Contact Sitemap Search
|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 Rose Adams, Transcriptionist|
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Barnes called the July 5, 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.
There were no Constitutional Officers that wished to address the Board.
CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD
LaVeta Pfaff, Jackson District, informed the Board that she is concerned with the County paying the bills for the fire and rescue squad. Ms. Pfaff indicated that she felt that EMSAL was broadsided since it appeared to be a suggestion for the county to pay the bills, not a done-deal. She further stated that Mr. Havasy indicated that this decision was not written in stone and that there were six other members who may not agree with one representative. Ms. Pfaff stated Mr. McLeod indicated that this issue had been discussed with numerous officials and volunteers, but that EMSAL was informed only three days prior to this policy going into effect. Ms. Pfaff expressed her concern in regard to the rumor that one of the agencies had misappropriated funds and questioned what had been done in regard to this issue. Ms. Pfaff stated that she continues to volunteer to help the people of Louisa County and emphasized the need to work together on this issue.
Doug Wood, Jackson District, informed the Board that he was there this evening to discuss the impact of the Three Oaks subdivision. Mr. Wood indicated a group of citizens on Copper Line Road are concerned about the increased vehicles this subdivision would produce, adherence to the erosion and sediment controls and the impact to adjacent properties, as well as the effect on the elementary school. Mr. Wood urged the Board to reconsider having only a single road resource for this subdivision, as there is currently a substantial amount of traffic on Copper Line Road. Mr. Wood further voiced his concern regarding there being no set standard for soil inspectors and urged the Board to encourage standards be set for the County and State.
Nick Levay, Jackson District, informed the Board that he was also there this evening to discuss the impact of the Three Oaks subdivision. Mr. Levay referred to the Countys GIS map of Copper Line Road to visualize how this subdivision could increase the number of residents by 133 percent. Mr. Levay expressed his concern on how this increased number of residents in such a concentrated space will impact not only the recycling center and social services, but also the impact on the schools budget to educate the additional students. Mr. Levay implored the Board to factor in the additional cost of education, public services, trash and roads associated with these developments when considering these proposals in the future.
Bill Lloyd, Mount Road District, informed the Board that he was there this evening to discuss the lack of communication between the supervisors and the volunteer rescue squad. Mr. Lloyd voiced his concern regarding the county paying the bills for the rescue squad and the fact that they were not notified of this change until four days before the policy was to go into effect. Mr. Lloyd indicated that this change shows distrust with the volunteer organization. He further indicated that the difference in operating hours for the rescue squad and the finance office could create a problem with getting bills to the finance office.
Leigh Gordon, Goochland County, informed the Board that he was there this evening representing the Three Oaks Subdivision and the Andrews Crossing project and was available to respond to any requests or questions. Mr. Gordon introduced Mr. Darvin Satterwhite, who is the legal representative for the projects and Mr. Steven Driver, the architect engineer for the projects who were also available to answer any questions.
Mr. Barnes recognized Mr. Tommy Barlow, member of the planning commission.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Wright said that he would like to add a subdivisions workshop as well as paying the EMSAL bills as topics for discussion.
Mr. Gentry said he would like to add recognizing the Louisa County Rescue Squad for 50 years if Mr. Nuckols arrives.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the July 5, 2006 agenda was adopted as amended.
VDOT Monthly Update
Milton Thacker, Resident Administrator, said that they are working on mowing and currently are on the secondary system. They are tending to intersections and areas that they have received complaints about as quickly as possible and asked they be informed of any areas that need attention. Paving is scheduled for Route 208/22 through Louisa and Rt. 33 near Louisa in August that will cause delays. Negotiations are in progress for maintenance of Interstate 64 through Louisa in October. The company will be using the Ferncliff headquarters as base. Due to the commissioners business plan they will be consolidating headquarters and these changes could affect Louisa. Material for paving Route 775, Rising Sun Road and Route 804, Rock Spring Road have been ordered and work will begin on July 10th. Material is being ordered for the sidewalk project and some work has begun. They have received concerns from property owners along Cutler Street and wanted to make the Board aware of this. Scheduled projects for the next 30 to 60 days include an industrial access road, Walnut Woods, Indian Creek Road and Captain Meade Roads. Two new staff members have been hired, Mark Wood, licensed P.E. and licensed surveyor and Sherie Robinson, contractor administrator. The roads within Reedy Creek subdivision are under review for recommended inclusion to the secondary system, this will require Commonwealth Transportation Board approval once all requirements have been met. The review that was done on the intersection of Route 250 and 522 did not recommend a traffic light, but there will be some flashing lights on 250 added and also a small stop sign on the mast arm for northbound 522 traffic.
The Board discussed this presentation with Mr. Thacker. Mr. Harper asked for clarification on the paving of Route 22/208 and whether the paving came near the Town of Mineral. Mr. Thacker confirmed that paving includes from Shiffletts Road to just below the school.
Mr. Wright commended the improvement of grass cutting this season. Mr. Wright indicated that Mr. Thacker had reminded him that a final resolution was never done regarding 647 Harts Mill Road and that it was dropped from the six-year plan. Mr. Thacker indicated that there was no support given for it in the two presentations and therefore was not included in the plan presented for final approval. Mr. Wright indicated that there was a name error on the original plan that he asked to be corrected, but not removed. Mr. Wright further indicated that they will get this back on the list this year.
Upon further discussion Mr. Wright commented that due to all the changes that the General Assembly has done with VDOT this year, there needs to be a work session with VDOT within the next several months to explain the impact this may have on Louisa County. Mr. Thacker agreed that a work session could be done to present the Commissioners business plan which may have resulted in some of the bills that were passed and give an update. Mr. Thacker indicated that he could ask another staff member come as well so all questions are answered as much as possible.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to reconsider the facet of the budget that said that as of July 1st EMSAL and fire association will submit their bills to the County for payment.
During discussion, Mr. Wright indicated the he was not aware of this and doesnt believe everybody else was made aware of it. Mr. Purcell voiced his concern about one board member making decision for the entire Board and that he was unclear about things going on. Mr. Harper indicated that he does not speak for all the board members and that the Board had previously discussed this topic. Mr. Harper indicated that the recent comments that had been made were clouded by emotions and in the past these funds had been released to these organization without proper accountability for the funds. Mr. Harper said that he had no issue with going forward with the funds being handled by EMSAL but that there should be an audit done each year on the books that is paid for by the County. Mr. Harper further explained that this has nothing to do with a trust issue among these organizations, only an accounting for taxpayers dollars. As well Mr. Harper is puzzled by the reluctance to let the County handle this burden. Mr. Gentry agreed with Mr. Harpers confusion on why these organizations would be reluctant to let the county pay their bills. Mr. Gentry indicated that the Board had taken action previously to get audits from these organizations. Mr. Wright confirmed that this issue was addressed but never followed through. Mr. Wright indicated that he had said he would support this process, but only if it was optional and would strongly object to it being mandatory. Mr. Wright said he would like to see this part of the budget be rescinded and offer it to these organizations as an optional proviso for those who want it. Mr. Wright did agree that the County should require an audit for county funds only, and that the audit should not included funds that the organization has raised on their own. Mr. Purcell confirmed with Mr. Harper that he is requesting that there be an audit for the funds that go to the volunteers or some sort of accountability paid for by the County and that this does not include funds that members have raised. Mr. Barnes confirmed any nonprofit or anybody receiving county funds would be required to submit a financial statement or audit paid for by the County for the accountability of funds received. Mr. Barnes went on to say that he felt that there has been a communication breakdown in regard to this issue and that it will be essential that communication be done properly. Mr. Harper clarified that when communication is delivered to an association it is considered to be delivered to all bodies and that it is up to those associations to get the information to their members.
Upon further discussion by the Board it was agreed to remove the mandatory requirement of having the County pay bills for EMSAL and fire, but leave this an option for organizations that would prefer this. Any nonprofit or anybody receiving county funds would be required to have an audit to account for these funds each year that would be paid for by the County. This would not include any funds raised by the members themselves.
On motion by Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, it was agreed to rescind the order making it a mandatory requirement for EMSAL and fire association to submit their bills to the County for payment and that these funds be released and dispersed to EMSAL and Fire Association. Further any nonprofit or anybody receiving county funds would be required to have audit each year, paid for by the County to account for these funds.
Louisa County Rescue Squad 50th Anniversary
Mr. Purcell presented Mr. Garland Nuckols of the Louisa County Rescue Squad with a certificate recognizing the Louisa County Rescue Squad for 50 years of service.
Discussion Subdivision Reviews
Hidden Farm Estates
Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development, indicated that the proposal for the Hidden Farms Estates subdivision appears to be in compliance with all existing A2 zoning regulations and that the applicant has been issued a land disturbing permit following approval of all erosion and sediment control plans. The soils work required for this process is currently with the health department for their review. All other subdivision requirements have been met except for final plat approval and staff request that the Board advise that they desire this subdivision plat receive final Board approval or that staff may continue to review and complete the final plat process administratively. Mr. Coffey indicated that he would be happy to answer any questions regarding this subdivision review.
During discussion Mr. Harper referenced his initial non-support of 18 by-rights and indicated that he had met with the developer of this project and voiced his concern regarding the one point of ingress and egress and suggested that Mr. Coffey rekindle that discussion at some point. Mr. Purcell said that Mr. Harper brought up a good point with the 18 by-rights. Mr. Purcell referenced a copy of the resolution that gives the Board the right to turn down any subdivision that does not get approval for extending a road to serve as access. Due to the fact that this subdivision is so far along in its progress Mr. Purcell supports them continuing, however the Board needs to be aware of the correct interpretation going forward. Mr. Purcell further said that it may make sense to give exceptions to some parcels, but that was at the Boards discretion. Mr. Harper agreed on clarification of this ordinance and the progress on this subdivision is at a point it should continue. Mr. Harper further questioned whether under this ordinance could they have formed four different L.L.C.s and developed each one of them with a separate road coming to the street if he had the frontage. Mr. Coffey and Mr. Purcell agreed that under the ordinance this could have been done. Mr. Harper indicated that going forward this needs to be considered as well if this will create multiple roads.
In further discussion Mr. Wright questioned what exactly it is the Board is approving when a preliminary site plan comes to them and asked for clarification. In discussing this with Mr. Morgan, they do not feel that this means the Board has approved the subdivision, only that the Board has approved the site plan to go back to Community Development for their review. In clarification Mr. Coffey indicated that the way this is worded gives the Board the option of approving the final plat once it is received or having staff complete the process administratively based on the preliminary plan. Mr. Barnes indicated that they would not get that until there was a workshop. Mr. Purcell noted that if the Board approved it preliminarily, then people are vested in time and money once the work is begun. Mr. Barnes agreed that once it comes through the Board it is basically given the okay to go ahead and do final review. Mr. Coffey confirmed that once the Board gives approval of the preliminary they work with the application to complete the final plat which is basically the same but at a higher level of detail. Mr. Coffey went on to confirm that once the final plat is completed the Board does reserve the right to give final approval. Mr. Jennings voiced his concern that problems may arise with other subdivisions and questioned if there was some way this could be rescinded. Mr. Barnes indicated that he did not know how that could be done at this point. Mr. Havasy questioned how much time, effort and money had been invested already. Applicant Mr. Lilly indicated that the amount spent was in the ballpark of $2.5 million. Mr. Barnes asked for clarification of the costs not including the purchase of the land. Mr. Lilly indicated that it would be under a million dollars. Mr. Barnes asked if this needed to be voted on now. Mr. Coffey indicated that he did not know what the protocol is, but needed the Board to advise whether they wanted final plat approval or whether staff was to approve it. Mr. Harper questioned whether proceeding would compromise any other procedures. Mr. Morgan indicated that those that have been given to the planning department to consider would have to be done in the same manner, but those that have not, the Board is certainly free to look at those in a new light.
Mr. Coffey indicated that the Community Development Department has received a preliminary conceptual sketch for McGee development, now called Andrew's Crossing Subdivision, containing 23 lots in Louisa County. This subdivision is comprised of two parent parcels to be served by two new internal roads with two accesses onto route 640 (E. Jack Jouett Road). Mr. Coffey said the proposal is in compliance with all existing A2 zoning regulations, all other subdivision requirements and final plat approval is currently in process by the applicant. Mr. Coffey indicated that they are very far along in the process as they have done more than is typically seen at a concept stage. The state road serving the lots on both parent parcels actually consists of 3 separate streets serving a total of 17 lots. The second state road serves six lots and provides a separate entrance onto Route 640 (E. Jack Jouett Road) for these lots. Staff has no public safety concerns regarding ingress/egress for this proposed subdivision due to multiple entrances serving a total of 23 lots. Again, staff requests that the Board advise if they desire this subdivision plat review receive final approval by the Board or if staff may continue and complete the subdivision plat process administratively.
The Board discussed this topic and Mr. Barnes indicated that even though there are more than 18 lots; he supported this one because of the fact that he felt the applicant did what he was told he could do in the process of the design, and that he was acting under good faith. Mr. Gentry noted that this is similar to the discussion earlier in that this could have been separated and approved anyhow. Mr. Barnes noted that in this case we are getting good roads. Mr. Barnes said that the Board would definitely need to go back as soon as possible and reshuffle the language. Mr. Purcell voiced his concern that the Board passed an ordinance for 18 and it should stop at 18 and if controversy continues it could destroy the by-right ordinance. For this reason he does not support sending it back to the planning commission for review. Mr. Havasy confirmed with Mr. Coffey that all the road frontage lots have no access to Route 640 (E. Jack Jouett Road) and will be served the by internal subdivision roads. Mr. Havasy further commented on his agreement that a standard rule needs to be set and that they stick to the A2 subdivision ordinance. Mr. Barnes indicated that he did not need to see this one again. Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Coffey to clarify where the parcels were on the plat. Mr. Harper indicated to Mr. Coffey that it would be helpful to list the acreage for the parcels. Mr. Coffey explained that from his perspective they have gotten as much as they could get off of this parcel, but it is designed better functionally than if this would have been two separate parcels. Mr. Purcell requested a roll call to verify those that are in favor and those that were not.
|Eric F. Purcell||No|
|Richad A. Havasy||No|
|Jack T. Wright||Yes|
|Willie L. Gentry, Jr.||Yes|
|Fitzgerald A. Barnes||Yes|
|Willie L. Harper||Yes|
|Allen B. Jennings||Yes|
Three Oaks Subdivision
Mr. Coffey indicated that the Three Oaks Subdivision preliminary plat is to contain no more than 60 residential lots, with one state road, accessing four parent parcels from Route 602 (Copper Line Road). There is a 25-foot walking and utility easement proposed in a loop around the majority of the subdivision along with two common areas and emergency exit on Route 661 (Crewsville Road) through an existing 50-foot easement. This emergency ingress/egress is intended to remain graveled, and the applicant has agreed to place breakaway bollards at its connection to the subdivision street system to prevent non-emergency vehicular use. This secondary means of ingress/egress will not help alleviate any traffic congestions associated with the subdivision, but does provide an important public safety improvement. Finally, the applicants have agreed that the final plat will have no more than 49 residential lots. Soils work and other environmental requirements are currently under way. The preliminary plat has been approved and is valid for five years as long as they diligently pursue it. Therefore, the staff wishes for the Board to advise if they desire to look at the final plat or if they wish for staff to continue administratively with this subdivision plat process.
The Board discussed this topic and Mr. Jennings acknowledged the concern of citizens regarding Copper Line Road. Mr. Jennings indicated that he had a concern about adding 60 lots in this area and said that he had approached the developer and they came to a mutual agreement to reduce the number of lots to a maximum of 49. Mr. Jennings was pleased to say that this is a developer who is willing to work with some of the citizens and taking into consideration what is best for the community. Mr. Wright said that he had met twice with citizens to discuss their concerns regarding the use of the emergency road and the water runoff. Mr. Wright asked Mr. Gordon to address these issues before a motion was made. Mr. Leigh Gordon acknowledged that the developer wants to show their good faith working with the Board of Supervisors as well as the citizens of Louisa County and that they are concerned about their developments. Mr. Gordon assured the Board that any requirements, whether it is from the state level or the county level, will be adhered to, and they will be followed. Mr. Gordon informed the Board that a representative from DEQ, Trish Beasley, walked the entire piece of property and is very familiar with the project. Mr. Gordon indicated that Ms. Beasley was going to put together a request and guidelines she wanted followed so that way it would be very specific to address all the erosion control requirements. Ms. Beasley told Mr. Gordon that the project looked stable and it looked good as far as she was concerned. Mr. Wright asked Mr. Gordon to comment on the designated common area. Mr. Harper asked if the eleven lots that had been reduced would be added to this area. Mr. Gordon replied that at this point those details had not been confirmed. He indicated that there had been some discussion of larger lots, the setback off of Copper Line Road, and increase in the common area, or increase in buffers to adjoining property owners. Mr. Gordon said at this point there is a lot of work to do and they dont know exactly how much will go to the open space.
Upon further discussion Mr. Purcell indicated that although this is a beautiful development, based on his interpretation of the ordinance he would be voting no. Mr. Havasy confirmed his belief that if you want to combine four or five pieces of property, do it, rezone, and allow the citizens and the county to be involved in the development. He indicated that there needs to be standard guidelines set so the Board isnt put in a position where a decision has to be made on every development. Mr. Havasy further indicated that he would not support these types of subdivisions that come through in the future. Mr. Wright commented that again this subdivision has already been approved and the issue tonight was the reduction of lots from 60 to 49. Mr. Wright confirmed with Mr. Jennings that this was his understanding.
By a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Purcell voting against, the Board agreed approve the Three Oaks Subdivision based on the reduction of lots from 60 to 49.
Mr. Coffey informed the Board that the Community Development Department had received a preliminary conceptual sketch for Bella Woods subdivision containing 19 lots in Louisa County. This subdivision is comprised of two parent parcels to be served by new internal road with one access onto Route 601 (Greenes Corner Road). There is a by-right use for both parent parcels, and parcel 63105 may have 18 lots and 63105B may have a two-lot division to be served by a private lane. The main policy issue with this proposed subdivision is whether to approve access to the second parent parcel via a flag lot shown as 19 on the preliminary layout, or require the second parent parcel to develop independently via a 50-foot right-of-way and private lane to serve two parcels. There will be one access to Route 601 (Greenes Corner Road) in either scenario for lot 18. Staff requests direction on this policy issue regarding the preliminary plat review and further requests if the Board desires that this come back to the Board for further review or staff can continue to approve it administratively. Mr. Coffey further explained that the issue basically is there are 20 lots, 19 of which would be served by one road or it could be approved as an 18-lot by-right without a board review, and then the 63105B would be a private lane with two lots. Mr. Coffey indicated that the applicants representative Mr. Barlow was in attendance to answer any questions.
Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Coffey to clarify the breaks in the parent parcels. Mr. Gentry further asked how many lots are in the two parent parcels. Mr. Coffey indicated that there are a total of 19. Mr. Coffey indicated that there would be one on one lot and 17 on the other. Mr. Gentry indicated that if we stick to the rule of 18, then we need to do away with the flag lot, which means you would have 17 on one parent parcel and two in the other parent parcel. Mr. Coffey confirmed that in order to stick to the rule there would have to be 17 and two, a private lane and a state road. Mr. Wright indicated that he thought the Board had done away with flag lots six or seven years ago. Mr. Purcell commented that this was the type of case that the 18 by-right ordinance was passed for. He indicated that when serving one extra lot makes sense then it should be done, but when 40 on four parcels comes up it should be shot down.
By vote of 6-1, with Mr. Jennings voting for, the Board agreed not to approve the Bella Woods Subdivision preliminary plan.
Mr. Coffey informed the Board that the Community Development Department had received a preliminary conceptual sketch for Carter's Grant subdivision containing 48 lots in Louisa County. This subdivision is comprised of two parent parcels with one access onto Route 33 (Jefferson Highway). The main issue with this subdivision plat is concern over only one means of ingress/egress serving 48 lots over approximately 345 acres. Previous preliminary subdivision plats have been approved both with and without a secondary ingress and egress. Staff recommends the Board carefully consider this application and all future applications since there is only one road serving 48 lots. It is the recommendation of staff that the Board evaluate the ability of the county to effectively provide emergency services to residents with only one means of ingress and egress, particularly as the number of lots served increases. Mr. Coffey indicated that he had received some correspondence from Tereconcepts, who is the applicant's consultant. They have identified a prescriptive easement that could serve as a secondary means of ingress and egress. So if the Board wished to approve this concept, contingent on a legal easement and/or right-of-way being established, that would provide a secondary means of emergency ingress and egress. Staff requests direction on this policy issue regarding the preliminary plat review and further requests if the Board desires that this come back to the Board for further review or if staff can continue to approve it administratively.
By vote of 7-0 the Board agreed not to approve the Carters Grant Subdivision preliminary plan.
Mr. Coffey informed the Board that the Community Development Department had received a preliminary conceptual sketch for Timber Hollow subdivision containing 52 lots in Louisa County. This subdivision is comprised of three parent parcels with one access onto route 656 (Cedar Hill Road). After review it appears the proposal is in general in compliance with most A-2 zoning regulations; however, the proposal must adhere to all minimum lot size, frontage and with the requirements of the district. The main policy issue with this subdivision plat is concern regarding only one means of ingress and egress serving 52 lots. The staff recommends the Board evaluate the ability of the County to effectively provide emergency services to residents with only one means of ingress/egress with this number of lots. Staff requests direction on whether the Board wants to approve the concept or not, continue with staff or come back to the Board.
By vote of 7-0 the Board agreed not to approve the Timber Hollow Subdivision preliminary plan.
Agricultural and Forestal District Review Inglewood District
Mr. Coffey indicated that there are five parcels that encompass the Inglewood agricultural and forestal district. Response has been received on three of these parcels requesting that they remain in the agricultural and forestal district. The other two have not been heard from, which means by de facto they also wish to remain in the district. Mr. Coffey stated that it is the recommendation of the Community Development Department that the Board of Supervisors renew the Inglewood Agricultural District for an additional ten years.
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to renew the Inglewood Agricultural District for an additional ten years.
The Board discussed having a comprehensive workshop on subdivisions. It was agreed that the Board would be involved in the initial workshop and then another workshop would be done that included the Planning Commission. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Coffey and Mr. Lintecum to email the board members to determine when the workshop can be done.
Resolution Appropriation of Funds for a Trap and Skeet Field
Mr. Smith addressed the Board indicating that he was here tonight on behalf of the parks and recreation to request the Board to appropriate $75,000 to a separate line item for a trap and skeet field. Mr. Smith said that in March of 2006 the advisory committee voted to appropriate $75,000 of the parks development enhancement capital budget for the future development of a trap and skeet field. He indicated that the trap and skeet field would be potentially located on County-Owned property near the landfill and animal shelter and would be operated by the Louisa County Department of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Smith indicated that the project is dependent on an ordinance being established.
In discussion by the Board Mr. Wright voiced his concern that this was his first knowledge of this project he had and that the Board has not received enough information to make a decision at this time. Mr. Havasy confirmed with Mr. Smith that the money would be coming from the capital CIP budget. Mr. Havasy further indicated that the animal shelter was not aware of this project and he would prefer to make sure everything is done in proper order to prevent any issues from arising. Mr. Smith explained that at this time they are asking for the appropriation of the funds and that the project is contingent upon the ordinance that may not be completed until September. Mr. Gentry indicated his support for this project stating that he had heard a tremendous amount on this project and feels that is would be very beneficial for our rural county. Mr. Barnes also gave his support of the project stating that he felt this project filled the diversity the county needed for recreation. Mr. Barnes however also acknowledged the concerns that had been voiced and agreed that more information was needed before the funds are appropriated. Mr. Barnes asked the Board to submit their questions to Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, to give to Mr. Smith and the Advisory Board and asked Mr. Smith to return to the August meeting to address these questions. Mr. Gentry indicated that he would like for the Board to move on this issue very quickly as he felt it had been reviewed very thoroughly.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by vote of 6-1, with Mr. Wright opposing the Board agreed to approve the concept of a trap and skeet field and agrees to have the Parks and Recreation Department move forward with this process.
REZ03-06 Sun, LLC, c/o Gary W. Griffith
Mr. Coffey presented the rezoning 03-06 of approximately 28 acres from A-1 and A-2 to R-2. This property is located on the east side of route 652 (Kentucky Springs Road) across from route 723 (Bohannon Road), in the Jackson Magisterial and voting districts. The 2001 comprehensive plan designates this area of the county as low density residential within the Lake Anna designated growth area. The neighborhood meeting was held on April 12, 2006, in which no one other than the applicant was present to speak for or against the application. The proposed use represents a compatible land use for this area. The 2001 comprehensive plan designates this area as low density residential within the Lake Anna designated growth area. It appears to be compatible with the area land use and zoning patterns consistent with the comprehensive plan designation and it does not appear to represent spot zoning. The development review committee met on April 26th of this year to review the application. Mr. Winston asked staff if this project would have to comply with the shoreline management regulations for any improvement; staff replied that it would. Theyre being no further discussion, the development review committee voted unanimously for approval, with Mr. Spencer absent, to forward this to the planning commission. The planning commission met on May 11. There were two people present who spoke against the request. These individuals expressed concern over higher density, initial traffic, impact on schools and the proposed dredging project application that was before the Army Corps. The planning commission did not have any stated concerns and voted unanimously 7-0 for recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.
In discussion of this rezoning proposal Mr. Purcell asked if this would be a maximum of 20-25 lots on this 28.102 acres. Mr. Coffey indicated that he had not seen a concept plan as of this time.
Mr. Barnes opened the public hearing for citizen comments and asked the applicant if he wished to speak. Mr. Griffith thanked the Board for their time and explained that there was a concept design in place with 17 lots showing. The reason for asking for this zoning change was to bring the property into conformance with the comprehensive plan and that it would not change the development design either way. Mr. Griffith indicated that they were not committing to just 17 lots, but that was currently the design and that it was about the maximum they would be able to achieve. Mr. Barnes thanked Mr. Griffith and asked if there were any residents that would like to speak. Not hearing any, Mr. Barnes closed the public hearing and brought discussion back to the Board. Mr. Jennings indicated that this was the type of rezoning the county wanted.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the rezoning request of approximately 28.012 acres in the Jackson Magisterial District and Jackson voting District from Agricultural (A-1 and A-2 to Residential General (R-2).
REZ04-06 Virginia Homestead Partners, LLC
Mr. Coffey presented to the Board the application to rezone approximately 49.8 acres from A-2 to R-2, residential subdivision development. This property is located at the end of Route 723 (Bohannon Road) off of 652 (Kentucky Springs Road), and is in the Cuckoo Magisterial and voting districts. The 2001 comprehensive plan designates this area of Louisa County as low density residential within the Lake Anna designated growth area. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 12th at which three people were present to discuss this application. They had various questions and concerns, all of which were answered to their satisfaction. The application appears to the staff to be compatible with land use and zoning patterns. The area is consistent with comprehensive plan designation for this area as within the Lake Anna growth area and does not appear to represent spot zoning. The development review committee met on April 26th and discussed this application with the applicant. The committee briefly discussed this proposal and voted 6-0 on recommendation of approval to the planning commission. The planning commission met on May 11th, at which no one was present to speak for or against. The Planning commission asked for a clarification on proffers. Applicant agreed to provide that clarification to staff. Contingent on that, the planning commission voted 7-0 for recommendation for approval to the Board. Proffers that have been submitted are dated and signed May 31 of this year. There are six proffers of 25-foot natural landscape buffer around the perimeter of the property, neighborhood common area, tot lot, with the developer to install the play ground equipment or donate funds to the homeowners association for the playground equipment. Masonry brick veneer foundations on the front and side of the homes. Side and rear foundation will ultimately set down for site conditions. Asphalt paved from Hanna Road to the Pine Run entrance, which would be the entrance to the subdivision. Remove the existing metal outbuilding prior to completion of Pine Run subdivision. No less than 15 percent of the completed homes will be priced for affordable housing. These homes will be offered for sale at $200,000 or below, adjusted for inflation. The final sales prices may vary subject to purchasers adding additional items or adding additional closing costs.
Mr. Barnes thanked Mr. Coffey for his presentation and asked if the Board members had any questions. Mr. Purcell asked for clarification of the road mentioned in the proffer. Mr. Coffey indicated they have acquired right-of-way to extend the State road to this subdivision. They are going to begin their pavement where the current right-of-way ends, which is currently a graveled state road. So it is going to become paved from the point at which they are acquiring it, all the way to the subdivision entrance. Mr. Wright asked for the estimated number of houses that is planned and the application responded that there were 38 houses planned. With no further questions from the Board Mr. Barnes opened the public hearing to citizen comments and asked for the applicant if he would like to speak. Mr. Brian Roberts indicated that he was there with his partner Larry Zacharias and a representative from Bell Surveys. Mr. Roberts indicated that they were planning for 38 lots and are trying to target a blue-collar worker neighborhood. Mr. Barnes asked for further public comment and not hearing any closed the public hearing and brought discussion back to the Board.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the rezoning request of approximately 49.8 acres in the Cuckoo Magisterial District and the Cuckoo Voting District from A-2 to R-2, residential subdivision development.
CUP04-06, Community Wireless Structures III, LLC and Jenson and Kristene Hamilton
Mr. Coffey detailed the request for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 199-foot telecommunication tower, associated equipment and buildings by Community Wireless Structures. The property is located on the east side of Route 33 (Jefferson Highway), approximately 3000 feet from the northeast creek reservoir in the Mineral, Magisterial and voting districts. The property is zoned A-2 with the surrounding zoning being A-2 and the existing land use is pasture and vacant land. The comprehensive plan designates this area of the county as agricultural. The request is for a 199-foot tower with a leased area of 3600 square feet, a 40-foot by 90-foot compound to hold a monopole tower and associated equipment. The compound will be fenced, eight-foot high fence, and a leased existing gravel driveway to Route 33 (Jefferson Highway) with a VDOT approved entrance. Setback from the nearest property line is 220 feet which does meet our minimum setback requirement for towers. The tower is proposed to be metallic green color. And the nearest resident setbacks meet all county requirements. There was no one present at the neighborhood meeting held on April 12 of this year. The development review committee met on April 26th to discuss this application. They discussed several conditions and the wording of the conditions and the wording was improved, clarified at a bare minimum, and also approved by the county attorney. The DRC voted 6-0 for the recommendation of approval on the conditional use permit with the conditions amended as recommended. Planning commission public hearing was on May 11th. Two people were present to speak in favor of the conditional use permit. Planning commission discussed the wording and the conditions and how this will improve service for Louisa citizens and coverage of the areas. They also wanted staff to advise the applicants of the county's policy on collocation but felt the applicant had done a good job at locating the tower. After discussion the planning commission voted unanimously 7-0 to recommend approval with changes to condition 12, which states, “The ownership of the tower shall not be transferred without the prior written approval of the County of Louisa. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Reasons for withholding approval may include but not be limited to a lack of maintenance or physical responsibility on the part of the proposed purchaser.” and 13 in included, “we added the applicant shall provide a cash bond approved by the county attorney in the amount needed to cover demolition and site restoration costs.”
Mr. Barnes thanked Mr. Coffey for his presentation and asked the Board members for questions regarding this CUP. Mr. Havasy asked the county administration how the cell tower study was going. Mr. Lintecum indicated that this study was still in progress. Mr. Havasy stated that they had agreed not to proceed with this type of request until the study was completed. Mr. Lintecum indicated that the reason this request was before the Board was that it was already schedule at that time. Mr. Coffey agreed that this request and the next request were already scheduled and that they would not be accepting additional applications that are not fully complete. In discussion between Mr. Wright and Mr. Coffey a change in language was clarified and that the language was changed to reflect that the ownership of the tower should not be transferred without prior written approval of the county, and it no longer says another permit is required and that the permit is non-transferable. Mr. Harper questioned how lack of maintenance would be determined. Mr. Coffey indicated that at the time of approval for transfer of ownership, the Board reserves the right to go out and inspect the tower and could withhold the request. The Board would have one year to make a decision. Mr. Morgan indicated that he felt the change in language indicated that we could contact other localities where there might be some located to find out.
Mr. Barnes opened the public hearing for citizen comments and asked the applicant if he wished to speak. Mr. Tam Murray, Owner, Community Wireless Structures, provided the Board with handouts that addressed how this proposed tower as well as the next one will be utilized to provide infrastructure along highways. This will enable multiple carriers to locate on one structure so that counties like Louisa don't have to consider multiple structures. Mr. Murray further explained that his company develops and spends a tremendous amount of time creating an infrastructure designed for all carriers and that they design really beefy, heavy structures that will typically hold six carriers.
Mr. Gentry questioned the distance between towers in Madison County to that in his proposal. Mr. Murray indicated that it is difficult to give a rule of thumb on the distance due to topography. Mr. Barnes asked for additional citizen comments. Mr. Brian Gilbreth, Owner, Central Virginia Technology Group, indicated that they are in favor of this tower, as it will improve the infrastructure that will enable them to provide wireless Internet service throughout the county.
As there were no further citizens requesting to address this issue Mr. Barnes closed the public hearing and brought the issue back to the Board. Mr. Havasy indicated that he is in 100-percent support of these cell towers because they are important to the community, but that future requests need to not be addressed until the cell tower study has been completed. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Gilbreth how far this tower would allow them to expand their coverage. Mr. Gilbreth indicated that with the addition of these towers and by utilizing the existing towers already in place their one-year plan was to provide coverage through the entire County of Louisa. Mr. Gentry indicated that he would not support any tower concepts until the county plan is done. Mr. Purcell said that he will be abstaining from this vote. Mr. Barnes applauded Ms. Murray for the work they have done on collocation.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by vote of 5-1-1, with Mr. Gentry voting against and Mr. Purcell abstaining, a resolution was adopted to approve the request for a conditional use permit for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 199-foot telecommunications tower with associated equipment and buildings.
CUP05-06 Community Wireless Structures III, LLC and Louise Dean
Mr. Coffey detailed the request for the construction, operation and maintenance of 175-foot telecommunication tower, associated equipment and buildings by Community Wireless Structures. The property is located on the northwest side of Route 639 (Doctors Road). It's approximately 1500 feet from Route 33 (S. Spotswood Trail). It is in the Green Springs magisterial and voting districts. The zoning is A-2 with the surrounding land being zoned A-2. Existing land use is pasture and vacant. The comprehensive plan designated this area as agricultural. Mr. Coffey referenced that the needs are similar to the previously discussed tower. There were three persons present at the neighborhood meeting on April 12, 2006. They stated they didn't receive notice regarding the balloon flying until it was too late and asked if we can refly the balloon. Applicant said they would refly the balloon. At the development review committee on April 26, to review this request they discussed the same conditions as the other request and recommended 6-0 for approval of this application to the planning commission. The planning commission met on May 11th and one person spoke in favor of this request. The wording was again tweaked to be consistent with the previous request. With those amended conditions the planning commission voted unanimously 7-0 to approve the 175-foot tower. Mr. Havasy asked why this tower was 175 and not 199. Mr. Coffey explained that this is the minimal height needed to collocate in this specific area. Mr. Barnes opened the public hearing for citizen comments. With no citizens wishing to speak Mr. Barnes closed the public hearing and brought discussion back to the Board.
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by vote of 6-1 with Mr. Gentry voting against, a resolution was adopted to approve the request for a conditional use permit for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 175-foot telecommunications tower with associated equipment and buildings.
Amendment of the Louisa County Code 74-1
Mr. Morgan addressed the Board indicating that this public hearing will take into effect any changes in the state code or motor vehicle code, making it part of the county code so that the Sheriff can charge them as county violations rather than state code violations. Mr. Morgan informed the Board that what they are being asked to do is not only adopt the motor vehicle code, but also the sections of Title 18.2 that can be also adopted by reference into this. Mr. Barnes opened the public hearing for citizen comments. As there where no citizens wishing to address the Board the public hearing was closed and discussion was brought back to the Board.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted to amend Louisa County Code 74-1 to adopt by reference all motor vehicle law provisions under the Code of Virginia that becomes effective on July 1, 2006.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted by reference sections of title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Barnes asked that the Board have a chance to review the Comprehensive Plan and that is be added to the August Consent Agenda and have a public hearing. Mr. Gentry indicated that Mr. Coffey may have a conflict with that day. Mr. Coffey confirmed that he will not be available that day, but that his assistant Will could answer any questions. Mr. Coffey indicated that he did not have any problem with going ahead with the public hearing at the August meeting. He went on the indicated that he had received additional formal comments that the Board may want to consider after the public hearing has been held.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to have the Comprehensive Plan public hearing at the August meeting.
Mr. Wright informed the Board that he is now serving as Chairman of the Piedmont Workforce Council that works with the Workforce Investment Board.
Mr. Havasy indicated that he would like to reappoint Mr. Bywaters to his current positions with the County Water Authority and Water and Sewer Rate Commission.
Mr. Harper indicated he would like to reappoint Mr. Besley to the County Water and Sewer Rate Commission.
Mr. Wright suggested due to her experience with social services they nominate Peggy McGee to the Social Services Board to replace Deborah Coles.
Mr. Wright also informed the Board that the Clean Community Commission had requested to appoint Bob Myer as a member at large. Mr. Wright went on to say that he does not feel that this commission needs at large members.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by vote of 7-0, the Board reappointed Mr. Bywaters and Mr. Besley to the County Water Authority and Water and Sewer Rate Commission and appointed Ms. McGee to the Social Services Board.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Mr. Lintecum indicated he had received a memo from Mr. Coffey regarding the recommendations on the expenditure of the affordable housing fund. Basically we see the memo and the program general requirements that will be placed on the use of this money. Mr. Harper asked if they were going to form a committee for this issue. Mr. Lintecum indicated that Mr. Coffey had found members to serve on a Housing Committee and it started meeting, but the Board had never made a motion to appoint it. Mr. Harper indicated that he knew of an individual that was interested in an appointment to this committee. Mr. Barnes questioned whether this issue could not be handled by the Affordable Housing Committee and asked that all the members of the Affordable Housing Committee be emailed to get their feedback on the need to form a Housing Committee.
Resolution Requesting a Referendum to Approve a Food and Beverage Tax for the County of Louisa
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted requesting that the Circuit Court Judge for the County of Louisa order that the Referendum to Approve a Food and Beverage Tax for the County of Louisa be placed on the ballot for the November 7, 2006 General Election.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by vote of 7-0, the Board agreed add have the Comprehensive Plan public hearing at the August meeting.
The Board did not discuss any correspondence during this meeting.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the second half of June 2006 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $605,712.58.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Barnes abstaining, the Board adopted the minutes of June 19, 2006.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:03 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:
1. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel for discussion of litigation in the Green Springs.
2. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel under the County Administrator.
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 8:38 p.m.
RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this the 5th day of July 2006, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, § 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this the 5th day of July 2006, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the July 5, 2006 regular meeting at 8:39 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
FITZGERALD A. BARNES, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA