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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
August 1, 2005
5:00 P.M.



Board Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Allen B. Jennings, David B. Morgan, Eric F. Purcell, and Jack T. Wright
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; and Mary Jackson, Deputy Clerk


CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Barnes called the 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.  
APPROVAL OF BILLS

Chairman Barnes, Mr. Gentry, and Mr. Wright said that they would like to abstain from reimbursement checks pertaining to him.

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.  

Sheriff Fortune provided an update to the Board on the activities that took place in the Sheriffs Department during the month of July. Sheriff Fortune identified the amount of warrants, civil papers, and traffic summons that were served during this time. He went on to state the amount of calls that they received for the month and the types of calls they responded to. In closing, Sheriff Fortune said that Lt. Buck Garner testified on July 25, 2005 in Richmond, Virginia for a case that involved the use of their bloodhound that resulted in the conviction and sentence of thirty-three years, which was the first time that bloodhound evidence has been used in the Circuit Court in the City of Richmond.

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 informed Mr. Jackson that Mr. Purcell had asked to have this item added to the agenda for them to discuss this evening.

Garrett Grant, Mineral District, said that on behalf of the Buffalo Soldiers, he is here this evening seeking support from the County of Louisa for funding to purchase uniforms and artifacts that they would like to have displayed in the new museum in the County of Louisa.

Mr. Lawrence Jackson further stated that at the present time the Buffalo Soldiers has an ongoing program where they have professional people going into the schools and other settings to present information about the Buffalo Soldiers, which they have approximately twenty-four sessions scheduled. Mr. Jackson said that they are asking for support to allow them to continue to present these programs where they hand out mementoes of what they learn about. Mr. Jackson stated that they would also like to have assistance with obtaining audiovisual equipment to assist with their presentations.

William Shifflett, Louisa District, reminded the Board that he had spoke with them previously about the road that the County took from him twenty years ago for Trevilians Elementary School, which he has yet to receive a response. Mr. Shifflett said that he is paying full taxes on the property and is unable to do anything with the land. Mr. Shifflett stated that he would like to have this issue resolved.

Chairman Barnes informed Mr. Shifflett that the County Administrator, County Attorney, and the School Division are working on resolving this issue. Chairman Barnes assured Mr. Shifflett that he would receive a response from Pat Morgan, County Attorney, within a week. Mr. Purcell informed the Board that he has been working with Mr. Shifflett for about a month and a half on this issue, which he personally sent a letter to Dr. Melton,
Division Superintendent, addressing this issue. Mr. Purcell said that Dr. Melton had called him and indicated to him that the schools had given him the right-of-way, but the problem is that there is a debate between the schools and the Shiffletts, which has created a legal situation that requires the County Attorney to look at the problem. Mr. Gentry said that this topic was discussed during the last meeting for the School Board and the concern was that there was a 20 easement there, but Mr. Shifflett needs a 50 right-of-way to make everything usable for all of the property owners.

Don Shifflett, Green Springs District, explained to the Board that the schools were going to give them a 20 right-of-way, which the original agreement was for a 50 right-of-way. Mr. Shifflett said that Mr. Whitlock measured the outskirts of the property line so it would not cut the property line of the school up.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Chairman Barnes said that he would like to add the Fluoride Treatment Program as a topic for discussion per Mr. Purcells request. He said that he would work with Mr. Purcell and Mr. Jackson on the Buffalo Soldier aspect for their upcoming budget cycle.

Dr. Morgan said that he would like to add a resolution to the agenda for the Boards consideration for the upgrade to the Zion Crossroads EMS license. Dr. Morgan said that he would like to discuss personnel under the County Administrator during their closed session.

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. Morgan informed the Board that they have to address litigation in the Green Springs area during their closed session.

Mr. Jennings said that he would like to add a resolution to the agenda for the Boards consideration for recognition of Gerald Root for his service as the Treasurer of eight years on the Lake Anna Advisory Commission.

Mr. Lintecum said that he would like to add the Homeland Security Grant as a topic to the agenda.

Mr. Lintecum said that he would like to remove the FY06 CIP and O&M Carryover topic that is currently listed on the agenda as item thirteen and reschedule it for their next meeting.

        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.

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to provide $2,500 to the Health Department to support the Fluoride Treatment 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.

Chairman Barnes explained that this was the first year that the Board decided to sponsor this program to help these individuals gain working experience and support the students.

VDOT Update Milton Thacker

Milton Thacker, VDOT Resident Engineer,
summarized VDOTs current maintenance activities to the Board saying they provided traffic control for a film company that was shooting a TV ad for the Virginia Lottery; the maintenance crews continuing their mowing operations on secondary roads; deck maintenance, cleaning, and repairs on several bridges in the Lake Anna and Cuckoo area; patching roadways throughout the residency in advance of overlays; and they selected Ricky D. Moore for their Transportation Operations Manager position. Mr. Thacker identified VDOTs current construction activities saying that Walnut Woods and Rock Spring Road (Route 804) projects are dependent on approval of the revenue sharing funds slated for consideration by the CTB; for Mount Airy Road (Route 644) Bridge and Approaches they are scheduling the scoping and the project is scheduled for FY-2008; completion of surfacing on Dell Perkins Road (Route 702); replacement of pipes on Indian Creek Road (Route 699); Proffits Road (Route 718) project has been rescheduled for advertisement in August to complete this section to the Goochland County Line; Beaver Dam Road (Route 799) has been completed and is open to traffic; and a pavement centerline marking has been recommended on Mount Airy Road (Route 644) by study between Route 33 (Jefferson Highway) and Route 605 (Shannon Hill Road) and Route 628 (Fredericksburg Avenue/Bibb Store Road) between Route 22 (East Main Street) to Route 613 (Goldmine Road). Mr. Thacker identified VDOTs general activities as being a reduction in the speed limit on Johnson Mill Road (Route 710) from 55MPH to 40MPH.

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

Dr. Morgan informed the Board that Dr. George Lindbeck, OMD for Louisa County, has approved this request. Dr. Morgan said that this is a formality to increase the level of service of ALS 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.

The Board briefly discussed this topic with Mr. Harper asking if the items mentioned were generated by a group of individuals or if it were something that came directly from his department. Mr. Harper questioned if they would be working along side others or the primary responders for the mass Decontamination Trailer. Chairman Barnes expressed concern about the Homeland Security Grant since it seems as though localities are using these funds to fill a “wish list”.

In response to the Boards questions, Mr. Schlemmer replied that they have discussed the issue with the generators with Public Works and other staff to have 100% power. Mr. Schlemmer said that the need for radios has been identified; therefore, they want to upgrade the radios. Mr. Schlemmer said that the trailer they are looking at would be designed to put a trailer with decontamination and set up the Emergency Assembly Center.

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the list of items that was presented to purchase new portable radios, generators, and a mobile equipment trailer for the total amount of $98,850.05 for FY-2004 and $37,321 for FY-2005.

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.  

The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Mr. Purcell stating that he had made the request to have Mr. Morgan look into this issue because he felt that it would be appropriate to have a step in the process that would allow a citizen to appeal to the individuals that they elected into office. Mr. Purcell questioned if they were to adopt such language in addition to what may or may not be adopted later this evening, if the second item E would have to be modified to state that if the Agent of the Board of Supervisors disapproves a preliminary plat. Mr. Harper asked Mr. Morgan if at one time it was set that these issues came before the Board directly. Mr. Harper said that if they set good sound parameters for this to occur under, then they ought to move to deliver decisions from it and it would operate strictly under the merits of the guidelines in which have been set. Mr. Harper said that he believes that the intent of how this was established was to remove the political decision-making; therefore political pressures could not be asserted for individuals to get what they want. Mr. Wright said that Mr. Harper makes a valid point and asked Mr. Morgan if they were to modify this to come before the Board would they be restricted to review it from the perspective of ensuring that the checklist was followed. Dr. Morgan said that he understands the rationale behind Mr. Purcells request, but he feels that this process is more of a technical review process. Dr. Morgan expressed his concerns about the impact that modifying this would have by reducing the responsibility and authority of the Director of Community Development and the Planning Commission to make decisions regarding site plan reviews. Mr. Gentry said that he would support this measure since many of his constituents have said that they want the individuals that they have elected to be involved with the process. Mr. Purcell expressed concerns about the verbiage in the current ordinance that gives the Community Development Department the right of interpretation, which he wanted to provide a balance by having a review by the governing body.      

Mr. Morgan confirmed that the second item E would have to be modified to reflect the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Morgan stated that as he indicated before, he would like to remind the Board that a site plan and a subdivision plat are strictly an administrative process. Mr. Morgan said that the Board would be required to review it to verify if they followed by the checklist.

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.

Dr. Morgan replied that this was discussed at the EMSAL meeting, which they had not seen it at that time. Dr. Morgan said that Debra Bickley, EMSAL President, was supposed to get with Mr. Morgan, which he is unaware of whether this has occurred or not. Dr. Morgan confirmed that they would like to have the opportunity to review the document. Dr. Morgan said that they discussed what the purpose of this Mutual Aid Agreement was at their last meeting and asked if this exists with other localities. Dr. Morgan stated that the Mutual Aid Agreement should be specifically for the paid staff of Louisa County. Dr. Morgan explained that there is a requirement to have Mutual Aid Agreements to comply at the state level, but it doesnt bind any of the EMS services to that.

Mr. Morgan replied that they have a similar agreement with Albemarle County, Virginia and Orange County, Virginia. Mr. Morgan replied that this would strictly be an agreement between the County of Hanover and the County of Louisa and would not include the word volunteer in the agreement. Mr. Schlemmer informed the Board that he has talked with an individual in Hanover County, which they told him that this was something that their County Attorney wanted to update all of their Mutual Aid Agreements. Mr. Schlemmer said that some time this month, Hanover would be sending the information for the fire side and the EMS side identifying the parameters of what they would respond to in the County.

After a brief discussion by the Board, they decided to delay any action on this topic until the Fire Association and EMSAL have had the opportunity to review this document.

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.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright questioning if the lowest bidder was going to be able to perform these services at the price that they quoted.

Mr. Delk replied that the contractor would stay within the price that was quoted. Mr. Delk said that this company is bonded and if they were unable to do it within that price range, then the bonding company would cover it.

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.

Mr. Purcell made the motion to move forward with the proposed project for extending a water resource from Bowlers Mill Lake to the Zion Crossroads Service area.

Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper said that the Board has obligated themselves to provide water to the Zion Crossroads area and cautioned the Board to take a closer look at this to ensure that they do not over commit themselves. Dr. Morgan asked if what has been proposed was to just look at the engineering aspect of the project or is the Board committing themselves to the $6.9 million. Chairman Barnes said that the motion on the table is to move forward with this project to obtain water from Bowlers Mill Lake. Dr. Morgan said that he would like to receive the additional information that he talked about prior to being able to approve this request; therefore, he would be voting against the project. Mr. Gentry said that he understood that this motion is to move forward authorizing the design of the system and to pursue the process to initiate the project.

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Dr. Morgan voting against, the Board agreed to move forward authorizing the design of the system and to pursue the process to initiate obtaining water from Bowlers Mill Lake for the Zion Crossroads area that has an estimated project cost of $6,898,600.

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.

In response to the Boards questions, Mr. Coffey replied that there are several ways that would restrict organizations from buying these homes for rental purposes, such as deeding it as “owner occupied only” for a specific period of time. Mr. Coffey said that administratively, this takes a lot of resources. Mr. Coffey stated that he has not gotten into the demographics of Louisa County in terms of what percentage of the population is under the poverty level, which is different from low to moderate income.  

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.

The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Mr. Gentry saying that in Section 60-16 where it talks about preference of local products, it says that the County may in the case of a tie bid give preference to goods, services, and construction produced to an entity that is located within the locality, which he does not feel is necessary since he has never seen a tie bid. Dr. Morgan said that on page 147 where it talks about cancellation of bids, he does not see a sentence that would hold the County harmless if they were to cancel a proposal and asked if this is something that they need to specify. Dr. Morgan said that the section on bid bonds states, “no forfeiture shall exceed the lesser” and it reflects two items, which seems to him that one is the difference between the bids for the bond and then the next level is the bid. Dr. Morgan said that he is assuming that this comes directly from state legislation, but he doesnt understand why it would go with the difference between the amount bid for the bond and the next lowest bid for forfeiture. Dr. Morgan questioned if there is any provision that would allow them to avoid going with the lowest bidder under certain circumstances. Chairman Barnes said that he does not see any reference in the proposed ordinance that states that sealed bids would be sent to or opened by the Procurement Officer. Chairman Barnes expressed the importance of developing uniformity for them to obtain quotations. Chairman Barnes said that he would like to have a contractor list generated for Louisa County that includes minority owned businesses. Mr. Wright said that they are currently working on a project with Mr. McWilliams that is going to cost around $38,000 and they would like to go with a sole source due to time constraints.  

In response to the Boards questions, Mr. Morgan responded that Section 60-16 is something that might not be effective, but that is the way it appears in the state code. Mr. Morgan said that the County would be held harmless because entities bid at their own risk. Mr. Wright explained that a bid with a bond would be paying for the difference in what it would cost the County to get the job done by the next bidder. Mr. Morgan said that under sealed bidding, you would have to determine that the lowest bidder was not responsive and for competitive negotiations you are not bound by the lowest bidder, but by the most qualified. Mr. Morgan said that it is implied in the responsibility when you look at powers and duties of the Procurement Officer. Mr. Morgan said that they have a lot of the guidelines in place already for the quotation process, but it might need some adjustments based on the adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Morgan said that it was his understanding for this particular project that Mr. Wright referenced was that they are looking for a contractor that could respond to any defects quickly, which there were only two that provided cost estimates, with one of them being located in the County and the other out of Farmville, Virginia who has had difficulties with other projects; therefore, he believes that they could justify a sole source for this project.  

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. With no one wishing to address the Board, Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.  

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the Procurement Ordinance as it was presented. (See twenty-five page attachment)

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.    

The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Dr. Morgan asking if the section they had to review for plan amendments would only apply “if needed”. Dr. Morgan asked Mr. Coffey to clarify the difference from the current subdivision ordinance between division and subdivision as far as the number of parcels and how this relates to the parent and residual tracts. Dr. Morgan said that along those same lines, in the section that talks about subdivision and VDOT specifications, it states “a residual tract is not counted as a lot”, which would mean that you could divide a fifty acre lot into three and still not meet the criteria for meeting a VDOT road. Mr. Purcell said that in Section 66-152 for preliminary plat, under item nine, it states “location of an adequate building site, proposed well, proposed drain field, and 100% reserve for septic and alternative waste systems as approved by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH)”, and asked if there would be any problems with adding “or a qualified AOSE Soil Scientist” to this. Mr. Purcell said that it is his understanding that the state is considering allowing private AOSE Soil Scientists to do this work because the state is unable to handle the load. Chairman Barnes stated that he does not believe that they need to review the Comprehensive Plan annually, but rather “if needed” as Dr. Morgan suggested earlier. Chairman Barnes questioned how they determined the December 1997 date. In addition, Chairman Barnes questioned what prompted the change to Section 86-451 for Common Areas.

In response to the Boards questions, Mr. Coffey replied that the difference between division and subdivision is related to the roads being built to state specifications, which if the road serves more than two parcels then they would have to construct the roads to meet state specifications. Mr. Coffey explained that if you were to have a parcel that you wanted to cut two divisions off of it, then you would then have what they define as a residual parcel, which is not counted as a lot if it has the certain state road frontage that is specified and is over five acres, then you have the other two lots that are typically under five acres; therefore the road serving these two parcels would not have to be a road built to state specifications. Mr. Coffey said that if the state were going to allow private firms to perform these tests, then VDH would be the ones that would sign off on the final documentation for approval. Mr. Morgan replied that the December 1997 date reflects when they adopted the last Subdivision Ordinance and created the Division Right processes. Mr. Coffey responded that he has received citizen input saying that they feel Section 86-451 is intended to be applied to site plans to provide further clarification.      

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m.

Jo Meyer, Louisa District, began by quoting several comments to the Board that were made to her by Mr. Coffey and said that she has experienced frustration with all of these comments that were made in trying to deal with her property. Mrs. Meyer stated that interpretation is taking place and there has been unclear and conflicting language, which the individuals that draft this language should be required and willing to offer review to the citizens in the event of misapplication or misinterpretation by the Community Development Directors office. In closing, Mrs. Meyer urged the Board to adopt the proposed amendment language to allow citizens to appeal to their elected body.

Rick Meyer, Louisa District, stated that trying to do business in Louisa County has been very frustrating along with trying to comply. Mr. Meyer urged the Board to carefully consider their decisions due to the effects that it has on the citizenry and to allow the Community Development Department to meet with individuals to provide a better understanding of what needs to be done for them to comply.

Bruce Martin, Mineral District, informed the Board that he was here this evening to ask that they not modify Section 86-451 due to its importance of providing clarity on whether or not commercial and fee based recreational facility is allowed “by right” in an Agricultural District. Mr. Martin urged the Board to take this into consideration when making their decision this evening.
Charles Purcell, Patrick Henry District, said that he would like to address four issues with the Board regarding the proposed changes. Mr. Purcell said that the thirty-day provision that allows individuals to appeal to the Board is a bad idea since they only have sixty days to file an appeal to the Circuit Court. Mr. Purcell said that he does not believe that it would be feasible to review the Comprehensive Plan annually. Mr. Purcell stated that he was unaware of where they derived the date of December 1997 since it was not part of the resolution by the Planning Commission, but was included in the Board of Supervisors resolution. Mr. Purcell said that you would want to create lots to be where other subdivisions are and upgrade the roads to state maintained roads. Mr. Purcell commented on the Boards discussion about allowing for an appellate review since this would be critically important. Mr. Purcell said that an appellate review is not a checklist and should be heard by the Board due to discretionary circumstances that are occurring.

Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.

The Board discussed the proposed amendments in great detail with Mr. Purcell stating that he feels that a lot of the recommendations that Mr. Coffey has proposed are very good, but he has concerns about the Comprehensive Plan being reviewed on a yearly basis. Mr. Purcell said that he believes what Mr. Martin brought to their attention on Section 86-451 should be taken into consideration; therefore, he would recommend that the Board consider using the old version of this section and not what has been proposed. Mr. Purcell said that instead of adopting what Mr. Coffey has proposed on Section 66-5, he would prefer that the Board adopt Mr. Morgans version that is included in their packet on page 38 with the caveat that “site plan” be altered to subdivision plat until site plans could be discussed at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Purcell recommended that they consider modifying the verbiage under Section 66-5, A, that states that “the Governing body reserves unto itself the right to review”, which he feels should be at the discretion of the applicant and not the Board to avoid creating political situations. Mr. Gentry said that under Section 86-25.10 where it states, “the Board of Supervisors shall consider Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning text amendments, and subdivision text amendments”; he has read this several times and has been trying to determine what position this would put the Board in due to the verbiage being loose. Dr. Morgan commented on the work that had been done by the Long Range Planning Committee on these amendments and said that he looks forward to working with them in the future. Dr. Morgan said that he agrees with the recommendation that was made by Mr. Purcell with regard to the specific comments that were made about the Comprehensive Plan and suggested that they add the verbiage “if needed” to Section 86-25.10. Dr. Morgan said that he agrees that Section 86-451 should remain the way that it currently reads. Chairman Barnes said that he would like to have staff look into confirming the December 1997 date that is reflected.

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:

Sec. 66-2. Definitions.

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:

a. Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five acres in area; or
b. Any one of such lots, parcels or units, regardless of acreage, fronts less than 400 feet on a road which is part of the state highway system or state secondary highway system; or
c. Any one of such lots, parcels or units fronts on a newly created public street or private road, private lane or private street provided that any new road constructed to serve more than two lots will be constructed to Virginia Department of Transportation standards for subdivision streets.

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.

Sec. 66-3.1. Relationship to zoning ordinance.

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.

(a) The agent appointed by the governing body is hereby delegated to administer this chapter. In so doing, the agent shall be considered the agent of the governing body, and approval or disapproval by the agent shall ordinarily constitute approval or disapproval as though it were given by the governing body , but all plats of subdivisions submitted under this chapter shall receive the final approval of the governing body before being recorded The governing body reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the agent or the Commission made in the administration of this article which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof.
(b) If a plan for subdivision is disapproved by the agent, the subdivider may, within 60 days of notice of this disapproval, appeal to the circuit court having jurisdiction of such land and the court shall hear and determine the case as soon as may be, provided that his appeal is filed with the circuit court within 60 days of the written disapproval by the commission or the agent.
Sec. 66-11.Procedure for appeal Reserved.
(a) Notice of appeal shall be filed in writing by the subdivider in the office of the administrator within 30 days of the date of disapproval by the agent, which notice shall state the name of the subdivider, the number of acres to be subdivided, the number of lots contained within the subdivision and the reasons the subdivider alleges the agent's action to be improper. A copy of such notice shall be mailed forthwith by the appealing party to each of the members of the governing body and the county attorney. The notice shall be signed by the subdivider or his representative.
(b) After receiving notice of the appeal, the chairman of the governing body shall schedule a time for a hearing on such appeal before the governing body, at which time the merits of the subdivider's request shall be considered by the governing body. The administrator shall give five days' written notice to the subdivider and his representative of the time and place scheduled for the hearing.
Sec. 66-152. Preliminary plat (major and minor).

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:

(1) Name of subdivision, owner, subdivider, surveyor or engineer, date of drawing, number of sheets, north point and scale. If true north is used, method of determination must be shown.
(2) The boundary survey or existing survey of record, provided such survey shows a closure with an accuracy of not less than one in 2,500, total acreage, acreage of subdivided area, number and approximate area and frontage of all building sites, existing buildings within the boundaries of the tract, names of owners and their property lines within the boundaries of the tract and adjoining such boundaries.
(3) All existing, platted and proposed streets, their names, numbers and widths; existing utility or other easements.
(4) A location map tying the subdivision into the present road system, either by aerial photographs or topographic maps of the United States Department of Interior.
(5) All parcels of land to be dedicated for public use and the conditions of such dedication.
(6) For any proposed major subdivision, a A contour map of the entire subdivision, at five-foot contour intervals, will be submitted to the agent.
(7) All subdivision plats shall bear the following note: "This property (does or does not) lie in a HUD flood hazard area in accordance with FIRM, ________ ________.
(8) Setback, side and rear yard requirements as defined in chapter 86.
(9) Location of an adequate building site, proposed well, proposed drain field and 100 percent reserve area for septic or alternative wastewater systems as approved by the Virginia Department of Health.
Sec. 66-153. Procedure for preliminary plat.
A The agent or his appointed representative shall discuss the preliminary plat with the subdivider in order to determine whether or not his preliminary plat generally conforms to the requirements of this chapter and of the zoning ordinance. If the plat conforms to the requirements of the chapter, it shall be forwarded to the appropriate state agency or agencies for review.
B In accordance with § 15.2-2260 of the Code of Virginia, any state agency making a review of a plat forwarded to it under this section, including, without limitation, the Virginia Department of Transportation, shall complete its review within forty-five days of receipt of the preliminary plat. The Virginia Department of Transportation shall allow use of its public rights-of-way for placement of utilities by permit when practical and shall not unreasonably deny plat approval. If a state agency does not approve the plat, it shall comply with the requirements, and be subject to the restrictions, set forth in § 15.2-2259 A with the exception of the time period therein specified. Upon receipt of the approvals from all state agencies, the local agent shall act upon a preliminary plat within thirty-five days.
C If the agent does not approve the preliminary plat, the agent shall set forth in writing the reasons for such denial and shall state what corrections or modifications will permit approval by him. However, the agent shall not be required to approve a preliminary subdivision plat in less than sixty days from the date of its original submission to him, and all actions on preliminary subdivision plats shall be completed by the agent and, if necessary, state agencies, within a total of ninety days of submission of the proposed plat.
D If the agent fails to approve or disapprove the preliminary plat within ninety days after it has been officially submitted for approval, the subdivider after ten days' written notice to the agent, may petition the circuit court for the locality in which the land involved, or the major part thereof, is located to enter an order with respect thereto as it deems proper, which may include directing approval of the plat.
E Any person aggrieved by the disapproval of a subdivision plat by the agent, may demand a review of the site plan by the governing body. Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefore in writing with the County Administrator within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. The appeal shall be placed on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors at its next regular meeting. The governing body may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the Agent. In so doing, the governing body may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the plat. For purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, persons required to be notified pursuant to this article, and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof.  Failure of any party to request an appeal to the governing body shall not be deemed a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, if the aggrieved person chooses to appeal the decision of the agent directly to the Circuit Court.
F If the agent disapproves a preliminary plat and the subdivider contends that the disapproval was not properly based on the ordinance applicable thereto, or was arbitrary or capricious, he may appeal to the circuit court having jurisdiction of such land and the court shall hear and determine the case as soon as may be, provided that his appeal is filed with the circuit court within sixty days of the written disapproval by the agent.
Sec. 66-154. Approval of preliminary plat no guarantee.

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.

Sec. 66-155. Final plat required within eighteen months of approval of preliminary plat.

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:

(1) A blank oblong space three inches by five inches shall be reserved for the use of the approving authority.
(2) Certificates signed by the surveyor or engineer setting forth the source of title of the owners of the land subdivided and the place of record of the last instrument in the chain of title.
(3) A statement to the effect that the subdivision as it appears on this plat is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the owners, proprietors and trustees, if any, which shall be signed by the owners, proprietors and trustees, if any, and shall be duly acknowledged before some officer authorized to take acknowledgements of deeds; provided, however, that if the plat is accompanied by a deed of dedication duly signed and properly acknowledged for recordation by such owners, proprietors and trustees, setting forth such statement, then and in that event the statement in the deed of dedication shall suffice.
(4) When the subdivision consists of land acquired from more than one source of title, the outlines of the various tracts shall be indicated by dash-lines, and identification of the respective tracts shall be placed on the plat.
(5) The accurate location and dimensions by bearings and distances with all curve data on all lots and street lines and centerlines of streets, boundaries of all proposed or existing easements, parks, school sites or other public areas, the number and area of all building sites, all existing public and private streets, their names, numbers, widths, existing utilities, and those to be provided such as sanitary sewers, storm drains, water mains, manholes and underground conduits including their size and type, watercourses and their names, names of owners and their property lines, both within the boundary of the subdivision and adjoining such boundaries.
(6) Distances and bearings must balance and close with an accuracy of not less than one in 10,000.
(7) The data of all curves along the street frontage shall be shown in detail at the curve or in a curve data table containing the following: delta, radius, arc, tangent, chord and chord bearings.
(8) A cross section showing the proposed street construction, depth and type of base, type of surface, etc.
(9) A profile or contour map showing the proposed grades for the streets and drainage facilities, including elevations of existing and proposed ground surface at all street intersections and at points of major grade change along the centerline of streets, together with proposed grade lines connecting
(10) A 100-year floodplain , as defined by FEMA, shall be shown on the final subdivision plat whenever a drainage way with a contributing watershed of 50 acres or greater falls within the limits of a proposed subdivision.
(11) The engineer/surveyor shall provide Louisa County with a digital copy of the subdivision plat in DXF file.
(12) Setback, side and rear yard requirements as defined in chapter 86.
(13) Location of an adequate building site, proposed drain field and 100 percent reserve area for septic or alternative wastewater systems as approved by the Virginia Department of Health.
Sec. 66-156.1. Other development approvals required prior to final plat approval.
(1) Proposed connections with existing sanitary sewers and existing water supply or alternate means of sewage disposal and water supply.
(2) The complete stormwater drainage layout, including all pipe sizes, types, drainage easements and means of transporting the drainage to a well defined open stream which is considered natural drainage.
(3) A cross section showing the proposed street construction, depth and type of base, type of surface, etc.
(4) A profile or contour map showing the proposed grades for the streets and drainage facilities, including elevations of existing and proposed ground surface at all street intersections and at points of major grade change along the centerline of streets, together with proposed grade lines connecting therewith.
(5) Proposed soil and erosion and sediment control plan.
Sec. 66-157. Conditions for approval of final plat; how plat approved; recording.
(A) The final plat shall not be approved until the subdivider has complied with the general requirements and minimum standards of design in accordance with this chapter, and has made satisfactory arrangements for performance bond, cash or cash bond to cover the cost of necessary improvements, in lieu of construction, to the satisfaction of the agent. Approval of final plat shall be written on the face of the plat by the agent.
(B) The agent shall act upon any proposed plat within 60 days after it has been officially submitted for approval by either approving or disapproving the plat in writing, and giving with the latter specific reasons therefore.  The reasons for disapproval shall identify the deficiencies in the plat that cause the disapproval by reference to specific duly adopted ordinances, regulations, or policies and shall identify modifications or corrections as will permit approval of the plat.  Deficiencies shall be noted on the plat or on a separate document.  The agent shall act on any proposed plat  that has been previously disapproved within 45 days after the plat has been modified, corrected and resubmitted for approval.
(C) If the agent fails to approve or disapprove the plat within 60 days after it has been officially submitted for approval, or within 45 days after it has been officially resubmitted after a previous disapproval, the subdivider, after 10-days written notice to the agent, may petition the circuit court for the locality in which the land involved, or the major part thereof, is located, to decide whether the plat should or should not be approved. The court shall give the petition priority on the civil docket, hear the matter expeditiously in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Article 2 (§ 8.01-644 et seq.) of Chapter 25 of Title 8.01 and make and enter an order with respect thereto as it deems proper, which may include directing approval of the plat.
(D) If the agent disapproves a plat and the subdivider contends that the disapproval was not properly based on the ordinance applicable thereto, or was arbitrary or capricious, he may appeal to the circuit court having jurisdiction of such land and the court shall hear and determine the case as soon as may be, provided that his appeal is filed with the circuit court within 60 days of the written disapproval by the agent.
(E) The subdivider shall record the final plat within six months after final approval; otherwise, the agent shall mark his copy of such plat "void" and file this void copy with the county clerk, who shall refuse to record the subdivider's plat. The clerk of the circuit court will refuse to record any plat that is in conflict with any provision of this chapter, pursuant to the provisions of Code of Virginia, 15.2-2241 (A)(8). However, in any case where construction of facilities to be dedicated for public use has commenced pursuant to an approved plan or permit with surety approved by the board of supervisors, the planning commission, or the subdivision agent by certified check, cash escrow, bond, or letter of credit in the amount of the estimated cost of construction of such facilities, the time for the plat recordation shall be extended to one year after final approval.
(F) Any plat that is accepted by the clerk of the circuit court or his representative for recordation, which has not been marked as approved by the subdivision agent, shall be considered null and void even though recorded.
Sec. 66-158.  Effect of Final Approval
(A) In accordance with 15.2-2261 of the Code of Virginia, a recorded final plat shall be valid for five years from the date of approval.
(B) Prior to the expiration of a recorded plat, the subdivider or developer may apply to the commission or the agent for one or more extensions of such approval for additional periods or agent may, at the time the extension is granted, determine to be reasonable, taking into consideration the size and phasing of the proposed development, the laws, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of the request for an extension.
(C) If the Commission or agent denies an extension requested as provided herein, and the subdivider or developer contends that such denial was not properly based on this ordinance, or the above outlined considerations for granting an extension, or was arbitrary or capricious, he may appeal to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the land subject to the recorded plat, provided that such appeal is filed within sixty days of the written denial by the commission or agent.
(D) During the five-year period a recorded plat remains valid, no change or amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Ordinance shall adversely affect the right of the subdivider or developer or his successor in interest to commence and complete an approved development in accordance with the lawful terms of the recorded plat unless the change or amendment is required to comply with state law, or there has been a mistake, fraud, or a change in circumstances substantially affecting the public health safety or welfare.
(E) Plats may be vacated in accordance with 15.2-2271 of the Code of Virginia, after five years from the date they are recorded if no significant improvement on the property has been made and no extension has been granted by the Commission or agent.
Sec. 66- 159. Phasing

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.

Dr. Morgan made the motion to approve the changes to Section 86 as submitted with the exception of 86-451 along with the comment under annual review to add, “if needed”.

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:

Sec. 86- 2. Definitions.

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:
a. Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five acres in area; or
b. Any one of such lots, parcels or units, regardless of acreage, fronts less than 400 feet on a road which is part of the state highway system or state secondary highway system; or
c. Any one of such lots, parcels or units fronts on a newly created public street or private road, private lane or private street provided that any new road constructed to serve more than two lots will be constructed to Virginia Department of Transportation standards for subdivision streets.

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.

(1) For the purposes of providing for orderly growth and reasoned consideration of the potential impact of proposed rezonings, zoning text amendments and conditional use permits upon the comprehensive plan, the board of supervisors may establish timing procedures for consideration of rezoning applications.
(2) The board of supervisors shall consider zoning text amendment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of three months. Hearing times in accord with such intervals shall be established by resolution of the board of supervisors during the month of January of each calendar year following enactment of this section, and said resolution shall be published at least once per week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Louisa County.
(2) The board of supervisors shall consider comprehensive plan amendments, zoning text amendments, and subdivision text amendments recommended by the Department of Community Development at least once a year if needed.
(3) Rezonings and conditional use permits requested by property owners shall be considered by the board of supervisors as they are processed by the Department of Community Development.

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:

District (or zoning classifications) Map Symbol
Agricultural (A-1) A-1
Agricultural (A-2) A-2
Residential Limited R-1
Residential General R-2
Manufactured Home Park MHP
Light Commercial C-1
General Commercial C-2
Industrial IND
Flood Plain FP
Resort development RD
Planned Unit Development PUD

The location and boundaries of these districts are shown on the Zoning Map of Louisa County, Virginia.

ARTICLE V.

AIRPORT ZONING

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:

(1) The creation or establishment of an obstruction has the potential of being a public nuisance and may injure the region served by the airport
(2) It is necessary in the interest of the public health, public safety and general welfare that the creation or establishment of obstructions that are a hazard to air navigation be prevented; and
(3) The prevention of these obstructions should be accomplished, to the extent legally possible, by the exercise of the police power without compensation.

(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:

(1) Utility runway nonprecision instrument approach zone. The inner edge of this approach zone coincides with the width of the primary surface and is 500 feet wide. The approach zone expands outward uniformly to a width of 2,000 feet at a horizontal distance 5,000 feet from the primary surface. Its centerline is the continuation of the centerline of the runway.
(2) Precision instrument runway approach zone. The inner edge of this approach zone coincides with the width of the primary surface and is 1,000 feet wide. The approach zone expands outward uniformly to a width of 16,000 feet at a horizontal distance of 50,000 feet from the primary surface. Its centerline is the continuation of the centerline of the runway.
(3) Transitional zones. The transitional zones are the areas beneath the transitional surfaces.
(4) Horizontal zone. The horizontal zone is established by swinging arcs of 5,000 feet radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by drawing lines tangent to those arcs. The horizontal zone does not include the approach and transitional zones.
(5) Conical zone. The conical zone is established as the area that commences at the periphery of the horizontal zone and extends outward there from a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.

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:

(1) Utility runway nonprecision instrument approach zone. Slopes 20 feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and extending to a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet along the extended runway centerline.
(2) Precision instrument runway approach zone. Slopes 50 feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and extending to a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet along the extended runway centerline; thence, slopes upward 40 feet horizontally for each foot vertically to an additional horizontal distance of 40,000 feet along the extended runway centerline.
(3) Transitional zones. Slopes seven feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and the approach surface and extending to a height of 150 feet above the airport elevation, which is 483 feet above mean sea level. In addition to the foregoing, there are established height limits sloping seven feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the approach surface and extending to where they intersect the conical surface. Where the precision instrument runway approach zone projects beyond the conical zone, there are established height limits sloping seven feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the approach surface and extending a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet measured at 90-degree angles to the extended runway centerline.
(4) Horizontal zone. Established at 150 feet above the airport elevation or at a height of 633 feet above mean sea level.
(5) Conical zone. Slopes 20 feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at the periphery of the horizontal zone and at 150 feet above the airport elevation and extending to a height of 150 feet above the airport elevation.

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.

(1) In the area lying within the limits of the horizontal zone and conical zone, no permit shall be required for any tree or structure less than 75 feet of vertical height above the ground, except when, because of terrain, land contour or topographic features, such tree or structure would extend above the height limits prescribed for such zones.
(2) In areas lying within the limits of the approach zones, but at a horizontal distance of not less than 4,200 feet from each end of the runway, no permit shall be required for any tree or structure less than 75 feet of vertical height above the ground, except when such tree or structure would extend above the height limit prescribed for such approach zones.
(3) In the areas lying within the limits of the transition zones beyond the perimeter of the horizontal zone, no permit shall be required for any tree or structure less than 75 feet of vertical height above the ground, except when such tree or structure, because of terrain, land contour, or topographic features, would extend above the height limit prescribed for such transition zones.

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 the board of zoning appeals shall be forthwith transmitted by the zoning administrator.

Sec. 86-335. Appeals to board.

An appeal to the board of zoning appeals may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the county affected by any decision of the zoning administrator or from any order, requirement, decision or determination made by any other administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of this article or any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Such appeal shall be taken within 30 days after the decision appealed from by filing with the zoning administrator, and with the board, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The zoning administrator shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the zoning administrator certifies to the board that by reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay would in his opinion cause imminent peril to life or property, in which case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order granted by the board or by a court of record, on application and on notice to the zoning administrator and for good cause shown.

Sec. 86-336. Procedure on appeal.

The board of zoning appeals shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of an application or appeal, give public notice thereof as well as due notice to the parties in interest and decide the application or appeal within 90 days of the filing of such application or appeal. In exercising its powers the board may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify an order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from. The concurring vote of a majority of the membership of the board shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of an administrative officer or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under this chapter or to effect any variance from this chapter. The board shall keep minutes of its proceedings and other official actions, which shall be filed in the office of the board and shall be public records. The chairman of the board, or in his absence the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses.

Sec. 86-337. Judicial review.

Any person aggrieved or any taxpayer affected by any decision of the board of zoning appeals may appeal to the circuit court of the county, as provided in section 86-305.

Sec. 86-338. Penalties for violation of article.

Each violation of this article, or of any regulation, order or ruling promulgated under this article, shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of not less than $10.00 nor more than $1,000.00. Each day a violation continues to exist shall constitute a separate offense.

Sec. 86-339. Conflicting regulations.

Where there exists a conflict between any of the regulations or limitations prescribed in this article and any other regulations applicable to the same area, whether the conflict is with respect to the height of structures or trees and the use of land or any other matter, the more stringent limitation or requirement shall govern and prevail.

Secs. 86-340 - 86-360. Reserved.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Dr. Morgan, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:20 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 Zion Crossroads area.

2.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the
Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel matters under the County Administrator.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:5 p.m.

RESOLUTION  CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Harper, which carried by a vote of, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this the 1st day of August 2005, 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 1st day of August 2005, 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.

Resolution Authorizing Allocation of Emergency Preparedness Funds From Virginia Department of Emergency Management

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted authorizing the allocation of Emergency Preparedness Funds from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management in the amount of $25,000.

Resolution Supplemental Appropriation of FY05 Federal Funds for the Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation Civil War Battlefield

Mr. McLeod explained to the Board that this supplemental appropriation stems from a grant that is from 2002. Mr. McLeod reminded the Board that the last time he came before them to request supplemental funding he did not ask for this, but in that request were matching funds for this particular grant. Mr. McLeod said that VDOT had said that no one had to match the funds, so the original funds that were set-aside would not have to be passed on to the TSBF. Mr. McLeod stated that this is federal funding, which will be passed on to the Civil War Trust Foundation.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Dr. Morgan, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation for federal funds in the amount of $199,817.24 that will be passed on to the Civil War Trust Foundation.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Chairman Barnes informed the Board that Stuart Cooke, Louisa County Representative for the Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Board, left a report for them to review regarding the July 25, 2005 meeting.

Mr. Gentry said that he has a report for the Board for both the Planning Commission and the Shoreline Management Committee (SMC). Mr. Gentry said the SMC would probably have two more meetings to finish the project and then report to the Board. Mr. Gentry said that during the last Planning Commission meeting, they voted 7-0 to pull two of the items from the SMC for the Board to consider prior to the presentation of the full set of recommendations for the dock length issue to establish a maximum structure length of 150” and the 1/3 Rule that would not allow docks to exceed 1/3 of a cove in length. Mr. Gentry said the Planning Commission would be scheduling a public hearing to discuss these use standards for September 8, 2005. Mr. Gentry said he does not see the advantage of hearing these two items early, which he would like to have the Boards input so they could contact the Planning Commission to let them know that they should not schedule a public hearing for these items in September.

The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Mr. Purcell stating that he feels that it would be a bad policy to pull these two items out at this juncture. Mr. Wright questioned when the final SMC report would be made available to the Board.

Mr. Gentry replied that they anticipate reporting to the Board by October. Mr. Gentry said a couple of Planning Commission members felt that if they didnt have these two particular items passed that developers would take advantage of what could be done.

Upon further discussion by the Board, they directed Mr. Lintecum to contact the Planning Commission to let them know that they do not want them to go forth with their public hearing for these two items.

Mr. Wright reported to the Board on the Building and Grounds Committee saying that during their meeting last week they had reviewed several projects. Mr. Wright said that their primary discussion pertained to the front entrance of the Administration Building, which would include automatic doors and a double set of doors to help protect against the heat and cold from getting into the building. Mr. Wright expressed the importance of having this job completed prior to the cold weather setting in. Mr. Wright said that they had received a couple of estimates on this particular project, which he would recommend to the Board that they select a sole source for this project from a local organization that has estimated the project to be around $38,000.

The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Mr. Gentry asking if this truly classified as an emergency to select a sole source.

Pat McWilliams, Director of Public Works, responded to the Board that the committee posed the same question on whether this qualified to be done under a sole source. Mr. McWilliams said that he spoke with Mr. Morgan regarding this project, which he said that he felt it would qualify due to the service aspect of the project. Mr. McWilliams said that the other vendor that provided an estimate is located in Farmville, Virginia and have shown in the past that their response time to make repairs tends to be delayed due to their location, where the other company is local and would be able to respond in the same day.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Chairman Barnes expressed the need to send this project out for bid due to the dollar amount that is associated with the project.

Mr. Wright made the motion to go with a sole source for this project so they could begin construction prior to colder weather. With no one seconding the motion that was made, the motion failed.

The Board determined to send this that this project has to go out for bid due to the dollar amount associated with the project.

Dr. Morgan reported to the Board that at the recent EMSAL meeting they have finally gotten the Radio Policy approved by both EMSAL and the Fire Association, which will now be forwarded to the Communications Committee for them to review the changes that were recommended. Dr. Morgan informed the Board that on September 23, 2005, Doug Straley, Louisa County High School Athletic Director, has invited all of the fire and rescue folks to attend a football game. Dr. Morgan said that EMSAL wants to approach a different type of marketing campaign similar to what Hanover County, Virginia has done, which he will submit to the Board for their review.  

Mr. Jennings reported to the Board that the Lake Anna Advisory Committee recently held their meeting in Louisa County, which he was elected as the new Chairman. Mr. Jennings said that the committee would be meeting to address several concerns of the citizens around the lake.

Mr. Purcell reported to the Board that he was unable to attend the recent Library Committee meeting due to other obligations that he had. Mr. Purcell said that he would be meeting with the members of the committee to find out what went on.

Chairman Barnes informed the Board that a lot of localities are beginning to allow developers to use Community Development Bonds, which allows private businesses to come in and sell bonds to help pay for infrastructure such as water, sewer, and roads with no cost to the County. Chairman Barnes said that he would like Mr. McLeod contact McGuire Woods and schedule them to attend the next Board meeting to address this topic.

Mr. Lintecum said that this would work similar to the Industrial Development Authority except you would be using bond proceeds to put in infrastructure for developments.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Wright said that he had submitted the information for Robert Gregory to recommend him for the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Gentry said that he would like to recommend Joe Leslie for the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The Board decided to forward both of these individuals resumes to the Judge to allow him to make the decision.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT

Mr. Lintecum presented his report highlighting the following items:

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has included two items in his report for their review and would answer any questions they might have.

CONSENT AGENDA

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to adopt the Consent Agenda for the three scheduled public hearings that will be held on September 6, 2005 and the following three resolutions.

VJCCA Grant Renewal

On the motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted endorsing the Virginia Juvenile Crime Control Commission Act (VJCCCA) Grant renewal and maintenance of effort, which includes a supplemental appropriation of $13,843 that will be received from the state and a budget transfer of $1,028 from the Countys General Fund Contingency Reserve.  

Victim Witness Assistance Program

On the motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving a supplemental appropriation for state funding related to the Victim Witness Assistance Program in the amount of $50,826 for the Commonwealth Attorneys office.

Womens Equality Day

On the motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted proclaiming August 26, 2005 as Womens Equality Day.

CORRESPONDENCE

The Board did not discuss any correspondence.

LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of July 5, 2005 as presented.

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the August 1, 2005 regular meeting at 9:04 p.m.


BY ORDER OF

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