr. Gentry said that he believes that they have towers in the County to do what they are talking about doing, but he just doesnt feel that the right providers are located on these towers. Mr. Gentry said that he knows that this parcel was rezoned in 1993 for the structure, which he felt was spot zoning. Mr. Gentry said that for them to come along and put another tower up, he believes that it is just another kick in the people that are neighbors. Mr. Gentry said that he has asked why they couldnt bounce off of the Indian Creek tower to the 169 tower that is located across the street from this site, which he was told there were three reasons. Mr. Gentry said that he still remains with the question of the overall picture for the towers in the County; therefore, he does not feel comfortable with the aspect that they may or may not need equipment on the tower. Mr. Gentry said that he has to consider the fact that several of the constituents that live in this area are opposed to the tower. Mr. Gentry said that the tower on Indian Creek Road is at a higher elevation; therefore, he would propose that REC look for an area next to that tower to buy. Mr. Gentry made the motion to deny this request. With no one seconding the motion, the motion failed. Mr. Harper said that under condition number six, one of his conversations has been that it would be a red strobe light at night and a white strobe light during the day, which this condition states that it would conform to the FAA. Mr. Wright made the motion to approve the request. Mr. Jennings seconded the motion. Mr. Harper said that if the FAA were to change their guidelines, he would like to have the opportunity to review this; therefore, he would like to have condition number six reflect the specific colors of lighting. Mr. Wright asked if this would meet the FAA requirements.

Mr. Coffey replied that these are the current requirements for the FAA to have white strobe lighting during the daytime and red strobe lighting at night.

Mr. Wright and Mr. Jennings both agreed to amend their motion and second to include the specific verbiage to have white strobe lighting during the day and red strobe lighting during the night.            

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Gentry voting against, a resolution was adopted approving the issuance of a CUP for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 300 self supporting communications tower and associated equipment and buildings that would be located on Tax Map Parcel 73-24 in the Cuckoo Magisterial and Voting Districts with the inclusion of fourteen conditions as outlined in Resolution number RES06.052 that is on file in the County Administrators office that includes the amendment to condition number six.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Lintecum referred to the letter from Rudy Butler, VACO President, which was provided to the Board today asking communities throughout Virginia to support the Senate and Governors version of the Transportation Bill.

Mr. Lintecum referred to the petition that was included in their Board packet from the residents that live on Rolling Path Road (Route 698) informing them that they do not want to be designated a Rural Rustic Road.

The Board discussed this topic briefly, with Mr. Wright saying that this road is in his district. Mr. Wright said that he has been working on this for quite some time and had asked for them to forward the petition to him, which he did not receive. Mr. Wright stated that they forwarded a copy to the County Administrator and VDOT. Mr. Wright said that he had explained to them that if they were to get the majority of the residents to sign a petition on it, then he would request for it to be removed.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to notify VDOT to remove Route 698 (Rolling Path Road) from their Rural Rustic Program.

Mr. Lintecum referred to the letter that he has enclosed in their packet that he received from
Milton Thacker, VDOT Resident Administrator, informing them that he would be on assignment for the next several months; therefore, Jamie Glass would be acting as the Resident Administrator.

Mr. Lintecum referred to the notice that is enclosed in their packet regarding the with draw time period for the James River intake.

LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Morgan did not discuss any legal correspondence with the Board.

RECESS

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the March 20, 2006 meeting at 8:04 p.m. until March 29, 2006 for their scheduled budget work session that will be held in the library at the Trevilians Elementary School beginning at 6:00 p.m.


BY ORDER OF

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