|
Minutes of other Meetings |
Minutes of the Board of Supervisors
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5:00 P.M. 
CALL TO ORDER Chairman Barnes called the August 1, 2005 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Purcell led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Mr. Wright asked that the Board have a moment of silence in the memory of Bob Emery. Mr. Wright said that Mr. Emery had done a lot of work with all of the rescue squads in the County. On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Messrs Barnes, Gentry, and Wright abstaining from reimbursement checks pertaining to them, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the month of July 2005, for the County of Louisa in the amount of $2,504,683.20.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, informed the Board that he has included a letter from the Treasurer regarding the statistical information for collected and uncollected taxes for 2004 through June 30, 2005. Mr. Gentry questioned whether the Sheriffs Department used their decibel meter for any of the noise complaints that they responded to. Sheriff Fortune replied that they did not have to use their decimeter since the individuals complied by reducing the noise levels.
CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD Lawrence Jackson, Louisa District, reminded the Board that he had previously come before them where he presented two ideas that he thought would be worth while for the County. Mr. Jackson said that he had asked them to support in partnership the Buffalo Soldiers Motorcycle Club, Inc. of Louisa County to support the Special Olympics of Virginia. Mr. Jackson stated that this event came and passed, which they did not receive a response from the County for the partnership. Mr. Jackson urged the Board to consider meeting with them to select a partnership for FY05-06. Mr. Jackson said that the second item was for fluoride treatments for the children of Louisa County. He said that there are currently 1,100 families that have children and adults that are suffering from the lack of fluoride. Mr. Jackson stated that he did not receive a response from the Board regarding this topic either. Mr. Jackson expressed the importance of helping these children who have deficiencies in their teeth and urged the Board to step forward to help the individuals who cannot afford this treatment. Chairman Barnes said that he would like to a resolution to the agenda for the Boards consideration to have Abb Morris Road added to the Rural Rustic Road.
Mr. Lintecum said that he would like to add the Homeland Security Grant as a topic to the agenda. On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the August 1, 2005 agenda was adopted as amended.
PRESENTATIONS
Fluoride Dental Program Mr. Purcell said that he wanted to apologize publicly for not having more time to work closely with Mr. Jackson on this program. Mr. Purcell stated that he feels that this program is very worthy and would like the Board to look at it and provide some funding towards the program. Resolution - Appreciation of Lauren Jacobs and Brittany Spaur for Their Assistance as High School Cooperative Students for Louisa County Mr. Lintecum read the resolution for all to hear and presented a plaque to Brittany Spaur who was present. The Board extended their appreciation to Ms. Ava Pippin, Louisa County High School CTE-Business Instructor, for sponsoring this program that helps so many students and to the students for their hard work. On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted of appreciation to Lauren Jacobs and Brittany Spaur for their assistance while working as Coop students for the County of Louisa.
Introduction of Student Interns Sherry Vena Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources, extended her appreciation to the Board for sponsoring the Internship Program for the students. Mrs. Vena said that when her and Pam Vaughan, Accounting Personnel Officer, first went to the school to speak with them about this program, they realized very quickly that there were a lot of talented students that were interested in this program. Mrs. Vena said that these students have done a wonderful job and have communicated with them about their accomplishments, achievements, and their career goals. Mrs. Vena extended her appreciation to all of the sponsors that helped with this program and other staff members that provided support. The Interns introduced themselves to the Board and identified the department that they worked with. Mrs. Vena showed a PowerPoint presentation to the Board reflecting the interns hard at work. A. Resolution - Requesting VDOT to Have Old Apple Grove Road (Route 658) Considered as a Rural Rustic Road
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted to request VDOT to have Old Apple Grove Road (Route 658) considered as a Rural Rustic Road.
B. Resolution - To Request a Speed Study and Increasing the Width on Harris Creek Road (Route 630)
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted requesting VDOT to perform a traffic/speed study on Harris Creek Road (Route 630).
C. Resolution - Requesting VDOT to Have Abb Morris Road Considered as a Rural Rustic Road
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted to request VDOT to have Abb Morris Road considered as a Rural Rustic Road. Zion Crossroad Fire Department Advanced Life Support Patient Care On motion of Dr. Morgan, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted to allow the Zion Crossroad Fire Department to provide Advanced Life Support Patient Care.
Resolution - Appreciation of Gerald Root for His Many Years of Service to the Lake Anna Advisory Committee
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted recognizing Gerald Root for his service as the Treasurer of eight years on the Lake Anna Advisory Commission.
Homeland Security Grant Mr. Lintecum referenced the memo that was received from Mike Schlemmer, Emergency Services Coordinator, regarding the items they would like to purchase with the monies that will be received from this grant. Mr. Lintecum stated that they had previously told the Board they would be notified of their intentions prior to spending any of the money. OLD BUSINESS
Site Plan Review Appeal Process Mr. Morgan said that Mr. Purcell had asked him to look into the matter of site plan review. Mr. Morgan explained that he has included a list in their packet reflecting what other localities do for this situation. Mr. Morgan named eight different localities that had no mention at all about an appeal process in their site plan reviews. Mr. Morgan said that there were two localities that allowed an appeal process that went through the Board of Zoning Appeals, which he did not find statutory basis for this. Mr. Morgan stated that Spotsylvania County mentions an appeal process that goes directly through the Circuit Court rather than through their Board of Supervisors. He said that he looked at several that had different approaches that would consider appeals to the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission. Mr. Morgan stated that site plans are not subject to public hearings, but are an administrative process. Mr. Morgan said that he has prepared language to amend the Louisa County Site Plan Ordinance to provide for an appeal to the Board of Supervisors if they desire. Mr. Morgan identified the recommended change that would allow individuals to appeal to the Board if they choose to do so and said that this would require a public hearing to amend this ordinance. Hanover County Mutual Aid Agreement Chairman Barnes questioned if EMSAL had reviewed this agreement. Chairman Barnes said that he would be uncomfortable approving a document that EMSAL has not had the opportunity to review. NEW BUSINESS
Resolution Appointment of County Assessor
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Dr. Morgan, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted appointing Richard C. Gasper, Jr. as the Real Estate Assessor of the County of Louisa.
Resolution - Awarding Contract for Water & Sewer Lines at Zion Crossroads Bar Delk, Louisa County Water Authority Director, explained to the Board that the proposed contract is for the part of the water line that goes from the Southside of I-64 and for water and sewer lines to be installed under Route 15 to the Eastside of Route 15. Mr. Delk stated that the low bidder for this particular job was Jerry Moran for $358,740, which the highest bid was received at $547,477. On motion of Dr. Morgan, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted awarding a contract to Jerry L. Moran for the Water System and Sanitary Sewer System improvements south of I-64 in the amount not to exceed $358,740.00.
Resolution - Bowlers Mill Water Resource Skip Notte, Dewberry and Davis Representative, informed the Board that he was here this evening to speak in more detail about one of the two options they had discussed at their May meeting for extending a water resource from Bowlers Mill Lake to the Zion Crossroads Service area. Mr. Notte said that the only difference between what he is showing them now compared to what they previously reviewed is the original alignment that they showed running down Bowlers Mill Road (Route 603) that provided the access drive to the reservoir, which they have modified to run across country that saves footage and prevents them from having to cross South Anna in two locations. Mr. Notte said instead of the original 0.60 MGD Water Plant they showed in May, they have determined that a safe yield would be 0.90 MGD, so they were able to increase the size of the plant. Mr. Notte pointed out that this does not take into any consideration of the water line along Route 250 to the East, down towards the Ferncliff exit. Mr. Notte stated that he has included the estimated costs for this project, which would be around $6,898,600. The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Mr. Harper asking what the gallons per day would be allowed for Bowlers Mill. Dr. Morgan said that when they talk about Bowlers Mill Lake as a surface supply source of water for Zion Crossroads, it was an alternative to the James River project that is still ongoing. Dr. Morgan asked if a safe yield study would look at the entire impact of withdrawing water to that degree from the lake on the wells in the area or if this would be a separate issue. Dr. Morgan said that in talking with Fluvanna County, Virginia about the James River, the initial estimates were around $10,000,000 for Louisa Countys part to get three million gallons per day and this is $7,000,000 for less than a million gallons per day, which seems to be a less cost effective plan and questioned if cost analyses were being done as part of the process investigating Bowlers Mill as a source of water for the Zion Crossroads area. Mr. Purcell emphasized the economic importance of having water supplied to this area. Chairman Barnes said that he believes that there is an opportunity to create partnerships with other entities that need water supplies, which could help reduce their overall costs on the infrastructure. Chairman Barnes stated that he believes that it would be a wise choice to use Bowlers Mill as a water source. Mr. Gentry referenced the letter enclosed in their packet from the Public Works Committee and said that as the liaison for this committee, he would like to have paragraph four stricken from this letter as he does not recall this being stated. Chairman Barnes stated that their intent was to protect the Green Springs District and what has been indicated in the letter is that if these individuals wanted to connect to the water source, then they would be precluded. Mr. Harper cautioned the Board about looking at these issues closer to ensure that they do not over commit themselves. Mr. Notte replied that based on a study that was conducted in 1995 by DEQ; they said that a safe yield of 910,000 gallons per day would be available from Bowlers Mill. Mr. Notte recommended to the Board that they move forward with having a yield study done. Mr. Notte said that as far as the cost analysis looking at the James River option versus the Bowlers Mill option, they were not asked to look at that information. Resolution - Provision of Water to Zion Crossroads Service Area Mr. Lintecum explained to the Board that this resolution supports their commitment to provide water and sewer service to the Zion Crossroads area. The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Chairman Barnes explaining that he had requested this item to be presented to them due to some entities that are not sure that Louisa Countys commitment to provide water to the Zion Crossroads area, which effects financing efforts and businesses that are currently trying to construct in this area. Chairman Barnes stated that when they initially began talking about building the infrastructure in the Zion Crossroads area, they were looking at the commercial aspects. Chairman Barnes said that you typically do not get the commercial end without having a residential piece that comes along with it, which he would like to show that the Board is committed in providing the infrastructure for both commercial and residential. Dr. Morgan said that as far as the public utility, he spoke in favor of this when the issue first came before the Board. Dr. Morgan said that this was specifically designed to enhance the economic development from the commercial / industrial point of view. Dr. Morgan said that as far as building more roof tops in order to get more industry, this was not part of the policy at the time; therefore, he would like to know if they have changed the service to provide residential already within that public utility by the action that they took six months ago. Dr. Morgan said that the current resolution reflects commercial and residential and until he is able to receive supporting documentation on how much water they would be able to get from Bowlers Mill Lake, then he doesnt want to open that door until they have received this information. Mr. Gentry pointed out that the Board had previously established a master plan for this service area that includes part residential, commercial, and industrial; therefore, he doesnt see anything out of line with what has been identified in this resolution showing the their commitment. Mr. Harper requested that another “whereas” be added to the resolution to reflect that the Board wants to move expeditiously to provide water to the Zion Crossroads area.
Mr. Morgan explained that the wells that were drilled by the County are still controlled by the Conditional Use Permit, which restricts them to commercial and industrial. Mr. Morgan said that the wells that were drilled by Mr. Kincannon are for residential use.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Dr. Morgan, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution of commitment for the provision of water to the Zion Crossroads area was adopted.
Discussion - Affordable Housing
Darren Coffey, Community Development Director, said that back in April of this year, the Board had asked him to convene a committee representing a broad cross section of Louisa County residents and stakeholders. Mr. Coffey introduced the committee to the Board. Mr. Coffey explained that their first goal was to define affordable housing, which typically does not cost more than three times the household income. Mr. Coffey said that the federal definition of who qualifies states that households earning 80% or less than the areas median income, which would equate to a family of four earning less than $42,950 in Louisa County. He said that the need for affordable housing would allow the children of longtime residents to remain in Louisa County, creates a community where people can both live and work, and to allow those individuals who work in the community to purchase a home. Mr. Coffey highlighted both the long-term and short-term strategies to create affordable housing. Mr. Coffey identified their first recommended strategy as Planned Unit Developments, which is defined by an area that would be planned, developed, operated, and maintained as a single entity; allowing developers to mix land uses, achieve greater densities, and have more design flexibility. Mr. Coffey identified their second strategy as being density bonuses, which is defined as enabling developers to voluntarily build additional units in return for public amenities such as affordable housing, parking, parkland, and daycare facilities. Mr. Coffey identified the benefits of density bonuses along with density bonuses at a two to one ratio and a three to two ratio. Mr. Coffey identified their third strategy as Housing Trust Funds, which would allow for help with down payment assistance, construction of affordable housing, and financing to those in need of low-interest loans. Mr. Coffey said that housing trust funds work well in conjunction with density bonuses, which helps make market-rate houses more affordable. Mr. Coffey identified various ways to capitalize on housing trust funds and maintaining affordability. Mr. Coffey emphasized the importance of sharing the Boards direction with the Town of Louisa and the Town of Mineral to encourage them to consider or support the Countys affordable housing initiative. Mr. Coffey identified what their next steps of action would be and asked for the Boards input on further direction for the committee. The Board briefly discussed this topic with Mr. Wright asking what controls were in place to keep organizations from buying all of the affordable homes to use as rental properties. Mr. Gentry said that based on the last census records and based on the federal definition if they were aware of what the needs are in Louisa County. Dr. Morgan suggested that the Board schedule a work session with the committee to talk about these issues in more detail. The Board directed Mr. Lintecum to schedule a joint work session with the committee.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Amendment to the Louisa County Code to Add Chapter 60 Procurement Ordinance Mr. Morgan informed the Board that he has included twenty-five pages of discussion on how the County could or should purchase goods and services. Mr. Morgan highlighted a portion of what is being considered this evening and what the advantages would be. Mr. Morgan stated that the Commonwealth of Virginia has a set procurement policy that any local government can follow, but it does also provide that local governments could provide for their own procurement policies. He said that as long as it somewhat goes along with what the state already has, but it doesnt have to follow it exactly; however, the competitive components are still there. Mr. Morgan said that there are some points of the state code that are mandatory to include in the ordinance if the Board should decide to adopt this ordinance, which are specifically for Sections 60-6, 60-8, 60-10, 60-12, 60-17, 60-19 through 22. Mr. Morgan said that the advantage of the Procurement Ordinance as it has been proposed is that it would provide for a uniform purchasing method, which would be handled strictly by the Procurement Officer. He said that one of the questions that was asked by Department Heads was whether or not they would still have control over a contract after a bid was awarded, which would be the case. The Procurement Officer would only ensure that all of the proper procurement policies were followed. Mr. Morgan said that this ordinance outlines when they should be using sealed bids and competitive negotiations. He said that this ordinance also establishes a procedure for pre-qualifying bidders, which is something that is not part of the current policy. Mr. Morgan said that this also identifies set standards on how a contractor could be disbarred from bidding on any further County projects and has a provision that would allow the contractor to appeal this decision. Mr. Morgan stated that as far as it is provided for in the Code of Virginia that allows for the preference of local projects, which allows them to select a local provider if they were looking at equal bids. This also establishes criteria for determining whether or not somebody is a non-responsive bidder. In closing, Mr. Morgan said that this ordinance does provide for small purchases that includes a step up procedure for informal bid process, which could be for purchases up to $30,000. Amendments to the Louisa County Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 66 and the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 86
Mr. Coffey summarized the hearing as being for amendments to Chapter 66 and 86 of the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, which are a result of the Long Range Planning Committee and the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffey said that the intent was to not have any major policy changes that have huge ramifications throughout the community, but to clarify certain definitions, updates of procedures and processes to be in conformance with state code, and to apply much needed corrections within the ordinance. Mr. Coffey identified the proposed changes to both Chapter 66 and 86. Mr. Coffey explained to the Board that he has included a modification that is a policy change from how it is currently listed under the Zoning Ordinance stating that it should be reviewed every three months by staff and suggested that they expand their ordinance to reflect that they would annually review the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and Subdivision Ordinance, which would reinforce the Board of Supervisors purview over rezonings and Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Coffey said that the Virginia Department of Aviation has requested, which the FAA concurs, that the Lake Anna Airport, since it is a journal aviation airport, needed to be covered in a section of the Zoning Ordinance. CHAPTER - 66 Mr. Purcell made the motion to adopt the resolution that would include the amendment of Section 66-5 to reflect the changes that were presented to them this evening by adding ten days under paragraph E to allow for the appellate process. On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the following resolution was adopted:
A RESOLUTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 66 OF THE LOUISA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors deems it necessary to amend the Louisa County Subdivision ordinance to make it more clear and to enact changes required by changes in the State Code; and AND WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing, the Planning Commission has recommended certain amendments to the Subdivision ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, on this 1st day of August 2005 that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors hereby amends the following sections of the Louisa County Subdivision ordinance to read as follows:
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Division means to divide any tract, parcel or lot of land into no more than two additional parts for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development. Lots shall be divided from parent tracts that are generally five (5) or more acres and have a minimum of 400 feet of existing state road frontage. Divisions are not subject to the provisions set forth in the subdivision ordinance except for Section 66-82 (11), Private lanes
Parent parcel, also parent tract, means the tract of land from which subsequent lots are divided. Parent parcels are further defined as those parcels in the Agricultural (A-2) Zoning District in existence on or before December 18, 1997. The portion of a parent parcel remaining once divided or subdivided is referred to as the residue parcel or residual.
Residue parcel, also residual, means that portion of a parent parcel after division or subdivision. Residue parcels are generally five (5) or more acres and have a minimum of 400 feet of existing state road frontage. A residue parcel shall not be counted as a lot if these minimum frontage and acreage requirements are met, and if the parcel has an existing VDOT approved access.
State Road means a street or roadway that is part of the Virginia State Highway System or Secondary Highway System.
Street means a dedicated strip of land or right-of-way subject to vehicular or pedestrian traffic providing means of access to property.
Street (arterial) means a highway utilized primarily as a supplement to, and as an extension of, the interstate highway system, defined in the Virginia State Highway Commission standards as an arterial highway. A minimum right-of-way of 100 feet is required.
Street (collector) means a street that carries or is anticipated to carry a volume of through traffic exceeding 400 vehicles per day, the right-of-way of which shall not be less than 50 feet nor more than 100 feet depending upon existing or anticipated traffic volume.
Street (interstate) means a highway utilized to carry interstate traffic with a minimum right-of-way of 300 feet in rural areas and carrying capacity in excess of 1500 vehicles per lane per hour.
Street (local) means a street that carries or is anticipated to carry a volume of traffic less than 400 vehicles per day, the right-of-way of which shall not be less than 50 feet.
Street (major collector) means a street that carries or is anticipated to carry a volume of traffic exceeding 3000 vehicles per day, right-of-way which shall not be less than 60 feet nor more than 110 feet.
Street (major highway) means any arterial street, major collector street or primary street or highway as defined in this section.
Street (primary) means a street or highway anticipated to carry a volume of traffic exceeding 3000 vehicles per day, designed and maintained as a part of the Virginia primary system, the right-of-way of which shall not be less than 80 feet nor more than 160 feet.
Street( privately maintained) means any roadway that is restricted as to the hours of access by the general public or by those who may use it. The definition shall be construed to include public roads that are maintained by the individuals living along or otherwise served by the road or by a property owners association created for purposes including maintenance of streets.
Street (public) means a street, which affords principal means of access to abutting property, and encompassed by a right-of-way dedicated to public use and maintained by the Commonwealth as a part of the state primary or secondary road system. The right-of-way shall not be less than 50 feet.
Street (rural) means a street having minimum right-of-way of 50 feet located in areas or subdivisions divided into parcels of two 1.5 acres or more, excepting streets carrying or anticipated to carry heavy volumes of traffic or otherwise defined herein.
Street, service drive means a public right-of-way generally parallel and contiguous to a major highway, primarily designed to promote safety by eliminating promiscuous ingress and egress to the right-of-way by providing safe and orderly points of access to the highway.
Subdivision means the division, including resubdivision and the establishment of any condominium regime, of or in a parcel of land resulting in three or more lots, parcels or units for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development, such that:
Subdivision, means to divide any tract, parcel or lot of land into three (3) or more parts for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development. Subdivided lots shall generally be less than five acres and front on less than 400 feet of existing state road frontage, but subdivided lots shall front on road that meet VDOT specifications. Consistent with this definition, any new road constructed to serve more than two lots shall be constructed to VDOT standards for subdivision streets. The residue tract is not counted as a lot for the purposes of this definition. Parcels that have been subdivided may not be further subdivided or divided unless remaining division rights are noted on a recorded plat or in conformance with existing ordinances.
VDOT means the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The zoning ordinance and zoning map shall control the type and intensity of use of all property within the county. Particular reference is made to minimum lot sizes, setback requirements, use restrictions, overlay districts, and other regulations as outlined in Chapter 86 (the zoning ordinance).
Sec. 66-5. Administration of chapter - By agent;when final approval of board of supervisors required appeal from disapproval by agent.
The subdivider shall present to the agent 175 prints of a preliminary layout at a scale of 100 feet to the inch as a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat shall include the following information:
Approval by the agent of the preliminary plat does not constitute a guarantee of approval of the final plat.
Once a preliminary subdivision plat is approved, it shall be valid for five years, provided the subdivider (i) submits a final subdivision plat for all or a portion of the property within one year of such approval, and (ii) thereafter diligently pursues approval of the final subdivision plat. Diligent pursuit of approval means that the subdivider has incurred extensive obligations or substantial expenses relating to the submitted final subdivision plat or modifications thereto.
The subdivider shall have not more than 18 months after receiving official notification concerning the preliminary plat to file with the agent a final subdivision plat in accordance with this chapter. Failure so to do shall make preliminary approval null and void.
Sec. 66-155. Revocation of preliminary subdivision plat approval
No sooner than three years following preliminary subdivision plat approval, and upon ninety days written notice by certified mail to the subdivider, the commission or subdivision agent may revoke such approval upon specific finding of facts that the subdivider has not diligently pursued approval of the final subdivision plat.
Sec. 66-156. Final plat.
The subdivision plat submitted for final approval by the agent or planning commission and subsequent recording shall be clearly and legibly drawn in ink upon tracing cloth at a scale of 100 feet to the inch, or the discretion of the agent, on sheets having such size or dimensions as the clerk of the court wherein deeds are recorded shall, upon request of the subdivider or his certified surveyor or engineer, from time to time direct, so that the plat may conform or be recorded in his then current plat book without folding, cutting or trimming, and shall include the following:
If a subdivider records a final plat which may be a section of a subdivision shown on an approved preliminary plat and furnishes to the governing body a certified check, cash escrow, bond or letter of credit in the amount of the estimated cost of construction of the facilities to be dedicated within said section for public use and maintained by the County, the Commonwealth, or other public agency, the subdivider shall have the right to record the remaining sections shown on the preliminary plat for a period of five years from the recordation date of the first section. The planning commission or subdivision agent may approve a longer period of time for recording the remaining sections. In granting additional time, the planning commission or subdivision agent shall determine what amount of additional time is reasonable, taking into consideration the size and phasing of the proposed development. However, if additional time is granted, any previously unrecorded section shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this chapter and subject to engineering and construction standards and zoning requirements in effect at the time it is recorded.
CHAPTER - 86 Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Wright said that with everything they have received and the short time frame in which they have had to review the information, he would like to have more time to digest all of the details. Dr. Morgan said in Section 86-78, there is an underline that states, “division of”, which he feels the “of” is misleading and would like to have this removed. Mr. Purcell stated that he would like to leave Section 86-451 the way that it is currently reflected rather than making the proposed changes due to a lawsuit that is pending. On motion of Dr. Morgan, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the following resolution was adopted:
A RESOLUTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 86 OF THE LOUISA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors deems it necessary to amend the Louisa County Zoning ordinance to make it more clear and to enact changes required by changes in the State Code; and
AND WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing, the Planning Commission has recommended certain amendments to the Zoning ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, on this 1st day of August 2005 that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors hereby amends the following sections of the Louisa County Zoning ordinance to read as follows:
Division means to divide any tract, parcel or lot of land into no more than two additional parts for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development. Lots shall be divided from parent tracts that are generally five (5) or more acres and have a minimum of 400 feet of existing state road frontage. Divisions are not subject to the provisions set forth in the subdivision ordinance except for Section 66-82 (11), Private lanes.
Parent parcel, also parent tract, means the tract of land from which subsequent lots are divided. Parent parcels are further defined as those parcels in the Agricultural (A-2) Zoning District in existence on or before December 18, 1997. The portion of a parent parcel remaining once divided or subdivided is referred to as the residue parcel or residual.
Residue parcel, also residual, means that portion of a parent parcel after division or subdivision. Residue parcels are generally five (5) or more acres and have a minimum of 400 feet of existing state road frontage. A residue parcel shall not be counted as a lot if these minimum frontage and acreage requirements are met, and if the parcel has an existing VDOT approved access.
State Road means a street or roadway that is part of the Virginia State Highway System or Secondary Highway System.
Subdivision means the division, including resubdivision and the establishment of any condominium regime, of or in a parcel of land resulting in three or more lots, parcels or units for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development, such that:
Subdivision means to divide any tract, parcel or lot of land into three (3) or more parts for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development. Subdivided lots shall generally be less than five acres and front on less than 400 feet of existing state road frontage, but subdivided lots shall front on road that meet VDOT specifications. Consistent with this definition, any new road constructed to serve more than two lots shall be constructed to VDOT standards for subdivision streets. The residue tract is not counted as a lot for the purposes of this definition. Parcels that have been subdivided may not be further subdivided or divided unless remaining division rights are noted on a recorded plat or in conformance with existing ordinances. Sec. 86-78. Frontage; minimum lot width; maximum lot coverage.
The minimum lot frontage on existing state roads or federal highways shall be 300 feet. Notwithstanding the forgoing, there shall be allowed in a minor subdivision or division not more than two lots with a minimum of 200 feet frontage on a state maintained road. The minimum lot frontage on newly created public or private internal roads, streets or lanes shall be 150 feet except for cul-de-sacs where the minimum lot frontage shall be 25 feet.
The minimum lot width in the agricultural district (A-2) shall be 150 feet, and in no case less than 20 percent of the depth of the lot. Sec. 86-25.10. Schedule for review. Sec. 86-46. Districts established; reference to zoning map.
For the purpose of this chapter, the unincorporated areas of the county are hereby divided into eleven districts (or zoning classifications) as follows: The location and boundaries of these districts are shown on the Zoning Map of Louisa County, Virginia. ARTICLE V. Sec. 86-326. Short title.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Louisa County Airport Zoning Ordinance. Sec. 86-327. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Airport means the Louisa County Airport and/or the Lake Anna Airport
Airport elevation means the highest point of an airport's usable landing area, measured in feet from sea level.
Approach surface means a surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline, extending outward and upward from the end of the primary surface and at the same slope as the approach zone height limitation slope set forth in section 86-330. In plan, the perimeter of the approach surface coincides with the perimeter of the approach zone.
Approach, transitional, horizontal and conical zones. These zones are set forth in section 86-329.
Conical surface means a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to one for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.
Hazard to air navigation means an obstruction determined to have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace.
Height. For the purpose of determining the height limits in all zones set forth in this article and shown on the zoning map, the datum shall be mean sea level elevation, unless otherwise specified.
Horizontal surface means a horizontal plane of 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which in plan coincides with the perimeter of the horizontal zone.
Nonconforming use means any preexisting structure, object of natural growth or use of land, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this article or an amendment thereto.
Nonprecision instrument runway means a runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or area type navigation equipment, for which a straight-in nonprecision instrument approach procedure has been approved or planned.
Obstruction means any structure, growth or other object, including a mobile object, which exceeds a limiting height set forth in section 86-330.
Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint stock association or governmental entity, including a trustee, a receiver, an assignee or a similar representative of any of them.
Precision instrument runway means a runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing an instrument landing system (ILS) or a precision approach radar (PAR). It also means a runway for which a precision approach system is planned and is so indicated on an approved airport layout plan or any other planning document.
Primary surface means a surface longitudinally centered on a runway. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway; for military runways or when the runway has no specially prepared hard surface, or planned hard surface, the primary surface ends at each end of that runway. The width of the primary surface is set forth in section 86-329. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline.
Runway means a defined area on an airport, prepared for landing and takeoff of aircraft along its length.
Structure means an object, including a mobile object, constructed or installed by man, including, but without limitation, buildings, towers, cranes, smokestacks, earth formations and overhead transmission lines.
Transitional surfaces means surfaces extending outward at 90-degree angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of seven feet horizontally for each foot vertically from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces to where they intersect the horizontal and conical surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surfaces, which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at 90-degree angles to the extended runway centerline.
Tree means any object of natural growth.
Utility runway means a runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and less.
Visual runway means a runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures. Sec. 86-328. Legislative authority; findings and declarations.
(a) &nbps; This article is adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by Code of Virginia, §§ 5.1-31 and 15.1-491.02 15.2-2294.
(b) It is hereby found that an obstruction has the potential for endangering the lives and property of users of the Louisa County Airport and Lake Anna Airport and property or occupants of land in its their vicinity; that an obstruction may affect existing and future instrument approach minimums of the airports; and that an obstruction may reduce the size of areas available for landing, takeoff and maneuvering of aircraft, thus tending to destroy or impair the utility of the airport and the public investment therein. Accordingly, it is declared that:
(c) It is further declared that the prevention of the creation or establishment of hazards to air navigation; the elimination, removal, alteration or mitigation of hazards to air navigation; or the marking and lighting of obstructions are public purposes for which a political subdivision may raise and expend public funds and acquire land or interests in land. Sec. 86-329. Zones established and defined.
In order to carry out the provisions of this article, there are hereby created and established certain zones, which include all of the land lying beneath the approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces and conical surfaces as they apply to the Louisa County Airport and the Lake Anna Airport. Such zones for the Louisa County Airport are shown on the Louisa County Airport Zoning Map, consisting of one sheet, prepared by CH2M HILL and dated August 9, 1984, and for the Lake Anna Airport on the Lake Anna Airport Zoning Map prepared by Dewitt Freeman and dated June 27, 2005, both sheets which is are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this article as fully as though it were set out in this article. An area located in more than one of the following zones is considered to be only in the zone with the more restrictive height limitation. The various zones are hereby established and defined as follows: Sec. 86-330. Height limitations.
Except as otherwise provided in this article, no structure shall be erected, altered or maintained and no tree shall be allowed to grow in any zone created by this article to a height in excess of the applicable height limit established in this article for such zone. Such applicable height limitations are hereby established for each of the zones in question as follows:
Sec. 86-331. Use restrictions.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, no use may be made of land or water within any zone established by this article in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communication between the airport and aircraft, make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, create bird strike hazards, or otherwise in any way endanger or interfere with the landing, takeoff or maneuvering of aircraft intending to use the airport. Sec. 86-332. Nonconforming uses.
(a) Regulations not retroactive. The regulations prescribed by this article shall not be construed to require the removal, lowering or other change or alteration of any structure or tree not conforming to such regulations as of the effective date of this article or otherwise interfere with the continuance of nonconforming uses. Nothing contained in this article shall require any change in the construction, alteration or intended use of any structure, the construction or alteration of which was begun prior to the effective date of this article and which is diligently prosecuted.
(b) Marking and lighting. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, the owner of any existing nonconforming structure or tree is hereby required to permit the installation, operation and maintenance thereon of such markers and lights as shall be deemed necessary by the industrial development authority of the county to indicate to the operators of aircraft in the vicinity of the airport the presence of such airport obstruction. Such markers and lights shall be installed, operated and maintained at the expense of the industrial development authority. Sec. 86-333. Permits and variances.
(a) Permits--Future uses. Except as specifically provided in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section, no material change shall be made in the use of land, no structure shall be erected or otherwise established, and no tree shall be planted in any zone hereby created, unless a permit therefore shall have been applied for and granted. Each application for a permit shall indicate the purpose for which the permit is desired, with sufficient particularity to permit it to be determined whether the resulting use, structure or tree would conform to the regulations prescribed in this article. If such determination is in the affirmative, the permit shall be granted. No permit for a use inconsistent with the provisions of this article shall be granted, unless a variance has been approved in accordance with subsection (d) of this section. Nothing contained in any of the foregoing exceptions shall be construed as permitting or intending to permit any construction, alteration of any structure or growth of any tree in excess of any of the height limits established by this article.
(b) Same--Existing uses. No permit shall be granted that would allow the establishment or creation of an obstruction or permit a nonconforming use, structure or tree to become a greater hazard to air navigation than it was on the effective date of this article, or any amendments thereto, or than it is when the application for a permit is made. Except as indicated, all applications for such a permit shall be granted.
(c) Same--Nonconforming uses abandoned or destroyed. Whenever the industrial development authority Director of Community Development of the county determines that a nonconforming tree or structure has been abandoned or more than 80 percent torn down, physically deteriorated or decayed, no permit shall be granted that would allow such structure or tree to exceed the applicable height limit or otherwise deviate from the zoning regulations.
(d) Variances. Any person desiring to erect or increase the height of any structure, permit the growth of any tree or use property not in accordance with the regulations prescribed in this article, may apply to the board of zoning appeals for a variance from such regulations. The application for variance shall be accompanied by a determination from the Federal Aviation Administration as to the effect of the proposal on the operation of air navigation facilities and the safe, efficient use of navigable airspace. Such variances shall be allowed where it is duly found that a literal application or enforcement of the regulations will result in unnecessary hardship and relief granted will not be contrary to the public interest, will not create a hazard to air navigation, will do substantial justice and will be in accordance with the spirit of this article. Additionally, no application for variance to the requirements of this article may be considered by the board of zoning appeals unless a copy of the application has been furnished to the industrial development authority Director of Community Development of the county for advice as to the aeronautical effects of the variance. If the industrial development authority Director of Community Development of the county does not respond to the application within 15 days after receipt, the board of zoning appeals may act on its own to grant or deny such application.
(e) Obstruction marking and lighting. Any permit or variance granted may, if such action is deemed advisable to effectuate the purposes of this article and be reasonable in the circumstances, be so conditioned as to require the owner of the structure or tree in question to install, operate and maintain, at the owner's expense, such markings and lights as may be necessary. If deemed proper by the board of zoning appeals, this condition may be modified to require the owner to permit the industrial development authority of the county, at its own expense, to install, operate and maintain the necessary markings and lights. Sec. 86-334. Administration and enforcement.
It shall be the duty of the zoning administrator to administer and enforce the regulations prescribed in this article. Application for permits and variances shall be made to the zoning administrator upon a form published for that purpose. Applications required by this article to be submitted to the zoning administrator shall be promptly considered and granted or denied. Application for action by th | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||