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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
APRIL 2, 2007
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

*Fitzgerald A. Barnes arrived at 5:08 p.m. [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager and April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Wright called the April 2, 2007 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.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Lintecum stated he would like to add the Louisa County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) utility improvements evaluation and recommendation and the Zion Crossroads water line to new business.  Mr. Purcell stated he would like to add a detailed rundown for changes to the House Bill 3202 to the County Administrators Report.

Mr. Barnes arrived at 5:08 p.m.

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the April 2, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

VDOT Monthly Update- Jamie Glass, Resident Administrator, provided an update of VDOT activities, which included the following:

Maintenance:

Construction: Land Use: Traffic Engineering:

Mr. Barnes thanked Mr. Glass for being patient and working on Captain Meade Road (route 641).  

Mr. Harper thanked Mr. Glass for work completed on Seventh Street and questioned if follow up was done by VDOT to see if “Littering Is Illegal” signs improve the issue.  Mr. Glass stated VDOT doesnt do follow up because they rely on the residents who request the signs to observe the area.  Mr. Harper added he would like to get follow up because more signs can be installed if they work.  

Mr. Purcell said Mr. Glass stated Walnut Woods Avenue (route 820) is on hold indefinitely until its decided who will pay for the relocation of the utilities that are in the way because VDOT cannot pay for that type of work and questioned if Mr. Glass could email him the dollar amount necessary for the relocation of the utilities.  

Mr. Purcell stated he has had complaints about speed in front of B & R Market on Oakland Road (route 613) and questioned if the Board has asked for a speed study to be completed.  Mr. Glass stated a speed study has been completed and “Curve Warning” signs are going to be approved and installed as soon as the official paperwork is received.  

Mr. Havasy questioned if Mr. Glass could look into paving intersections in the Historic District because he thinks that would be safer.  

Mr. Wright questioned if Mr. Glass, Mr. Purcell and Mr. Morgan, County Attorney, could meet with the power company for Walnut Woods Avenue (route 820) to get the issue resolved.  Mr. Wright questioned if Mr. Lintecum and Mr. Glass had set a date for the VDOT public hearing.  Amanda Lloyd, Administration Office Manager, stated the public hearing is scheduled for the second meeting in May.

Resolution - Recognizing Mr. and Mrs. Carl Perkins for their service to the citizens of the Patrick Henry District

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to present a resolution recognizing Mr. and Mrs. Carl Perkins for their service to the citizens of the Patrick Henry District at the regular meeting to be held on April 16, 2007.

NEW BUSINESS

Discussion - Staffing Audit of the Sheriffs Department

Mr. McLeod stated at the March 14 budget workshop, the Board advised they were interested in having a staffing audit conducted on the Sheriffs Department with concentration in the court services, criminal investigation and road divisions.  Mr. McLeod stated several years ago, the Louisa Police Department conducted a staffing audit through Public Safety Solution, which cost $8,250 and in 2005, the County had Robinson, Farmer and Cox conduct a staffing audit, which totaled $39,700.  Mr. McLeod stated after conferring with Major Lowe, a staffing audit for the Sheriffs Office is expected to come in much less than the Countys cost, however, slightly higher than the cost of the towns study.  Mr. McLeod stated he would like to ask for permission to go out for an informal request for proposal with a budget not to exceed $20,000, which will give room to negotiate and get a quality assessment.

Mr. Barnes stated he wants to make sure that new deputies and increased staff are ground troops for patrolling highways rather deputies for the Courts.  Mr. Barnes questioned if the State Code allows a certain number of deputies for the Courts.  Sheriff Fortune stated the Sheriff and the Courts work together to provide enough security for the Courts.  Sheriff Fortune added the Provision in the State Code says the number of deputies within the Courts is decided between the Sheriff and the Judge.  

Mr. Gentry stated he is concerned about needing additional deputies to patrol roads for the additional growth predicted for the County.  Mr. Gentry stated he doesnt remember suggesting hiring a staffing auditor and said he would be satisfied if the Sheriff could make a determination of the number of deputies needed instead of conducting an elaborate study.  Sheriff Fortune suggested the Board form a committee within the Sheriffs Department to help make the determination.  

Mr. Wright questioned if the Sheriffs Department was the only Elected Official Department not included in the audit conducted for Administration.  Mr. McLeod stated only the Commissioner of Revenue and the Treasurers Department was included.  

Mr. Havasy stated he would like to see new staffing as ground troops to patrol growth areas such as Zion Crossroads.  Sheriff Fortune stated two deputies would be graduating from the Academy this month that will be assigned as a ground troop.  Sheriff Fortune added there is also one part-time deputy graduating this month from the Jail School for court security.  

Mr. Harper stated how well the staffing audit is completed is based on the type of consultant that is chosen.  Mr. Harper added he thinks if the study is going to be completed, it should be done after the accreditation study to see if more input is still needed.  

Mr. Wright stated he is concerned if the Board should be telling an Elected Official how many employees the Department should have.  Mr. Wright questioned what the recommendation is from County Administration.  Mr. McLeod stated he thinks it is better to hire an outside consultant because the Department needs to make sure they have enough deputies to patrol streets with growth throughout the County.  Mr. McLeod noted he thinks the staffing audit will cost less than $20,000.  

Mr. Wright stated if the Board approved the staffing audit, the Department would be allowed to advertise an informal RFP and then bring back to the Board the consultants for the selection

Mr. Barnes stated it is too late for the staffing audit to be approved for this years budget.  Mr. Gentry said he is concerned if the Department will have enough deputies for the growth in the County if the Board waits another year to make a decision.  Mr. Havasy stated he would like to know the Sheriffs opinion of when the staffing audit should be completed.  Sheriff Fortune stated he thinks the accreditation program will give input for staffing and said he will leave it up to the Board for the decision.

Mr. Purcell said the letter in the Board packet stated the Sheriffs Office does not operate in a vacuum and the methodology that the consultant uses will need to be examined.  Mr. Purcell said the letter also stated the percentage of County residents getting government assistance and the percentage living below the poverty level need to be examined in addition to crime rates, types of crimes and trends.  Mr. Purcell stated he assumes all of the above issues will be examined when the RFP is advertised.  Mr. Harper stated yes.  

M
r. Barnes questioned if Sheriff Fortune would send a chart to the Board showing how many deputies are readily available for each shift because citizens question how many deputies are available during certain times.  Sheriff Fortune stated there are about three to five deputies available at all times depending on their court cases.  Mr. Wright questioned if Sheriff Fortune could put that in writing and send it to the Board.  Mr. Gentry questioned if the Department had enough deputies through next year based on the budget submitted.  Sheriff Fortune stated due to growth, the Department has enough deputies as of now, but maybe not for next year.

        On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for the Finance Department to gather information on possible consultants that will be available to do a staffing audit and how much an audit will cost but not to put out an IFB until the Sheriffs Department has finished the accreditation program.  

Discussion/Consideration - Louisa County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) Utility Improvements Evaluation and Recommendations

Mr. Bar Delk stated the Louisa County Water Authority received three bids for the utility improvements.  Mr. Delk stated Dewberry and Davis, Inc. and the Economic Development Department completed a set of plans for the
Library Tract.  Mr. Delk stated the water and sewer lines adjacent to the road should be put in prior to pavement being put down.  Mr. Delk stated the Water Authority recommends that a contract be awarded to R. R. Snipes Construction Co., Inc. in the bid amount of $136,704.  Mr. Delk added the other two bids were for $157,775 and $152,990.  

Mr. Gentry questioned if the IDA had made a recommendation.  Mr. Lintecum stated Bob Gibson, Director of Economic Development, has been working with the IDA to keep them posted of what is going on.  Mr. Barnes stated the IDA is supportive of the project.  Mr. Lintecum said the design of the infrastructure was taken to the IDA for approval.  Mr. Purcell stated according to the bids submitted, there is a cost difference of $17 for the furnishing and installation of the backfill twelve inch water line and questioned if R. R. Snipes Construction could complete that for $33.  Mr. Delk stated R. R. Snipes was looking for work and said $33 is a responsible bid.  Mr. Delk added R. R. Snipes has completed work previously for the Water Authority and he is satisfied they can perform a quality job.


On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to award a contract to R. R. Snipes Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $136,704 for water improvements at Library Tract.

Discussion/Consideration - 12” Water Line at Zion Crossroads

Mr. Delk stated Virginia Community Bank and Real Estate III are building facilities in Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Delk said when the Water Authority completed work South of Interstate 64, they extended a twelve inch water line under James Madison Highway (route 15) and a sewer line on the other side of the road from the property.  Mr. Delk stated he had requests from Virginia Community Bank and Real Estate III to extend the lines to their property or for them to come down to the manhole, located across the road.  Mr. Delk stated the Water Authority already had a master plan to run lines up Three Notch Road (route 250).  Mr. Delk said rather than have the bank and the real estate office run lines 400 to 500 feet down the road, he negotiated to have them pay to run ten inch duct lines and sewer lines up VDOTs right of way and put a new manhole on their property and to give the Water Authority right of way to proceed through their property.  Mr. Delk stated the County would pay to run the water line if the facilities paid to run the sewer line.  

Mr. Delk stated A. G. Dillard, Inc. has already completed the sewer lines and he received a price quote of $32,300 from them for the water lines.  Mr. Delk compared the price quote from A. G. Dillard, Inc. and R. R. Snipes Construction Co., Inc. and stated both quotes equal the same amount.   Mr. Delk stated he recommends awarding the contract to A. G. Dillard to keep only one contractor at the site.  

Mr. Gentry stated the master plan is on the east side of James Madison Highway (route 15) and questioned why wouldnt the Water Authority require the two establishments to run water and sewer lines to the east property line at their cost.  Mr. Delk stated it would be required at their cost to run both lines if the water line was only going to serve them.  Mr. Delk stated he is getting a right of way through their property and the lines are being sized as a main size to serve places beyond them.  Mr. Gentry questioned if the Board had the authority to require for the facilities to pay for both lines.  Mr. Delk stated he doesnt know if the facilities can be made to install a line big enough to serve other places.  Mr. Purcell stated the Water Authority doesnt have authority to require the facilities to give them the right of way for future properties.  Mr. Barnes stated the easement is worth the whole project by itself. Mr. Gentry questioned if their easement goes to the east property line.  Mr. Delk stated the easements go all the way through the property.
 

        
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to award a contract to A. G. Dillard, Inc. in the amount of $32,300 for water improvements at Zion Crossroads.  

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Havasy stated judges have to approve the prospects of picking trash up off of the roads and currently the Clean Community Commission are having problems with the judges approving this.  Mr. Harper questioned if the Commission is dealing directly with the judges.  Mr. Havasy stated Major Lowe had been talking with the judges.  Mr. Harper stated he thinks the Commission should deal directly with the judges because he would also like to get the prisoners back on the road as well.  Mr. Harper stated the Clean Community Commission should meet with the judges about the utilization of trustees to pick up trash as well as the assign-a-highway program.  

Mr. Gentry stated the Volunteers of Louisa are working on a Volunteer Spirit Award to recognize volunteers.  Mr. Gentry stated he would like for everyone on the Board to nominate someone for this award by April 13.  

Mr. Gentry stated the Public Works Committee had a meeting to look at the Landfill contract and added the Committee will be looking at tipping fees as well.  Mr. Gentry noted he would be reporting back to the Board on those topics at a later time.

Mr. Barnes stated Mr. Havasy, Mr. Lintecum, Mr. McLeod and himself met with the Virginia Department of Transportation of Zion Crossroads Economic Committee to look at future traffic concerns.  Mr. Barnes stated they plan to meet again with the transportation Board of Representatives to see what types of funding are available.  

Mr. Jennings stated the Affordable Housing Committee met last Wednesday and said the Committee is off to a good start and all members have been assigned.  Mr. Jennings said the Committees main point is allowing the public to know the County has an Affordable Housing Committee.  Mr. Jennings said the Committee recognizes the need for affordable housing and thinks program is needed and will work. Mr. Jennings said this program is for affordable housing as well as affordable rental assistance and homeownership.  

Mr. Harper questioned if affordable housing is a rental program.  Mr. Barnes stated the program is to make sure market rental property is available because rental is a part of affordable housing.  Mr. Harper questioned rental in respect as a renter or the property owner.  Mr. Coffey stated the Committee is attacking affordable housing as different angles, such as for down payment assistance, homeownership and rental.  Mr. Coffey stated the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation issues section eight vouchers and the property owner who use that get an incentive of market rates for the unit because the voucher pays the difference from what the renter can afford and what the unit is going for.  Mr. Coffey added the Committee doesnt currently have any additional subsidies for rental.
 

BOARD APPOINTMENT

Mr. Harper stated Robert Stilley could no longer serve on the Affordable Housing Committee so he would like to appoint Lynda Martin to take his place.  Mr. Purcell stated he is still searching for an appointee for the vacancy for the Louisa District.  Mr. Wright stated the Board needs to look at appointing people to the Board of Building Appeals at the next regular meeting.  Mr. Harper questioned if the makeup of the Board of Building Appeals is correct.  Ms. Lloyd stated the positions the Board requires are an architect/engineer, a property manager and a builder.  Ms. Lloyd stated currently all members are contractors, which leaves a vacancy for an architect/engineer and a property manager.  Mr. Jennings stated Natalie Dymacek does not want to be reappointed to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA).
 

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Ms. Lynda Martin to the Affordable Housing Committee.  

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT

Mr. Lintecum stated the Transportation Bill established transportation areas for certain policies and abilities to raise money in Northern Virginia and the Tidewater area.  Mr. Lintecum stated the Bill included about seventy-five counties who werent included in the original legislation.  Mr. Lintecum said the Bill requires the counties to designate urban growth areas.  Mr. Lintecum stated Louisas Comprehensive Plan identifies urban growth areas.  Mr. Lintecum stated the Bill allows Louisa to have impact fees in those areas.  Mr. Lintecum said the Bill defines what the impact fees can be used for.  Mr. Lintecum said since Louisa County is within the Richmond SMA (Standard Metropolitan Area), impact fees can only be used for road improvement.  Mr. Lintecum added the County can accept proffers in addition to impact fees, but credit has to be given to the proffers.  Mr. Purcell questioned if the impact fees have to be tied specifically to road improvement.  Mr. Lintecum stated the Planning Commission is working on a transportation plan.  Mr. Havasy questioned if impact fees are tied to developments only in subdivisions or all developments.  Mr. Lintecum stated any developments within urban growth areas.  Mr. Gentry questioned if the impact fees include roads in secondary systems.  Mr. Lintecum stated if the roads are included in an urban growth area.

Mr. Wright stated the School Board advertised that the joint budget workshop was going to be held in the School Board Administration Office and said he wanted to clarify that the meeting is going to be held in the Louisa County Office Building Extension Meeting Room.  

CONSENT ITEMS

Resolution - Declaring April 2007 as Clean Up Louisa County month

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution declaring April 2007 as Clean Up Louisa County month.

Resolution - Declaring the week of April 15-21, 2007 as National Library Week

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution declaring the week of April 15-21, 2007 as National Library Week.

Resolution - Recognizing National Volunteer Week

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing National Volunteer Week.

Resolution - Declaring April as Fair Housing Month

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution declaring April as Fair Housing Month.

Resolution - Declaring April 19-21, 2007 as Knights of Columbus KOVAR Days in Louisa County

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution declaring April 19-21, 2007 as Knights of Columbus KOVAR Days in Louisa County.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of March 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $355,252.97.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell abstaining for being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, the Board adopted the minutes of the March 14, 2007 budget workshop.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the March 19, 2007 meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

To amend the Louisa County Code to combine Patrick Henry I and Patrick Henry II voting precincts and establish a central polling place at Galilee Baptist Church located at 3598 Three Notch Road, Louisa, Virginia 23093.

Mr. Patrick Morgan, County Attorney, stated the two voting precincts would be combined into one central polling place at Galilee Baptist Church located at 3598 Three Notch Road, Louisa, Virginia.

Mr. Purcell questioned what the opinion was of the Electoral Board.  Mr. Morgan stated members of the Electoral Board are here to answer questions during the public hearing.

Mr. Harvey Fleshman, Patrick Henry District, stated the Galilee Baptist Church is about half a mile from the County line and about nine miles to the North side of the Patrick Henry District.  Mr. Fleshman questioned what the criteria are for choosing the central location for the polling place and if there was any effort made to find a place more centrally located within the two Patrick Henry Districts.  Mr. Fleshman stated Standing on the Promises Church on Waldrop Church Road (route 632), Waldrop Chapel on Waldrop Church Road (route 632) and the Small County Campground Store could be other places considered for the voting precinct.  Mr. Fleshman questioned if the precinct could be placed in a more centralized location within the district.

Mr. Barnes stated the District has grown and there have been struggles with ample parking spaces, cover for inclement weather and staff necessities at the current locations.  Mr. Barnes stated the Electoral Board contacted the Standing on the Promises Church and there were concerns with parking issue there, as well.  Mr. Barnes said the centralization of the precinct was a concern, but Courthouse Road (route 208) is a main road.  Mr. Barnes stated the first priority was to try to use the future elementary school, which is now in limbo.  Mr. Barnes stated the Electoral Board said thought that combining the two precincts would be a good idea.  Mr. Barnes said the percentage of voters in the Patrick Henry District is outstanding with the 56th District and he didnt want to do anything to along that.  

Mr. Purcell questioned if the Electoral Board is in support of the change.  Bill Martin, Chairman of the Electoral Board, said the Electoral Board was concerned with the current voting precinct because it is very small and not appropriate for staff necessities.  Mr. Martin stated his preference is to make the location be the easiest possible way to get citizens to vote.  Mr. Martin stated Galilee Baptist Church is outstanding facility and accommodates needs for the voters.  Mr. Martin said the Electoral Board understands they can give opinions on where precincts should be located, but believe they have very little influence on where the precincts are put.

Mr. Gentry questioned if the precincts would potentially be moved to the new elementary school when it is built.  Mr. Barnes said a lot of localities use schools as a voting precinct for a good opportunity for children to see the process take place and Louisa is one locality that doesnt use the schools.  Mr. Barnes stated the new elementary would be the most logical place to have the precinct.

Mr. Wright stated originally, the precinct was split to make it more accessible to the public.  Mr. Wright stated he wants the location to accommodate the voters and he is concerned about longer commutes the voters will have to make.  Mr. Barnes stated hopefully this will be a temporary move and said the District is limited as to where it can be moved. Mr. Wright added he thinks the final decision of the polling place is made by the Justice Department.  Mr. Morgan stated the Justice Department has ninety days to make a decision.  

        
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to amend the Louisa County Code to combine Patrick Henry I and Patrick Henry II voting precincts and establish a central polling place at Galilee Baptist Church located at 3598 Three Notch Road, Louisa, Virginia 23093.

Amendments to Chapter 86, Article VII, Division 5 of the Louisa County Code (Lake Anna Shoreline Use and Design Standards) to amend the fairway, lighting, and application requirements, along with other minor clarifications, as follows:
-        Section 86-455. Statement of Intent; policy guidance
-        Section 86-455.2 Use and Design Standards

The Shoreline Management Committee met in January as requested by the Board to review the use and design standards for Lake Anna shoreline development with particular regard to site plans, lighting, and travel-way widths.  The committee recommended comprehensively amending the ordinance to address these three areas as well as to clarify a number of other issues.  The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance changes at their public hearing on March 8, 2007 and recommended approval.

Mr. Cockrell stated land disturbances over 10,000 square feet along the Lake Anna waterfront require a 100 foot buffer or any other measure approved by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and water Conservation District (TJSWCD).  Mr. Cockrell stated this recommendation was made to be more flexible.  

Mr. Cockrell stated water access entrances and travel-ways into coves shall be at least thirty feet in width at navigable depth until the cove reaches a width of 90 feet or less.  Mr. Cockrell added the one-third rule should be the determining factor in any cove less than 90 feet in width.

Mr. Cockrell stated all lake structures should have two-inch minimum diameter reflectors affixed along the sides of the structure at intervals of ten feet instead of six feet.

Mr. Cockrell stated lighting is no longer required with this ordinance due to public safety concerns of the Game of Inland Fisheries.  

Mr. Cockrell stated no slips or piers are allowed for any new lot created past the day the ordinance is adopted if there is less than fifty-four linear feet of waterfront.

Mr. Cockrell stated overall, the recommendations are more lenient than they are currently.  

Mr. Purcell stated in the proposed ordinance, the word should is replaced for the word shall and questioned if the ordinance is reverting to a less restrictive policy.  Mr. Cockrell said yes.  

Mr. Havasy questioned a person cannot have a pier if they have fifty-four linear feet of waterfront.  Mr. Cockrell stated this change is for new construction only and does not apply to existing lots.    


Mr. Dick Dickens, Jackson District, stated he is the Chairman for the Lake Anna Shoreline Committee and said he is here to answer any questions that Board may have.  Mr. Dickens stated the Committee came up with recommendations to the Shoreline Management guidelines for the Boards review.  Mr. Dickens stated the Committee had two concerns with the ordinance.  Mr. Dickens said the Committee is concerned with term “storm water” being added to the ordinance because storm water controls tend to be permanent, whereas erosion controls are usually temporary until an area is re-stabilized.  Mr. Dickens added if storm water is included in the paragraph it could put an unfair burden on a property owner because it has to be maintained.

Mr. Dickens stated the Committee recommended Section II, Paragraph C, the length of a structure should generally only be enough to reach a navigable depth of five feet at the normal pool level, be deleted because that is contradictory to following sections.  Mr. Dickens stated once a depth of five feet is reached, that is as long as the dock can be.

Mr. Gentry stated there was an issue recently with the storm water and it was decided to not over design based on what the TJSWCD does.  Mr. Gentry stated five foot is a general rule for the depth of the water to take piers out to.  Mr. Gentry added he would like to approve the proposed changes the Planning Commission has recommended and review other concerns at a later time.  Mr. Gentry noted the Shoreline Management guidelines are a tweaking process and he would rather not postpone the proposed changes.  

Mr. Jennings stated the email from Mr. Dickens has merit and concerns that need to go back to the Committee.  Mr. Jennings said these are new guidelines, but he thinks some statements still need to be tweaked.  Mr. Jennings stated he has concerns about the berms and the storm water.  Mr. Jennings added many people relate storm water to permanent controls.  Mr. Jennings noted overall, he could see that the guidelines are somewhat improving.  

Mr. Harper stated Shoreline Management is an ongoing process.
 

Mr. Havasy said he is concerned about not being able to have a boat slip for less than fifty-four linear feet of waterfront.  Mr. Havasy stated people should be able to have a boat slip for the price of waterfront property.  Mr. Havasy questioned what storm water means versus erosion to the County in the application process.  Mr. Coffey said when the Committee talked about water quality, it was always talked about as permanent measures.  Mr. Coffey stated adding storm water into the text was to clarify guidelines to be storm water oriented.  Mr. Coffey added if storm water werent controlled, it would erode the land.  Mr. Coffey stated lots with less than three percent slopes dont need any erosion control.  Mr. Coffey stated storm water was added with the measures and intent for permanent measurers.  Mr. Coffey added berms were recommended because they are most economical, but there are other approved methods and berms dont have to be done.  Mr. Coffey stated the guidelines are very flexible.  Mr. Havasy questioned why the no slip rule was changed since the Board did not ask specifically to change it.  Mr. Coffey stated members from the Lake Anna Civic Association (LACA) wanted to try to discourage new development to having minimal lots.  Mr. Coffey added LACA didnt want to encourage minimal lake frontage for new subdivisions.


Mr. Purcell stated he wanted to clarify that piers arent allowed for less than fifty-four linear feet of waterfront for only new lots and not for existing lots.  Mr. Coffey said yes.

Mr. Wright stated he is concerned because storm water is more commercial development rather than residential development.  Mr. Wright stated he is also concerned with berms because the ordinance is not clear to what the TJSWCD will approve and that leaves people guessing about their options.  Mr. Wright added berms could contain water too.  Mr. Wright stated he is also concerned about three percent slopes because that isnt much of a slope.  Mr. Wright stated he thinks that all guidelines should be approved at once rather than having to keep changing the ordinance.  

Mr. Purcell said in general, this ordinance is a less restrictive document and said he recognizes it isnt perfect, but it is easy to correct and fix.
 

Mr. Gentry said he would like to make the motion to
amend Article VII. Supplementary Regulations Division 5. Lake Anna shoreline use and design regulations.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.    

PRESENTVOTE
Richad A. Havasy Yes
Allen B. Jennings Yes
Eric F. Purcell Yes
Jack T. Wright No
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper Yes

With the votes reflecting 6-1, the Board adopted a resolution to amend Article VII. Supplementary Regulations Division 5. Lake Anna shoreline use and design regulations.

REZ01-07; The Building Team MARFAC, LLC, Applicants/Owners, c/o Tom Tisdale, Manager; requests conditional rezoning of approximately 143.77 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Residential General (R-2).  The property is located on the northeast side of Route 652 (Kentucky Springs Road), approximately 0.3 miles west of Route 701 (Eastham Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcels 63-10, 63-12 and 63-14 in the Jackson Magisterial District and Jackson Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Low Density Residential within the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area.

The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as part of the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area for Low Density Residential development.

The application indicates that the purpose for the rezoning is to develop a single-family residential subdivision, with state specification roads.  The plan indicates there would be approximately 91 lots, with an average lot size of 1.27 acres, should the rezoning be approved.

The applicants submitted a list of suggested proffers.  A summary of these suggestions is as follows:

1. All utilities shall be underground
2. The entrance roadway will be 24 feet wide and the shoulders on both sides will be 6 feet in width, so as to provide better access for emergency equipment.
3. When the property is developed and the preliminary plan is submitted to the County, the owners will investigate into the possibility of obtaining an emergency access easement to the back of the development in order to alleviate any concerns of emergency equipment not being unable to access all residents. If an emergency access easement is obtained, it will be 10 feet in width with bollards.
4. A 150 natural buffer will be provided along Kentucky Springs Road (route 652)
5. At the time a plat of subdivision is submitted an easement will be attached to the submittal for subsequent recordation that will create a 25-foot vegetative buffer easement for the benefit of the property immediately adjacent to the easement.
6. That there will be a minimum of 7 acres of open space dedicated as walking trails and playground
7. If any lighting within the common areas and walking trail at night is needed, it will be of the “dark sky” variety.
8. We will accept a Virginia Power early warning siren to be located in a location mutually agreeable to the County and neighbors.
9. The owner agrees that it will provide uninterrupted access to the Kevin & Cynthia Curtis.
10. We will make a $10,000 contribution to the Louisa County Housing Foundation. This contribution will be made within 90 days after final approval of the rezoning (including the appeal deadline).
11. Restrictive covenants will provide for a POA and ARC. The following are some of the provisions:
      a. All homes will be a minimum of 2,000 sq. ft. total.
      b. Maximum height 40 above the first floor.
      c. No exposed block of T1-11 siding.
      d. Vinyl or aluminum siding must total less than 60% of exterior surface area.
      e. Vinyl siding must be textured, minimum thickness will be .38 mil.
      f. Exterior colors of earth tones or white.
      g. Roof must have a minimum of 30-year life is using shingles.
      h. A minimum of 6 primary wall planes to add architectural interest to the houses.
      i. Minimum of 6 primary roof planes with a minimum of 5/12 pitch width and 8” overhang.
      j. Each major side (must have at least 4 major sides) of the houses must have a minimum of three “architectural features,” such as doors, windows, awnings, decking, or different building material.
      k. Minimum of 300 sq. ft. of deck, porch and/or patio in addition to the required square footage.
      l. No metal awnings.
      m. All driveways must be paved, pea gravel, or constructed with some upscale or unique material no plain “gray gravel” driveways permitted.
      n. No fence higher than 4 feet.
      o. A landscape plan must be presented and approved for each home.
      p. All septic tanks inspected annually by POA and pumped as necessary by the POA.
      q. Fuel tanks must be buried or screened.

There must be valid reasons for any zoning amendment, which is substantially related to the public welfare and necessity.  It is not sufficient that an applicant merely show that there is no neighborhood objection to the requested amendment.

(a) Is the change contrary to the established land-use pattern?  

The Residential General (R-2) zoning district would allow for development that is increasingly typical around Lake Anna.  This specific area consists of predominantly large agriculturally zoned parcels and a mixture of vacant, agricultural, and residential land uses.  There are residential subdivisions in the area that are a comparable size to the proposed development.

(b) Is the change in conformance with the comprehensive plan?

Yes, the 2006 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area of Louisa County as the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area.  The subject property is designated as Low Density Residential, which supports residential zoning, such as Residential Limited (R-1) and Residential General (R-2).

(c) Would the change create an isolated district unrelated to similar districts?

No, the surrounding area is predominately zoned Agricultural (A-2), but there are properties directly to the north and northwest that are zoned Residential General (R-2).  The proposed residential zoning district supports the Countys general vision for the Lake Anna area and conforms to the existing residential development around the lake.

There were eleven people present to discuss this case at the neighborhood meeting, held on February 14, 2007.  The main comments were as follows:

The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered this application on February 28, 2007.  In spite of some concerns over traffic, noise, and ingress/egress, Mr. Winston motioned to forward a recommendation of approval.  Mr. Moore seconded the motion and it passed 6-1, with Mr. Speer opposed.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2007 and by a vote of 5-2, with Mr. Speer and Mr. Scharf against, the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Louisa County Board of Supervisors on the requested rezoning with acceptance of the eleven proffers as submitted by the applicant.

The application appears to meet the standards that the County uses to assess rezoning cases.   The Board may wish to consider the value of these proffers, as compared to the adverse impacts such as traffic, ingress/egress, storm water runoff, and demands for public services.  Final, signed proffers must be received prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing to receive consideration.  

Mr. Purcell said this development is proposed in a designated growth area and a main concern is traffic and questioned where a 91-lot subdivision could be located on Kentucky Springs Road (route 652).  Mr. Cockrell stated traffic is a concern through the County and Kentucky Springs Road (route 652) seems to be one of the roads designed for the most capacity in within that area.  

Mr. Jennings questioned if the siren issue has been resolved.  Mr. Coffey said the eighth proffer stated the developers would accept a Virginia Power early warning siren to be located in a location mutually agreeable to the County and neighbors.  Mr. Jennings questioned if the right of way issue has been addressed.  Mr. Cockrell said the second proffer stated the entrance roadway will be twenty-four feet wide and the shoulders on both side will be six feet in width.

Mr. Wright questioned at what point cash proffers are received.  Mr. Cockrell stated the application to rezone this area was initiated before the Board took action on the cash proffers.  Mr. Wright stated he would like for that information to be included in the presentation.  

Mr. Graven Craig, Attorney for The Building Team MARFAC, LLC, stated MARFAC has requested for three properties to be rezoned from
Agricultural (A-2) to Residential General (R-2).  Mr. Craig stated part of the Northwest corner of the third property is already zoned as Residential General (R-2).  Mr. Craig stated MARFAC wanted to make sure the rezoning was included in the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Craig stated the early warning siren was suggested to be added to the proffers for emergency notification to the residents of the community.  Mr. Craig added the siren would be put in mutually agreeable to all of the neighbors.  

Mr. Craig stated he thinks Mr. Jennings was concerned with the ninth proffer of the right of way issue.  Mr. Craig stated the property of Kevin & Cynthia Curtis has a prescriptive right of way and it is in the covenant that the developers will not do anything to that.  Mr. Craig stated the plan is to have an intersection that will split off to the left and to have a twenty-foot improved right of way that will go directly to the Curtis property.  Mr. Craig added the developers are going to do everything they can to alleviate any problems.  

Mr. Craig stated the application was submitted prior to the acceptance of the cash proffers.  

Mr. Craig stated MARFAC has proffered that the entrance roadway will be twenty-four feet wide and the shoulders on both side will be six feet in width to provide better access for emergency equipment.  Mr. Craig stated people were questioning what happens if one of the side roads gets blocked.  Mr. Craig stated when the property is developed and the preliminary plan is submitted to the County, the owners will investigate into the possibility of obtaining an emergency access easement to the back of the development in order to alleviate any concerns of emergency equipment not being unable to access all residents.  Mr. Craig added if an emergency access easement were obtained, it would be ten feet in width with bollards.  

Mr. Craig stated the 150 foot natural buffer would be provided at the entrance of the property.  Mr. Craig stated there were questioned concerning what would happen if the State needs to widen Kentucky Springs Road (route 652).  Mr. Craig stated the extra distance into the 150-foot needed to increase the width of the road would be deeded over to the State.
 

Mr. Craig stated at the time a plat of subdivision is submitted an easement will be attached to the submittal for subsequent recordation that will create a twenty-five foot vegetative buffer easement for the benefit of the property immediately adjacent to the easement.  

Mr. Craig said the developers have also proffered to have minimum of seven acres of open space dedicated as walking trails and playground.

Mr. Craig stated a main concern was that traffic would increase substantially.  Mr. Craig asks the Board to keep in mind that it doesnt appear there is a lot of congestion at the South end of Kentucky Springs Road (route 652).  

Mr. Gentry questioned if there is usable water access for this subdivision.  Mr. Craig stated no, the subdivision is over 1,000 feet away from actual water.  Mr. Gentry questioned if there is any intent to get water access from somewhere else.  Mr. Craig said no.  

Mr. Craig stated there were comments about linkage to Noahs Landing, but the subdivision is 1,633 feet and 2,026 feet from Noahs Landing.
   

Mr. Ronald Schee, Jackson District, stated he has concerns with the subdivision adding dense traffic.  Mr. Schee said Kentucky Springs Road (route 652) is not fit for this type of traffic.  

Mr. Purcell questioned if there was a guarantee the subdivision would consist of 91 lots.  Mr. Craig stated 91 lots is at the high end on what the subdivision will consist of.  Mr. Purcell stated this is for a rezoning of the property, not a site plan.  Mr. Purcell stated the Comprehensive Plan has identified this area as a growth area and said he thinks growth areas will continue to be an issue.  Mr. Purcell said the Board is faced with the conundrum of having growth areas and roads that seem stretched thin already.  Mr. Purcell said absent under concerns about that, the development itself has to be looked at and he finds no fault with this development.  

Mr. Barnes said he thinks the applicant has followed the guidelines and rules and regulations that have been put in place and stated traffic is going to be something that has to be dealt with.  

Mr. Harper stated he agrees with Mr. Barnes that traffic is going to have to be dealt with.  Mr. Harper said two critical pieces the County needs now are the transportation plan and the County model build out.  Mr. Harper agreed that all guidelines have been followed.  

Mr. Gentry questioned if the rezoning is approved, will any restrictions be added to the property to eventually become waterfront property if it is combined with the adjacent property.  Mr. Coffey said he doesnt think it is the intent, but it isnt impossible.  Mr. Coffey added since vegetative buffers are being added as easements, it is legally going to restrict access.  Mr. Coffey further added if the rezoning is approved and the proffers are accepted, the proffer keeps the properties from being connected from a pedestrian way or road way.  Mr. Gentry questioned if Mr. Morgan concurs with Mr. Coffeys statement.  Mr. Morgan said yes.  

Mr. Wright stated traffic is going to happen and it is something that the County only has limited control of.  Mr. Wright stated traffic is an unknown item that cant be projected.
   

Mr. Jennings complimented the applicant and stated traffic issues are going to have to be dealt with one way or another.  

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to decide on the request for conditional rezoning of three parcels containing approximately 143.77 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Residential General (R-2) with acceptance of the eleven proffers as submitted by the applicant.

REZ02-07; G. B. Duke, SUN, LLL and LKA Contracting, Inc., Applicants/Owners; c/o James L. Lillie, III, Agent requests rezoning of approximately 35.2254 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to General Commercial (C-2).  The property is located at the intersection of Route 652 (Kentucky Springs Road) and Route 739 (Plum Tree Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcels 46-(36)-Lots 1-12 (Formerly TMP 46-56), in the Cuckoo Magisterial District and Jackson Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Low Density Residential within the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area.

The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as part of the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area for Low Density Residential development.  This designation supports single-family detached housing at a density of one or two dwelling units per acre.

One of the questions with rezoning requests is whether or not this is spot zoning?  Spot zoning is defined as the reclassifying of one or more tracts of land and the sole purpose is to serve the private interests of one or more land owners instead of furthering the welfare of the entire community as part of an overall zoning plan.

(a) Is the change contrary to the established land-use pattern?  

The uses that are allowed under the General Commercial (C-2) District may be inconsistent with most of the surrounding properties.  The land uses in this area are predominately single-family homes and agricultural lands.  Currently, this area lacks any significant commercial development that would be allowed under the proposed commercial zoning.  Staff is processing a site plan for the adjacent commercially zoned property, for a mini-storage facility and the associated office.

(b) Is the change in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan?

The subject property is within the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area.  The Comprehensive Plans states that growth areas “should have well planned, high quality development that contains a healthy mix of uses, incomes, and open space”.  With this application, the subject properties are designated as Low-Density Residential, which is intended to support residential development rather than commercial.  The applicant claims that the C-2 zoning would provide a commercial node for this area, which would service the surrounding residences.  The Comprehensive Plan designates commercial and community service nodes within the Lake Anna Growth Area, which area intended to service that same purpose.

(c) Would the change create an isolated district unrelated to similar districts?

The area is zoned predominately Residential General (R-2) and Agricultural (A-2).  There is a strip of General Commercial (C-2) zoning adjacent to the subject properties.  The C-2 zoning district is the most intense commercial zoning in the county and may be contrary to the surrounding zoning districts, even though there is already a limited amount of commercial zoning in the area.

There were eleven people present to discuss this case at the neighborhood meeting, held on February 14, 2007.  The main comments were as follows:

The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed this rezoning application on February 28, 2007.  The primary concern with this application was with the appropriateness of more commercial zoning in this area with over 8.5 acres of existing commercial that has not been fully utilized in the past.  Concern was also expressed over the proposed zonings compatibility with the comprehensive plan.  It was suggested that a specific review of the Lake Anna Growth Area might be appropriate given the number of commercial rezoning applications received in past months.  The applicant stated that there has been significant interest in commercially zoned property around the lake and in this area, which is a primary reason this application was submitted.  With concerns regarding conformance with the comprehensive plan, types of uses, compatibility with the surrounding residential uses, and significant opposition from area residents that has been expressed to both Board and Commission members, Mr. Winston motioned to forward a recommendation of denial of the application to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Gordon seconded the motion and it passed 5-1-1 with Mr. Besley opposed, and Mr. Moore abstaining.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2007 at which eleven (11) people spoke, six people indicating the need for commercial uses in this area and the remaining individuals stating that they had moved to Louisa County to get away from development.  There were also discussions about traffic, road improvements/access and the types of uses that would be permitted if the rezoning were approved.

A motion was made by Mr. Winston to forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of Supervisors, which did not pass by a vote of 5-2, with only Mr. Winston and Mr. Speer in favor of the recommendation.

The Planning Commission and the applicant discussed further the submitted proffers.  The applicants agent then offered an additional proffer that the rezoning would be restricted to no more than twelve lots.

A second motion was made by Mr. Spencer to recommend approval of the requested rezoning, with acceptance of the proffers, including the additional proffer limiting the number of commercial lots associated with the rezoning.  By a vote of 5-2, with Mr. Speer and Mr. Winston against, the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors with the four original proffers submitted by the applicant and the additional proffer that the number of commercial lots be limited to no more than twelve lots.

The application partially conforms to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, as the subject property is within the Lake Anna Growth Area.  However, the application also conflicts with the plan, since the property is designated as Low-Density Residential, and not Community or Regional Service.  The application also appears to at least partially conflict with the standards that the County uses to assess rezoning cases.  This rezoning would expand on the existing spot zoning, which the Comprehensive Plan does not support.

The Board may wish to consider the potential precedent set by this rezoning, by allowing commercial zoning in an area that the Comprehensive Plan designates as residential.  The Commission should also consider the comments from the neighborhood and Development Review meetings, and weigh the projects adverse impacts against any benefits such as having locally available commercial services, as well as any submitted proffers aimed at mitigating adverse impacts.  Consideration should also be given to the DRC and Planning Commission recommendation for a comprehensive plan review of the Lake Anna Growth Area, particularly regarding the Future Land Use Map.  

Mr. Harper said noted in the presentation, there were concerns about the existing piece of commercial property that is unused and questioned if Mr. Coffey could explain the five year program stating the property is reverted if it isnt utilized.  Mr. Coffey said the State code provides that once a final subdivision plat is recorded, the locality reserves the right to initiate a vacation of the plat if no action has been taken within five years to become vested in that plat.  Mr. Morgan stated the five-year program deals specifically with plats, not rezonings.  Mr. Morgan added once a property is rezoned, it stays that way until the Board takes action to rezone and the proffers would remain until that time.  Mr. Coffey stated the County retains that right unless initial action is initiated.  Mr. Harper said he think that is legitimate and there should be a reversion if people are rezoning for future changes.  Mr. Coffey stated there are four adjacent parcels that are existing General Commercial (C-2) properties.  Mr. Morgan said if the applicant doesnt do anything to develop the property and the Board changes what can be done in General Commercial (C-2) zoning, then the property owner is stuck with changes.  Mr. Morgan stated the applicant would have to comply with changes, but all of the proffers would remain the same.  

Mr. Barnes questioned if this rezoning is considered spot zoning.  Mr. Coffey said the existing zoning is spot zoning and this rezoning would be expanding that.  Mr. Coffey added this property is in a growth area and it would not be inappropriate to amend the Comprehensive Plan to show this property as commercial.  Mr. Coffey stated it is also equally appropriate to say the Comprehensive Plan shows this property as a residential area and so it should stay as a residential area.  Mr. Coffey added it is up to the Board to make that decision.  Mr. Barnes stated the Community Development Department should tell applicants things that can be done rather than things that cannot be done.  Mr. Barnes questioned if the discussion of rezoning the property to Light Commercial (C-1) came up in the conversation.  Mr. Coffey said there is General Commercial (C-2) surrounding the property and the applicant felt most egregious uses were proffered out, and then it would be equivalent of Light General (C-1).  

Mr. Gentry questioned if the existing commercial zoned property is spot zoning even though an old store was there.  Mr. Coffey said it is legal, but it is not necessarily a foundation to expand it.  Mr. Coffey said this is an area of the County that is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Coffey added, based on the propertys history, he can see why the property is zoned General Commercial (C-2) but he doesnt know why the property isnt listed on the future land use map as commercial.  Mr. Gentry questioned if that makes it spot zoning.  Mr. Coffey said if it is not in conformance with the future land use map then it is considered a form of spot zoning.  Mr. Gentry stated if the Board approved this rezoning, then it is potentially adding to spot zoning.  

Mr. Purcell questioned if a commercial application should be turned down based on spot zoning if there was a piece of low-density residential property within a growth area surrounded by mixed use.  Mr. Coffey stated he recommends the Board to have a Comprehensive Plan amendment process.  Mr. Coffey stated an applicant could ask the Board to look at amending the future land use of the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Coffey added the correct process would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan and then consider a rezoning.  Mr. Coffey stated he concurs with the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission that the Lake Anna growth area deserves a closer look.

Mr. James Lillie, Agent for G. B. Duke, SUN, LLL and LKA Contracting, Inc., referenced three different maps showing the existing commercial use of the adjacent properties and the buffer area that would be added around the property.  Mr. Lillie stated the maps give an idea of what is in the area as far as residential lots and what is not in the area.  Mr. Lillie said this is something to look at and realize the lack of services in that area.  

Mr. Lillie stated he thinks spot zoning is a zoning that is completely inconsistent of what is in the neighborhood.  Mr. Lillie stated the general welfare of the Community is brought up when spot zoning is talked about.
 Mr. Lillie stated Mr. Havasy said affordable housing is one of the main goals of Louisa County.  Mr. Lillie questioned what is the affect of affordable housing when are forced to drive to Charlottesville, Richmond or Fredericksburg to find a place to work or to do major shopping.  Mr. Lillie stated the rezoning of this area would provide creation of services and the availability over a shorter distance.  

Mr. Lillie stated the Comprehensive Plan is a guide or a planning tool, however, it is ambiguous. Mr. Lillie stated growth areas are for a healthy mix of uses, incomes and open space.  Mr. Lillie added when looking at the Comprehensive Plan, it is hard to decide where commercial uses are.  Mr. Lillie said there is existing commercial use in this area and by expanding the commercial use, a situation is created where the County has more jobs to offer.  Mr. Lillie stated creating employment opportunities is in line with affordable housing and creates a better tax base.  

Mr. Lillie stated when differences are looked at on the matrix of Light General (C-1) and General Commercial (C-2), one of the prime considerations was looking at how many battles we want to fight.  Mr. Lillie stated Light General (C-1) and General Commercial (C-2) allow for the same uses but different types of businesses are allowed.  Mr. Lillie added that is what drove the decision for General Commercial (C-2) rather than Light General (C-1).  Mr. Lillie said the applicant put in proffers to attempt to take out things that seem to be unsuitable or unsatisfactory with this area.  

Mr. Lillie said Kentucky Springs Road (route 652) would probably need the least road improvement in the area for handling traffic.  Mr. Lillie added traffic comes with growth.  

Mr. Lillie stated the applicant is not going to do anything in this commercial zone that is going to hurt the ability to sell the lots.  Mr. Lillie added the rezoning of this property is a good fit and will provide services, goods, sales and employment opportunities within the neighborhood.  

Mr. Dick Dickens, Jackson District, stated he is a neighbor of the property and he knows most of the people involved in the project.  Mr. Dickens said he has a good idea of what the developers plan to do with the property and stated he has no doubts about the future development.  Mr. Dickens said it is unrealistic for commercial developments to be located only on New Bridge Road (route 208).  

Ms. Ashton Allison, Jackson District, stated she lives about a mile from the property and she is in favor of rezoning the property to bring more to the lake area.  

Mr. Brenton Wine, Jackson District, stated he lives about a mile from the proposed rezoning and he is in favor of the rezoning to permit services and amenities that are needed.  Mr. Wine stated he feels these new amenities will make more pleasant living and keep money within the County to create a better tax base.  

Mr. Gary Griffith, Jackson District, stated the traffic count continues to grow on Kentucky Springs Road (route 652).  Mr. Griffith said he owns adjoining property where a seventeen-lot subdivision is platted to go in.  Mr. Griffith said he thinks twelve commercial lots will be a good ratio with the number of residents.  Mr. Griffith said he thinks Mr. Coffey has done a good job with introducing new ideas to the County and he think this rezoning fits in for the Countys future.  Mr. Griffith added the County needs to allow mixed development or the opportunity will be gone.  Mr. Griffith said he feels the development will be a positive impact to the County because it will offer services close by and provide jobs in the area.  Mr. Griffith added he is in favor of the rezoning as a developer, but he is more in favor as a neighbor.  

Mr. Dennis Schultz, Jackson District, stated he is the owner of LKA Contracting and he is in favor of the rezoning and he thinks rezoning will be able to extend and offer services to the area.  Mr. Schultz added the County should be able to offer services locally.  Mr. Schultz stated a new development should take traffic off road instead of putting traffic on the road.  Mr. Schultz said the development would offer covenants to follow high standards.  

Mr. Charles OMelia, Jackson District, stated the 2006 Comprehensive Plan states a rendering of the zones ideal appearance should be made available to the group responsible for the site review process as well as the potential businesses that may be interested in relocating.  Mr. OMelia stated he has not heard of one business that wants to relocate to this development and questioned why the Board is considering rezoning this area to General Commercial (C-2).  Mr. OMelia said one person at the Planning Commission meeting stated they wanted to put up storage sheds, but that is irrelevant to this because the storage sheds were going to be located on property that is already zoned commercial.

Mr. OMelia said the owners have offered proffers, but he is concerned about the proffers they didnt offer.  Mr. OMelia added he doesnt want to see the property used as a construction yard or dog pound and the owners didnt proffer for commercial establishment.  Mr. OMelia stated the road conditions around the property arent fit for commercial development.  

Mr. OMelia said he doesnt think the County should add to spot zoning.  Mr. OMelia said he thinks General Commercial (C-2) should only be allowed in the towns of Louisa and Mineral because the property is in a low-density residential area.  Mr. OMelia said if the rezoning passes dogs will be heard barking, people will be drinking and entering this dangerous road and big load equipment will be on the highway.  Mr. OMelia said the lazy, country road will be turned into a highly, dangerous intersection.  Mr. OMelia added he doesnt want to hear the sound of ambulances at this intersection.    

Mr. Gary Muller, Jackson District, stated this is spot zoning.  Mr. Muller said this property is located in the middle of a low-density residential area.  Mr. Muller said he is against expanding General Commercial (C-2) in the area.  Mr. Muller said he lives about a quarter of a mile from the proposed rezoning and questioned what the advantage is of small businesses.  Mr. Muller questioned why the property has to be zoned as General Commercial (C-2) if the Board expands the zoning.  Mr. Muller said he needs to know what type of businesses will be in the development and if they arent identified, he assumes they wont be in his interest.  Mr. Muller said approving this rezoning would expand spot zoning, which the Comprehensive Plan doesnt support.  

Ms. Susie Bryant, Jackson District, stated she represents members of the Clearwater Association.  Ms. Bryant said she has been coming to the lake since 1984 and she had no idea that there was 8.7 acres of commercial property on Plum Tree Road (route 739) because it hasnt been utilized for over 25 years.  Ms. Bryant added she doesnt know why another 35 acres should be rezoned to commercial.  

Ms. Bryant said an entrance and road was started at the property and in November 2006, the plat was approved and recorded for an Agricultural (A-2) residential subdivision.  Ms. Bryant said G. B. Duke bought a lot to put storage sheds on.  Ms. Bryant added that is only one purpose, but that still leaves eleven lots with no purpose.  Ms. Bryant questioned how much commercial property is needed on a fifteen-mile road.  Ms. Bryant stated she lives fifty feet from the proposed rezoning and the County does not need this.  

Ms. Bryant stated she gave Mr. Jennings a petition signed by more than eighty people within the area.  Ms. Bryant stated this rezoning doesnt follow the Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Bryant added the Comprehensive Plan is to protect rural beauty of County and questioned what good the plan is if it isnt followed.


Mr. Gentry questioned how many members is a part of the Clearwater Association.  Ms. Bryant stated there are twenty-six lots and all have homes on them except two.  Ms. Bryant said there are approximately fifty-six people not including signatures from subdivisions.  
 

Mr. Michael Bryant, Jackson District, referenced a map and stated he against the rezoning because there is plenty of commercial property around this area and none of it is utilized.  

Mr. William J. Blount, Jackson District, stated he understands the fears of the development from citizens of the County.  Mr. Blount stated he trusts the developers to do the right thing for the Community.  Mr. Blount said roads are not built or repaired until there is traffic traveling them.  Mr. Blount stated commercial developments arent built until residents are in the area.  Mr. Blount added the developers could be trusted to do a good job.  Mr. Blount stated he lives next to the proposed rezoning and he is in support of the development, but he understands the neighbors concerns.  

Ms. Linda Fosdick, Jackson District, stated she is in favor of application because it is logical and reasonable.  Ms. Fosdick said the rezoning is located in a growth area and the area is growing and will continue to grow.  Ms. Fosdick stated she thinks it is very reasonable for local residents to expect to have services nearby, which is an expectation that is not currently being met.  Ms. Fosdick stated she thinks the area needs additional commercial services.  

Ms. Fosdick stated it makes more sense to add a commercial development between the road and other commercial property, rather than adding commercial development beside residential property.  Ms. Fosdick added an additional turning lane will be built for accommodate and to make the road more safe.  Ms. Fosdick stated the rezoning is logical for the location and nature of the Community.  

Mr. John Carroll, Cuckoo District, stated he understands the fears about this rezoning, but he trusts the developers will do a good job.  Mr. Carroll stated it wasnt long ago that this parcel was a drop off point for trash for many years.  Mr. Carroll added the property has already come a long way.  Mr. Carroll stated this development would provide an opportunity to add jobs to the area.  Mr. Carroll stated it is easy to let fears run away with the unknown and it is certainly understandable, but he knows the developers will do the right thing.  

Mr. John Scheurenbrand, Jackson District, stated he thinks the reason the area is zoned to commercial was for a school that was built.  Mr. Scheurenbrand stated his backyard is being developed and there are many feelings and emotions put into this area because this is where people live.  Mr. Scheurenbrand stated the area isnt country anymore and it isnt becoming country.  Mr. Scheurenbrand stated he is not opposed to development, but thirty-five acres behind his house is not hub for commercial property.  Mr. Scheurenbrand added these are residential lots.  

Mr. Dan Budi, Jackson District, stated when he bought his piece of property, he didnt think he would be surrounded by commercial property.  Mr. Budi stated that property is residential and should stay residential.  Mr. Budi added this is a prime example of spot zoning and would like the Board to vote against this proposal.

Mr. Ken Sadel, Jackson District, stated it looks like there is commercial property located in this area that may or may not been valid and now the applicant wants to add to something that may not work.  Mr. Sadel said there is plenty of undeveloped property within the area.  Mr. Sadel said this is a rural and low-density residential area, not commercial.  Mr. Sadel stated he hopes the Board will make the right decision.  

Mr. Lillie said in a commercial context, services in the area are unknown because they are going to be market driven.  Mr. Lillie added the proffers provide what services are not going to be within the development.  Mr. Lillie said there would be covenants and will be vegetative buffer included.  Mr. Lillie stated there is a proffer listed that says this land will be twelve lots only.  Mr. Lillie said the applicants were careful to leave open a decision to be made by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for things that have not proffered out that require conditional use permits.  Mr. Lillie said this development would put in services that are available so people wouldnt have to travel.  Mr. Lillie questioned where would commercial be put if it werent put here.  Mr. Lillie added this is the time and this is the place.  Mr. Lillie stated he encourages the Board to vote in favor of the rezoning.  


Mr. Gentry questioned how many people own the twelve different lots.  Mr. Lillie stated he wasnt sure and said no one is going to make the commitment or buy property until they know it is going to be zoned commercial.  

Mr. Purcell thanked the citizens for giving input and stated he doesnt know the Jackson district very well so he isnt sure what is needed or not needed in that district.  Mr. Purcell stated it is his job to look at the application and decide whether it should pass.  Mr. Purcell stated the Code of Virginia says the Comprehensive Plan is only a guide.  Mr. Purcell stated he questioned if Mr. Coffey thought this would be a parcel specific plan and Mr. Coffey said yes.  Mr. Purcell stated in that case, an amendment would be the only way to change the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Purcell added he thinks the Comprehensive Plan should only be amended in extreme situations.  Mr. Purcell said it makes more logical sense to have a true guide stating where growth areas are with flexibility to move those areas.  

Mr. Purcell said the Lake is the biggest piece of spot zoning in the County.  Mr. Purcell said it is unknown to exactly what will be put in commercial zonings.  Mr. Purcell stated it takes a long time to market and sell commercial property and proffers can be added to show what wont be included, but flexibility has to be allowed for the future.  Mr. Purcell said any applicant has the right to request their property to be rezoned to a higher and better use and the applicant has done this.    

Mr. Havasy stated he is always in favor of economic commercial growth in the County.  Mr. Havasy said the development is needed for commercial activity in the area, tax revenue and convenience.  Mr. Havasy said the Comprehensive Plan is the peoples plan.  Mr. Havasy said the Plan defines what people feel is a proper growth area.  

Mr. Havasy said this is spot zoning.  Mr. Havasy said if the applicant wants to rezone, they should take it back through the process, do it right and make it part of the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Havasy said right now this rezone does not fit and it is considered spot zoning and he is against it.


Mr. Barnes thanked the citizens for their comments and stated this is a conflicting rezoning.  Mr. Barnes said he feels that when people buy their land, they have certain rights to do things they want with the land.  Mr. Barnes said he hasnt voted against commercial rezoning because he is for economical growth and business.  Mr. Barnes stated, however, this situation is different and conflicting because it is the Boards job to manage growth.  Mr. Barnes stated the Comprehensive Plan is a tool for the County to work with and look at and if the tools arent used then things get out of control.  Mr. Barnes stated he is concerned with the lack of water and sewer within the area and that hasnt been discussed.  Mr. Barnes said he would like to see this rezone done through the proper channels.  

Mr. Harper said this rezone is in the Lake Anna growth area and the criteria cited for a growth area is a healthy mix.  Mr. Harper stated he cannot see a healthy mix occurring if everything in it is residential.  Mr. Harper stated this is a unique situation because the developers live in the area and he thinks that will make them more discerning about what they do with the project.  Mr. Harper stated Mr. Barnes referenced the lack of water and sewer and said no requirements have been made for water and sewer in previous developments.  Mr. Harper added he doesnt think the Board can pick and chose which area of the County we cite that.  Mr. Harper said this is a unique situation and he intends to support it.

Mr. Jennings stated he respects the citizens for giving their opinion and said the Jackson District has certain limitations.  Mr. Jennings stated the Board sees the results of the Neighborhood meetings and the Development Review Committee meetings and they analyze the staff report.  Mr. Jennings said people purchase land for residential purposes and that is what the area is designed for.  Mr. Jennings stated this rezoning this property is considered spot zoning and it is not compatible with land use in the area.  Mr. Jennings stated the intended uses submitted would not survive.  Mr. Jennings stated he couldnt support this request because many citizens opposed this rezoning with a petition.  

Mr. Gentry said during public hearings, he is listening for someone to convince him on which way to go.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks the developers have good intentions, but they dont have convincing facts that the rezoning is needed.  Mr. Gentry added he has heard the same story with the past five rezonings along Kentucky Springs Road (route 652) and New Bridge Road (route 208).  Mr. Gentry said those previous rezonings eliminate the overwhelming needs for this property to be zoned commercial.  Mr. Gentry said the applicant didnt convince him why the rezoning is needed and he hasnt seen that the applicant has done a good job to convince the neighbors.
 

Mr. Wright stated he believes this rezoning is considered spot zoning.  Mr. Wright said he hasnt seen anything to indicate rezoning this area would provide more job opportunities.  Mr. Wright stated the greatest fear is the unknown and there are a lot within this proposal.  Mr. Wright added he couldnt support to rezone this property as General Commercial (C-2).  

Mr. Jennings stated he would like to make the motion to deny the request for conditional rezoning of twelve parcels containing approximately 35.23 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to General Commercial (C-2).  Mr. Havasy seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.  

PRESENTVOTE
Allen B. Jennings Yes
Eric F. Purcell No
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper No
Richad A. Havasy Yes

With the votes reflecting 5-2, the Board denied a resolution to decide on the request for conditional rezoning of twelve parcels containing approximately 35.23 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to General Commercial (C-2).

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the April 2, 2007 meeting at 9:55 p.m. until April 4, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


________________________________
JACKSON T. WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA