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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
AUGUST 6, 2007
5:00 P.M.



Board Present: *Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell and Jack T. Wright
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager, Administration; April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Bob Gibson, Director of Economic Development; and Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation

*Fitzgerald A. Barnes arrived at 5:07 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Wright called the August 6, 2007 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Rev. Charles Sims led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Wright stated he would like to change the resolution recognizing Jerry Cutright for being named the 2007 National Womens Cross Country Coach of the year as the first item on the agenda.  

PRESENTATIONS

Resolution - Recognizing Jerry Cutright for being named the 2007 National Womens Cross Country Coach of the year

        On motion of Messrs Wright, Gentry, Jennings, Harper, Havasy, Purcell, seconded by Messrs Wright, Gentry, Jennings, Harper, Havasy, Purcell, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing Jerry Cutright for being named the 2007 National Womens Cross Country Coach of the year.

The Board congratulated Jerry Cutright and presented him with the resolution.

Mr. Barnes arrived at 5:07 p.m.


CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr. Lintecum stated the State Code requires the Treasurer to submit the amount of Real Estate and Personal Property taxes that are still delinquent as of June 30, 2007.  Mr. Lintecum added a copy of the letter had been provided to the Board.  

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Wright stated Jamie Glass, Resident Administrator, would not be able to attend the meeting to present the VDOT monthly updates.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to add discussion of personnel reporting directly to the Administrator to closed session.  Mr. Gentry indicated that under old business, a presentation is also included with the discussion for Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.  

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the August 6, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.

Presentation - 2007 Internship Program

Ms. Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources, thanked the Board for their continued support of the program.  The 2007 interns introduced themselves to the Board, which included the following:  Elizabeth Cole Parks and Recreation, Jazmond Jackson Tourism, Tonnisha Jackson Community Development, Cassandra McNutt Tourism, Bryan Robinson Parks and Recreation, Tenika Shelton Parks and Recreation, Kyoni Thomas Social Services, Abby Whitlock Emergency Services, Bianca Johnson Parks and Recreation, and Ian Wendell Parks and Recreation.

Ms. Vena thanked the schools, sponsors and everyone throughout the County for their assistance with the program.  Ms. Vena said in the past, a video was created in-house by staff, but this year the video was created and produced by two of the interns, Cassandra McNutt and Jazmond Jackson.  The interns presented the Board with a video of their experience. Ms. Pam Vaughan presented the interns with their certificates.  


Presentation - 2008 TJPD Legislative Program

Mr. David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, stated he wanted to speak to the Board about the development of the 2008 Legislative Program for the region.  Mr. Blount said he had been meeting with various Board of Supervisors and City Councils to seek input for the program.  Mr. Blount indicated that they hope to get a draft program to the Board in September and would like to come before the Board again in October to seek the Boards approval of the program.  

Mr. Blount said the Mayor and Chairs Group met with some legislators from the region to talk about the Comprehensive Services Act and the continuing challenges that the program poses to the localities.  Mr. Blount stated they came away from the meeting with the task of developing specific legislative proposals that follow some general recommendations.  Mr. Blount stated that beyond CSA, he would see public education funding as a priority for the coming session.  Mr. Blount said this is the year for the State to re-benchmark its education costs and the State Board of Education has already received a preliminary price tag of $1.1 billion in additional costs over the next two years.  Mr. Blount indicated that ongoing concerns that are specifically requested by the various governing bodies in the region would continue to be included in the program.  Mr. Blount questioned if the Board had any specific input for the program.    

Mr. Purcell said citizens throughout Louisa County felt like the County got a big shaft by the General Assembly.  Mr. Purcell added not only with school funding, but also with road funding and the Countys representation in the General Assembly.  Mr. Purcell stated this Planning District and its demands as a growing district need to step up.  Mr. Harper agreed with Mr. Purcell and said those issues pass down to other matters as well.  Mr. Jennings said he thinks the biggest issue is representation of Louisa County.


Mr. Havasy concurred with Mr. Purcell and indicated that he would like to see more and better representation for Louisa County with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District.  Mr. Havasy added that the cluster development issue was a disaster for Louisa County.  

Mr. Barnes indicated that he doesnt want to see any more unfunded mandates.

Mr. Gentry said his biggest disappointment is that after attending a Thomas Jefferson Planning District meeting about impact fees, the General Assembly connected Louisa with the Richmond District, where the fees went into transportation.  Mr. Gentry added that Louisa has more infrastructure issues than transportation issues.  Mr. Gentry stated that he is on the VaCO Transportation Committee and questioned if Mr. Blount could keep him foremost informed so that he is able to relay the information.

Mr. Wright said the cluster development changes punish the counties that have allowed for growth.  Mr. Wright agreed with Mr. Barnes and said no more unfunded mandates.    

Mr. Blount said unfortunately, for the mandates, local governing bodies are at bottom in terms of making decisions.  Mr. Blount said the clustering issue is addressed in the current 2007 legislative program, as a provision that was adopted to make it optional for localities.    


Mr. Wright questioned when the deadline was for all concerns to be submitted to Mr. Blount.  Mr. Blount indicated that he should have all concerns by the first week in September.    

OLD BUSINESS

Presentation/Discussion - Moss-Nuckols Elementary School

Dr. Pettit indicated that the presentation is similar to the one given on July 23, 2007 at the joint meeting.  Dr. Pettit said there were questions in the last presentation that left the Board confused and since then, Mr. Lintecum, Mr. Linhares, Mr. Szalankiewicz and herself have met to establish a clear understanding.    

Dr. Pettit indicated that requirements for the school would include a capacity level of 700 students, giving a 20:1 student to teacher ratio for grades K-3 and a 25:1 student to teacher ratio for grades 4-5.  Dr. Pettit added that the special education population would increase the space needs.  Dr. Pettit said with that, the school would be 85,000 square feet and located on the existing site on Courthouse Road (Route 208).    

Dr. Pettit said the during staff discussions, they received clarification regarding construction costs and soft costs and realized that the differences in the cost analysis were in contingencies.  Dr. Pettit referenced a chart of the total cost comparisons and stated the Board of Supervisors total for the school was $19,003,500 and the total cost from the School Board was $20,060,914, which is a difference of $1,057,414.  Dr. Pettit added that the chart also showed the totals with a four percent inflation rate, which is a difference in costs of $1,099,710.  

Dr. Pettit said if the Board of Supervisors approved $21 million, the Schools would ensure the Board that they would own the plans, an attorney would review all contracts, and they would continually inform the Board of all project costs.  Dr. Pettit indicated that she thinks once the School Board puts out an RFP, they would get a real view of the market price for a school with the specifications needed.

Mr. Gentry said he thinks that $21 million is too much for the Board to appropriate.  Mr. Gentry indicated that he is looking to appropriate a number around $19 million, including the costs that have already been spent.    

Mr. Jennings said with inflation, $16 million might be obsolete, so if that was increased by four percent, he thinks it would be a number closer to where it needs to be.  Mr. Jennings indicated that at this time, construction costs are down and he thinks the school could be built at a total cost of $18.5 million.  


Mr. Harper said Dr. Pettit stated she didnt want to estimate the total cost too low and that once the School Board goes through an RFP, they would get a real view of the market price.  Mr. Harper said he thinks the plans should be put out for an indicator of what the market costs are and questioned why a total number was needed at this point.  

Mr. Barnes said he agreed with Mr. Harper and he thinks it would be most prudent for the Board of Supervisors to give the School Board authorization to move forward to hire an architect and then to let the architect come back with a projected market price.


Mr. Havasy stated that he wanted to defer his comments until Mr. Lintecum gave his opinion on how the Board should move forward.  

Mr. Lintecum said in the staff meeting, it was determined that a number wasnt going to be reached now.  Mr. Lintecum said it seemed to him that the only way to tell the market cost is to put something out there and let them bring it back to talk about some tradeoffs, which are done with good construction managers.  

Mr. Purcell said he thinks the only way to determine the market cost of the school is to go with Mr. Harpers suggestion.  Mr. Purcell said that option doesnt lock you in to trying to meet something that is essentially unknown and leaves the widest possible latitude for adjustment.

Mr. Gentry said the process sounds great on the surface, but there was a problem before when the Board set a number and left it open-ended.  Mr. Gentry said Mr. Linhares presentation showed buildings being built for 79,000 square feet to 90,000 square feet for the same number of students.  Mr. Gentry indicated that his concern is that the architect will get out of bounds if they dont have a general figure that the Board is looking at.  Mr. Gentry added that he felt a guideline number was needed.    

Mr. Wright indicated that he wasnt satisfied with the square footage because he didnt know how that was calculated.  Mr. Wright indicated that he didnt see how any time would be lost by deferring setting the figure until both Boards had a better feel on what the school would cost.  


Mr. Havasy said he would recommend keeping a working relationship between the Boards to keep the process moving.  

Mr. Barnes said he thinks it is evident that the relationship of staff working together had been the most agreeable.  Mr. Wright agreed.  

Mr. Gentry said he couldnt see how the committee could perform without a guideline.  Mr. Gentry said the Board could set a number to work towards and if the market costs were higher, the Board could cover the additional costs.  Mr. Wright said he thought members of the committee had heard enough conversation about numbers to give them an idea of a ballpark figure.  


Mr. Wright indicated that the committee consists of Mr. Lintecum, Mr. Linhares, Dr. Pettit and Mr. Szalankiewicz.  

        
On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to authorize the current building committee, comprised of Mr. Lee Lintecum, Mr. Kevin Linhares, Dr. Deborah Pettit and Mr. David Szalankiewicz, to move forward in a manner that can establish a possible plan to either hire an architect to design the new school or to purchase previously designed plans to better determine what the cost would be for the construction of the new elementary school.  

Resolution - Authorizing the Louisa County School Board to apply for funding from the Virginia Public School Authority for the financing of a capital project for school purposes

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the Louisa County School Board to apply for funding from the Virginia Public School Authority for the financing of a capital project for school purposes.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - Requesting Governor Tim Kaine to have Louisa County designated a drought disaster area

Mr. Charles Rosson, Extension Agent, stated the area had been very deficient in rain, especially during the prime part of the growing season.  Mr. Rosson indicated that the precipitation measurements received at the Louisa Official Weather Station at Freeman Field did not accurately portray the extreme rainfall deficit in the major agricultural sections of the County.  Mr. Rosson strongly encouraged the Board to consider and approve the resolution.  

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting Governor Tim Kaine to have Louisa County designated a drought disaster area.

Review - Yanceyville Agricultural and Forestal District

Mr. Coffey indicated that Section 15.2-4311 of the State Code of Virginia stated in part that the local governing body may complete a review of any district created under this section.  Mr. Coffey said it further stated if the local governing body determines that a review is unnecessary, it shall set the year in which the next review shall occur.  Mr. Coffey said that is interpreted to mean that the Board of Supervisors had the authority to discuss the disposition and renew the qualifying districts without the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission.  

Mr. Coffey said in accordance with section 15.2-4311 of the State Code, the County had contacted the current property owners of the parcels identified in the agricultural and forestal district and advised them that the approved district would expire on August 4, 2007.  Mr. Coffey said the letter also advised the property owners that if the County did not receive a response, then it would be determined that the property owner desired their property to remain in the existing district.  

Mr. Coffey indicated that there were 25 parcels that currently encompass the Yanceyville Agricultural and Forestal District.  Mr. Coffey said a response was received on 13 of the parcels, 11 requesting that the parcels remain in the Yanceyville Agricultural and Forestal District and one request to remove two parcels from the district.  Mr. Coffey stated the recommendation from the Community Development Department was that the Board of Supervisors renew the Yanceyville Agricultural and Forestal District for an additional ten year period, removing tax map parcels 79-(9)-2 and 79-(9)-3 containing 45.54 acres owned by William R. and Beverly B. Moore.  Mr. Coffey indicated that removal of these parcels would not affect the required 200-acre core of the district or the required distance between the core and any outlying parcels.  Mr. Coffey added the removal of these parcels would result in district acreage of 914.288 acres.  


On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to renew the Yanceyville Agricultural and Forestal District for an additional ten year period, removing tax map parcels 79-(9)-2 and 79-(9)-3 containing 45.54 acres owned by William R. and Beverly B. Moore.  

Discussion - Notification of County projects to local contractors

Mr. Barnes stated local contractors have expressed to him their concerns about being informed of County projects to give them an opportunity to bid on them. Mr. Barnes said he didnt know what the process was, but he wanted to make sure the County was affording local contractors an opportunity to bid on County projects.  Mr. McLeod indicated that bid opportunities are advertised in the Central Virginian newspaper and the Procurement Office had a bidders list, where a bid package is automatically sent, as long as the contractors had informed the County on what they would like to bid on.  Mr. McLeod indicated that details and information could be advertised in the next County Messenger, which is scheduled to go out in September.  Mr. Barnes added that information could also be available on the County website.  

Mr. Purcell stated that some contractors that arent awarded the contract would like to know where they stood in the bidding process and questioned if there was anything in the procurement process that prohibited the County from giving that information to contractors that asked for it.  Mr. McLeod said that information could be provided to contractors that requested it.  


CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:29 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel reporting directly to the Administrator.
2.        
2. In accordance with §2.2?3711 (a) (3) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing the acquisition of real property.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 6th day of August 2007, 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 6th day of August 2007, 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.


PUBLIC HEARINGS

Abandonment of the state owned and maintained right-of-way along State Route 749, from the southern end of the road for approximately 614 linear feet north towards State Route 33, in the Green Springs Voting District.

Mr. Skip Notte with Dewberry stated Bluegreen Resorts was in the process of expanding Shenandoah Crossings Resort.  Mr. Notte said they were requesting the County to abandon approximately 614 linear feet of State Route 749 to better control the access and maintain the privacies and privileges associating with the resort communities.
 
Mr. Lintecum said he received a letter from Jamie Glass, Resident Administrator, stating that Richmond informed him that since VDOT owned the right-of-way, a formal agreement had to be made between the County and the developer, whereas, the developer had to agree to pay VDOT the fair market value of the land within the abandoned area, otherwise the County should not abandon.
 
Mr. Notte said Tommy Mullins contacted him and informed him that the owner was to identify what they believe was a fair market value and present that to the developer.
 

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to postpone the decision of abandoning a portion of State Route 749.

Abandonment of the dedicated right-of-way owned by Louisa County on State Route 789, CCC Road, for approximately 206 linear feet. The property is further identified as the right-of-way fronting tax map parcel 58-14-B, in the Mineral Voting District.  The property owners of tax map parcel 58-14-B are E. Wayne and Joanne S. Shifflett.

Mr. Harper said the County obtained this right-of-way when VDOT constructed CCC Road (Route 789).  Mr. Harper said VDOT only used about half of the obtained right-of-way and the owner wanted ownership back of the right-of-way.

Mr. Havasy questioned who would handle the survey and the legal part of the abandonment.  Mr. Harper indicated that he didnt think any surveying was necessary and Mr. Morgan would handle the legal aspect of the issue.

Mr. Purcell stated he would be abstaining from the vote because a portion of the further right-of-way goes to the property owned by Purcell Land and Lumber Corp.
 
Mr. Gentry said the road and the cul-de-sac were built and VDOT didnt need the section that the County now owns from the cul-de-sac to the end point, which is what the property owner was requesting back.  

      On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Purcell abstaining, the Board adopted a resolution abandoning the dedicated right-of-way owned by Louisa County on State Route 789 (CCC Road) for approximately 206 linear feet.

REZ04-07; Virginia Fjord, LLC c/o Mark Keller, Applicants/Owners request conditional rezoning of approximately 35.66 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Rural Estate (RE).  The property is located on the east side of Route 607 (Rock Quarry Road), south of the intersection with Route 613 (Poindexter Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 53-15A, in the Patrick Henry Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential.

The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential.  

This area is zoned predominately Agricultural (A-2) and Agricultural  (A-1), with Historic Green Springs directly north of the property along with the Patrick Henry Agricultural/Forestal District adjacent to two sides of the property.  The application indicates that the purpose for the rezoning is for residential and recreational purposes for a three-lot subdivision.

The Rural Estate (RE) zoning district is intended to accommodate very low-density residential uses, while preserving the countys rural character.  

Proffers from the applicant dated May 31, 2007 include a Generalized Development Plan; preservation of at least 50 percent open space (land to remain in a natural, undeveloped state); removal of an existing mobile home; the screening regulations set forth in the zoning ordinance for the RE district; a property owners association that will maintain the open space and required state specification road; use of an alternative sewerage system to ensure treated effluent; and the following uses allowed in the RE district to include forestry use, private stable, accessory apartment, farmhouse, single-family dwelling (detached), home occupation class A, private cemetery, home garden, and with a CUP cottage, single-family dwelling (attached), two-family dwelling, bed and breakfast, home occupation class B.

There was a question by a Board member regarding a proffer to not include a group home.  Under State Code, group homes are not allowed to be excluded where a single-family residential is allowed by right.  The applicant would address that issue and recommend that the proffer be withdrawn.  Under State Code, proffers may be amended after the public hearing began if it did not substantially alter the proffers.
   

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

(a) Is the change contrary to the established land-use pattern?  No, the land uses in this area are predominately agricultural lands with some single-family homes.  The area is rural in character and intended to remain as such.

(b) Is the change in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan?  Yes, the area is not located in a designated growth area and should remain rural in nature.  This includes agricultural uses as well as very low density residential as proposed.

(c) Would the change create an isolated district unrelated to similar districts (i.e., is this spot zoning?)  No, while there are currently no Rural Estate (RE) districts in the county, the area is zoned predominately Agricultural (A-1 and A-2) and the RE zoning district is specifically designed to preserve the rural character of the county, while allowing for some very low density residential growth to occur outside of the countys designated growth areas.

There were 14 people present to discuss this case at the neighborhood meeting, held on April 11, 2007.  The main comments were as follows:

      -        Concerns about the rezoning of land to RE adjacent to the Historic Green Springs boundary and nationally held easements
-        Concerns about liability and continued trespassing on the property
-        Concerns about the soil conditions and ability to perk for any kind of sewerage system
-        Concerns about the preservation of water quality on the site and the location of the house sites
-        Possibility of protection measures along Fosters Creek
-        Clarification of the type of recreational uses allowed (private, non-commercial use only)
-        Suggested proffer of primary residential use only
-        Concern over future development of the property (and possible future rezonings)
-        Zoning should remain agricultural to protect existing uses
-        Concern over continued and proper maintenance of alternative sewerage systems
-        Suggested proffer of placing the open space under an easement
-        Concern over one home site located neared to Rt. 607 and visibility from the road
-        Concern about setting precedent for the rezoning of surrounding properties
-        Statement that this would/could be the seminal case for development in the area
-        Concern over the visual impact to a national historic district
-        Statement that it is a good plan in the wrong location

The Development Review Committee met on April 25, 2007 to review the requested conditional rezoning application.  The majority of the discussion was regarding the use of an “alternative” septic system on-site to serve the three proposed lots.  After much discussion about alternative sewage disposal systems, the Committee concurred that the proposal was a good use of the property and met the intent of the new Rural Estate zoning district.  They then voted 6-0 (with Mr. Jennings absent) to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on May 10, 2007 at which six people spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning.  Concerns were expressed regarding the close proximity of the project to the Green Springs Historic District, the use of the new Rural Estate (RE) zoning classification to gain division rights, the use of an alternative drainfield system for the three lot development and the lack of preservation of open space through a conservation easement.

The Planning Commission discussed the uniqueness of the property, with its close proximity to the Green Springs Historic District and the previous quarry use.  They discussed buffering, water quality and the pros and cons of using an alternative system.  It was pointed out that even “conventional” drainfield systems are subject to failure.  

Several of the Planning Commission members had concerns with recommending additional division rights than what was allowed under the ordinance and with the alternative drainfield system. However, it was stated by other members that was the purpose of different zoning districts and particularly the two new zoning classifications RE and TR and the alternatives they offered to an A-2 designation.  Some members mentioned that the applicant had addressed all of the issues brought up by the Development Review Committee.

Action on this request was tabled until the June Planning Commission meeting, to allow for additional information on the soils and further development of the proffer language by the applicant.

At the June 14, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked if all items had been addressed to Staffs satisfaction.  Staff replied that they had.   The applicant discussed the proffers being offered in detail.

The Planning Commission voted, 6-0, to forward a recommendation of approval on the requested rezoning with the acceptance of the revised proffers dated May 31, 2007.

Mr. Harper said the statement of proffers stated that a property owners association shall be created prior to the approval of any subdivision and questioned if that had been created.  Mr. Coffey said the property owners association had not been created, however, this was a rezoning and approval would not create the subdivision.  Mr. Coffey added that the proffer would be enforced prior to that happening.  


Mr. Mark Keller, Applicant, stated he was there representing his family, as well as two other families.  Mr. Keller said this was a unique property with unique circumstances.  Mr. Keller added it was a property on the mend and a property in need of stewardship.  Mr. Keller said they were three owners who wished to develop three homes for themselves on the property, which would equate to one dwelling unit for just over ten acres.  Mr. Keller said the RE District gives an opportunity to create lots less than six acres, if it was agreed to set aside a minimum of fifty percent in open space and they have chosen to do that.  Mr. Keller added their application plan reflected a complete horseshoe shape of open space around the entire perimeter of the property, except the property that fronts Rock Quarry Road, which already had a development setback.  Mr. Keller indicated that they also wanted to respect the neighbors heritage and character issues in which they wanted to protect.  Mr. Keller said they had also discussed issues in their proffers, which, they felt, ensured the integrity of the water resources that flowed through the property and protected the health, safety and welfare of the community.  Mr. Keller said they had issued proffers, as well as conditions, covenants and restrictions, that reiterate many of the concerns of the neighbors and staff.  

Mr. Keller stated that he understood that group homes were permitted in the district and wished to add it back in, but from a mistakes perspective, they werent able to do so.  Mr. Keller added that their exclusion of the group home was merely because they thought the neighbors would not wish to have something like that.  Mr. Keller indicated that they understood that this rezoning was a departure from the norm and he hoped they had demonstrated patience, good faith and diligence.  Mr. Keller added he hoped the Board felt that this proposal was appropriate for this property, at this location.  


Ms. Amanda Welch, Patrick Henry District, stated she attended the Neighborhood meeting, the Development Review meeting and both Planning Commission meetings and there was one question that still hadnt been answered; how was giving the new owners more divisions on that property than what it had when they bought it preserving open space, which is what the RE District is designed to do.  Ms. Welch said the property was subdivided from a larger holding of a mining company in 2000 and in doing so, both lots lost the right to subdivide.  Ms. Welch added they should also not be able to rezone.  Ms. Welch said the research that went into the Whetstone Proposal document was obviously extensive and she could only imagine that they used the same diligence before purchasing the property and were aware of the limitations.  

Ms. Welch said in denying the request for the rezoning, the Board would just be upholding the current property rights to this land, not taking away any rights.  Ms. Welch stated that the RE district was supposed to preserve open space, not increase density.  Ms. Welch said she was encouraged when Mr. Spencer referred to the Planning Commission as “stewards” in the blessing before the last meeting.  Ms. Welch said to take that role of stewards seriously and for the Board to keep it in mind when they made their decision.    


Mr. Angelo LoMascolo, Green Springs District, stated he was concerned about this issue as a matter of precedent and as a matter of the process that had been pursued up to now.  Mr. LoMascolo said he was troubled that Neighborhood meetings were scheduled for a time when everyone was at work and not withstanding that, 14 people showed up at the meeting and everyone was against this proposal.  Mr. LoMascolo added that the Planning Commission acted unanimously against another large group of people who were also opposed to this proposal.  Mr. LoMascolo said it worried him that the County had a Planning Commission that would want to substitute its views for the people who pay taxes and who had views as to how land in the County should be dealt with.  Mr. LoMascolo stated that he disagreed with Mr. Coffeys view that this proposal was consistent with rezoning criteria.  Mr. LoMascolo indicated that the Board should be careful before rezoning this property to the RE District because it might set a precedent that couldnt be backed away from.  Mr. LoMascolo said it seemed to him if planning, zoning or fiscal responsibility meant anything, the Board should deny this request.    

Mr. Bernie Sykes, Henrico County, stated that he was not a resident of the County, but he has wanted to be one for quite some time.  Mr. Sykes said his family had been looking in the western end of Louisa County for property because this was a locality where the rural and agricultural land was unspoiled.  Mr. Sykes said the Comprehensive Plan stated that Louisa was dedicated to preserving its rural heritage and it did not show a growth zone in the area where this property was located.  Mr. Sykes added that it seemed to him, if the Board was willing to allow more intensive uses for agriculturally zoned land in non-growth zones, people like himself could not have any confidence when purchasing land by other agriculturally zoned land that it would stay that way, which was uncomfortable and discouraging.  Mr. Sykes stated that he hoped the Board would not rezone this property or other agricultural properties because it would spoil the rural feel and heritage of Louisa County.  

Ms. Robin Patton, Patrick Henry District, stated that through this process, she had heard Mr. Keller misrepresent the efforts of the prospective neighbors, as they donated their time to help him develop his comments into actual documents.  Ms. Patton said the only reason Historic Green Springs got involved in the process was because at the initial community meeting, Mr. Keller offered to put an easement on the property and there were no other entities willing to step forward and accept the easement without a fee.  Ms. Patton said this really was about an upside down process where the people of the community were portrayed as having a voice, but the planning staff and members of the Commission are actually saying, “sit down and shut up.”  

Ms. Patton said perhaps the most important issue for the Boards consideration regarding this zoning change was the application of a new zoning option for this County.  Ms. Patton stated one touted as an option to decrease density and preserve open space.  Ms. Patton added in this first and, perhaps, precedent setting case, staff had guided the applicant through a process that resulted in an increase in density.  Ms. Patton said some Commissioners kept referring to this old quarry as a special property requiring such a special request.  Ms. Patton stated that she would like for Mr. Purcell to exclude himself from this discussion, as she believed the relationship between zoning and property values was related to litigation involving the County, for which he had a personal interest.
 

Ms. Rae Ely, Green Springs District, stated she was from Historic Green Springs and she was speaking on behalf of herself.  Ms. Ely said Mr. Keller described this property as exceptional property requiring exceptional protection and she believed that is what he had in mind when he appeared initially at the neighborhood meeting.  Ms. Ely said she was surprised that Mr. Keller offered to put a conservation easement on the property.  Ms. Ely said Historic Green Springs was pleased to hear that accepted the easement until Mr. Keller began to backpedal and the conservation easement turned into a proffer.  Ms. Ely said Historic Green Springs was also surprised that the initial plan that was presented to Mr. Coffey was for six subdivisions instead of three.  Ms. Ely asked the Board to use this application as a “poster child” and to deny this project.  

Mr. Wright questioned if Mr. Coffey was aware of any legal complications of this property being re-subdivided.  Mr. Coffey said when this piece was divided from the parent parcel, it was done so with no division rights transferred, which was discussed with the applicant in the pre-application meeting.  Mr. Wright questioned the size of the three lots.  Mr. Coffey said there was no minimum lot size proffer, but the RE District allowed for a three-acre minimum lot size, if fifty percent of open space was granted.  

Mr. Havasy questioned if a boarding house was mentioned.  Mr. Coffey stated a CUP would be required for a cottage, a bed and breakfast and a home occupation class B.  Mr. Havasy questioned if that was included in the new zoning or if it was already part of the property.  Mr. Coffey said that was what the applicant proffered to leave in with a CUP.  Mr. Wright questioned if that would come at the time to approve the subdivision instead of the rezoning.  Mr. Coffey said the proffer to allow those with a CUP would be a separate process altogether.  Mr. Havasy said questioned how the applicant could request a CUP if they had already designated fifty percent of open space.  Mr. Coffey said the three lots would be developed as residential in an agricultural area and a CUP could be obtained for a home occupation class B or a bed and breakfast because the nature of the open space wouldnt be affected.  Mr. Havasy questioned if anything could ever be done with the open space.  Mr. Coffey said the open space could only be used for recreation and open space.  Mr. Havasy questioned if the landowners could apply for another rezoning in the future.  Mr. Coffey said yes, if the property were rezoned to another district with another set of rights and privileges.  Mr. Coffey indicated that the only thing that permanently protected open space was a conservation easement that was worded to protect the property unconditionally.  Mr. Havasy questioned if the proffer for fifty percent of open space meant anything.  Mr. Coffey said the proffer meant a lot unless the property was ever rezoned in the future.  Mr. Gentry questioned if there were any legal concerns in rezoning the property to RE to create more property rights.  Mr. Coffey said the property would be granted three property rights that currently do not exist if the rezoning request was granted, which legally, was not a problem.  


Mr. Keller stated that there was no profit motive in this rezoning request.  Mr. Keller said if the request was approved, it would be granting him the gift to be able to build a house on this property and enjoy it.  Mr. Keller said this is the first time he had ever stood at a podium to ask for a personal favor.  Mr. Keller stated that he wanted to be a resident of Louisa County and he felt that the impact that this three-lot subdivision would have on the coffers of Louisa County was fairly minimal.  

Mr. Wright questioned Mr. Morgan if it was a conflict for Mr. Purcell to participate in the decision.  Mr. Morgan said no.


Mr. Purcell said it is unfair to any applicant to make them a “poster child” of this County.  Mr. Purcell said he believed that was violation of equal protection.  Mr. Purcell indicted that everyone had the right to come before the Board and have their case heard fairly and honestly.  Mr. Purcell said it is then up to the Board to decide if the request was appropriate for the area, with the laws and guidelines they had set as a governing body.  Mr. Purcell said it seemed to him that the applicant had done everything they had been asked to do and he was in favor of the proposal.  Mr. Havasy said this was a unique piece of property and he thought that everyone should understand that.  

Mr. Barnes said he would like to make the motion to approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 35.66 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Rural Estate (RE) with the proffers as offered by the applicant.  Mr. Jennings seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

PRESENTVOTE
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper Yes
Richad A. Havasy Yes
Allen B. Jennings Yes
Eric F. Purcell Yes

With the votes reflecting 7-0, the motion passed to approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 35.66 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Rural Estate (RE) with the proffers as offered by the applicant.

CUP05-07; Louisa County Housing Foundation, Applicant/Owner; requests the issuance of a conditional use permit for the construction of one duplex unit.  The property is located at the corner of Route 613 (Poindexter Road) and Route 649 (Byrd Mill Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 23-(5)-1 in the Patrick Henry Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential.

The applicant proposes to construct the duplex unit to provide housing to elderly and handicapped Louisa County residents in need of affordable housing.  

There was no one present to speak during the Neighborhood Meeting held on May 11, 2007.

The Development Review Committee met on May 22, 2007 to review the request for issuance of a conditional use permit.  The Staff Report was presented and the applicant expressed the great need for this type of housing in the County.  A motion was made to approve the request as presented with the four (4) recommended conditions listed below.  The motion was seconded and passed 6-0.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 14, 2007 at which there was one person that expressed concerns regarding the number of duplex units being constructed in the area and with the follow-up on these units regarding maintenance.  

The Planning Commission discussed adding a condition regarding property maintenance similar to the condition recently approved on another application on Route 749.

A motion was made to forward a recommendation of approval to the Louisa County Board of Supervisors on the requested conditional use permit with the following eight (8) amended conditions listed below:

            1.        The conditional use permit be limited to the construction of one duplex consisting of one (1) one bedroom unit and one (2) two bedroom unit.
2.        Approval of utilities (including well and septic facilities) by the Louisa County Health Department.
3.        The duplex unit be constructed in conformance with all applicable zoning and building code regulations.
4.        Entrance permit issued by the Virginia Department of Transportation
5.        A property maintenance agreement must be submitted to and approved by the County Attorney. Once approved this document must be attached to and become a            part of all lease agreements for rental of the units.
6.        Property shall remain in conformance with all Louisa County Codes and the approved property maintenance agreement.
7.        The Board of Supervisors or their designated representative reserves the right to inspect the premises at any time without prior notice.
8.        Violation of any of the conditions shall be grounds for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Barnes questioned how the duplexes could be built without water or sewer.  Mr. Coffey said duplexes could be built with a CUP and this area was zoned R-2.

Mr. Jennings said this was a total three-bedroom structure and questioned if the Health Department often approved three bedrooms.  Mr. Coffey said yes.  

Mr. Howard Evergreen, Applicant, stated Louisa County Housing Foundation already owned a duplex next door to this property.  Mr. Evergreen said the Housing Foundation bought this property and were able to rezone it with two parcels to make three separate lots.  Mr. Evergreen stated the Housing Foundation had hired a property manager to maintain the properties.  Mr. Evergreen indicated that the duplex would be handicapped accessible units for low-income residents.    

Mr. Wright said the Board had been pushing for not only affordable home ownership, but also affordable rental property.  Mr. Jennings indicated that this would not only help affordable housing, but it would also provide housing to the elderly and handicapped residents.    

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the request for the issuance of a conditional use permit for the construction of one duplex unit with the above eight conditions.

REZ05-07; Denise Jackson, Applicant; Eleanor C. Poindexter, Owner, request rezoning of approximately 7.45 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to General Commercial (C-2).  The property is located on the north side of Route 250 (Three Notch Road), approximately 0.20 mile west of the intersection of Route 208 (Courthouse Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 67-(2)-E, in the Patrick Henry Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Community Service within the Ferncliff Designated Growth Area.

The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Community Service within the Ferncliff Designated Growth Area.  

While office uses are allowed in the Light Commercial (C-1) zoning district, the parcel is currently split-zoned A-2 and C-2 and the adjoining parcels are also zoned C-2.  At this time no proffers have been submitted limiting the site to the proposed office use or otherwise regulating the quality or type of development, should the rezoning be approved.

One person was present at the Neighborhood Meeting held on May 11, 2007; however, they did not express any concerns with the project.

The Development Review Committee met on May 22, 2007 to review the requested zoning application.  The Committee did not express any concerns regarding the request and voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval on the requested rezoning to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on June 14, 2007, at which there was no one present to speak for or against the application other than the applicant.  The applicant explained that it is the intent to relocate their office, and possibly build a model home and warehouse on-site at a later date.

The Planning Commission members did not express any concerns regarding this request and voted 6-0, to forward a recommendation of approval on the requested rezoning.

Mr. Ian Jackson, Applicant, stated Galilee Baptist Church was located to the right of the property and he would like to add a proffer for a 15-foot buffer between the properties.

Mr. Coffey indicated that once a public hearing had begun, additional proffers couldnt be accepted.  

Mr. Purcell stated he felt that he could evaluate this issue fairly and he would be voting on it.  

Mr. Barnes stated that he was a member of Galilee Baptist Church.  

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the request for rezoning of approximately 7.45 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to General Commercial (C-2).

REZ06-07; RMCR, Inc. c/o John Carroll, Applicants/Owners request conditional rezoning of approximately 8.59 acres from Residential General (R-2) to Light Commercial (C-1) and 5.93 acres from General Commercial (C-2) to Light Commercial (C-1).  The property is located on the southwest side of Route 652 (Kentucky Springs Road), north of Route 685 (Centerville Road).  The property is further identified as a portion of tax map parcels 30-16 and 30-17, in the Cuckoo Voting District.  The 2001 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County within the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area for Low Density Residential.

The most recent proffers dated August 6, 2007 have been provided to the Board.

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

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

(a)        Is the change contrary to the established land-use pattern?  The C-1 zoning would be a change from the established land use pattern in this area.  It would change the balance of development on the property from residential and commercial to more commercial.

(b)        Is the change in conformance with the comprehensive plan?  No, the 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Low Density Residential within the Lake Anna Growth Area.  In the preceding rezoning, heavy consideration was given to a healthy balance of uses between residential and specifically proffered commercial uses.

(c)        Would the change create an isolated district unrelated to similar districts (i.e., is this spot zoning?) The C-1 district would create an isolated district unrelated to immediately adjacent properties.  It would expand the commercial node previously approved by the County in both size and scope.

The above analysis was done prior to the receipt of the proffers that were submitted August 6, 2007.  The revised proffers mitigate the statements to a degree, but the statements are still relevant.  Lot 1 has been taken out of the request for commercial, which will create a buffer.  There is also a proffer that would limit the division of the two ten acre residential lots to one division each.  There is also a vegetative buffer proffered on the Southwest side of the property that clarifies no septic would go there.  

There was no one present, other than the applicant, at the Neighborhood Meeting held on May 11, 2007.

The Development Review Committee met on May 22, 2007 to review the requested rezoning application.  The Committee asked if the applicant had discussed this with the neighbors.  The applicant indicated that they have, but that it was difficult to get people to attend meetings when they supported a request.  

A motion was made and seconded to forward this application to the Planning Commission without a recommendation by a vote of 7-0.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 14, 2007 at which there were two people present who spoke in reference to this rezoning application.  One person indicated that they supported commercial growth near Lake Anna, while the second individual expressed concerns on behalf of Pine Harbour Property Owners Association regarding the additional land area requested for commercial increasing from approximately 1/6 of the site to 1/2 of the site.

A motion was made to forward this application with a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors with the accepted of the proffers submitted by the applicant dated June 12, 2007 and the additional clarification on the buffer.  The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Mr. Besley against.

In reference to the above rezoning request, the applicant offered the following list of proffers.

      1.        Development of this subject property will be in substantial accordance with the plat, titled “Proposed Rezoning,” and dated August 2007.
2.        In the future, lots 3 and 6 will be allowed only one division in each.
3.        A maximum of three entrances accessing Kentucky Springs Road (route 652) will be permitted.
4.        Lot 1 will remain zoned R-2 (Residential).
5.        Lots 4 and 5 will “downzone” from C-2 to C-1.
6.        The Southwest property line of Lot 7 will consist of a 50-foot vegetative buffer, in accordance with the Louisa County Landscape Manual.  This buffer will not allow for            drain fields.  
7.        The list of by right uses in C-1 will be proffered in.  

Mr. Coffey stated under proffer 7, letter MM, Single Family Dwelling-Detached, of the by right uses was only allowed in C-1 as part of Section 86-443, which was a caretaker resident.  Mr. Coffey indicated that letter MM would have to be removed from the proffers or footnoted accordingly to be consistent with the Countys ordinance.  

Mr. Wright clarified that letter MM, Single Family Dwelling-Detached, would only be for the owner or caretaker of a commercial building.  Mr. Wright questioned if group homes were appropriate in commercial zones.  Mr. Coffey said this would be commercially zoned and group homes were allowed by right for C-1.  

Mr. John Carroll, Applicant, stated they met with several neighborhood residents before starting this project and told them that they wouldnt bring this request to the County if the neighbors werent in support of it.  Mr. Carroll added that the neighborhood residents basically wrote the proffers.    

Mr. Gentry questioned why Mr. Carroll submitted revised proffers dated August 6, 2007.  Mr. Carroll said they have met several times with members of the Pine Harbour Owners Association and neighborhood residents and changes reflected the proffers at every meeting.    

Mr. James “Dan” Penn, Cuckoo District, stated he was the president of the Pine Harbour Subdivision.  Mr. Penn said he hoped the Board would disapprove this rezoning and back off on so much healthy mix.  Mr. Penn indicated that he had never said that he supported this request.  Mr. Penn said the Comprehensive Plan put this area in the residential zone and that was what it should be.  Mr. Penn said he didnt want or need any more commercial around that area.  Mr. Penn asked the Board to not add more commercial to that area.    

Mr. Alfred C. Tilson, Cuckoo District, stated Mr. Carroll had evidently met with the Pine Harbour Owners Association, but the subdivision had not received a letter from him with this request.  Mr. Tilson indicted that he did not make the Planning Commission meeting and he did not see this request advertised in the newspaper.  Mr. Tilson stated that he felt there was already enough commercial in that area and this request was not needed.  

Mr. Donald Probst, Cuckoo District, stated that he agreed with the previous speakers.  Mr. Probst indicated that this was the first that he had heard about any changes to the proffers, which were submitted the day of the Board meeting.  Mr. Probst said Mr. Coffey stated that spot zoning was defined as the reclassifying of one or more tracts of land and the sole purpose was to serve the private interest of one or more landowners.  Mr. Probst stated it appeared that had been happened with this proposal.  Mr. Probst recommended the Board to cease consideration for this request.    

Mr. Gene Newman, Jackson District, stated that the lower end of the lake desperately needed some commercial activity.  Mr. Newman said the only commercial on Route 652 was Elk Creek Convenience Store and he thought it would be great for some light commercial growth.  

Ms. Terry Schneider, Cuckoo District, stated she was on the Board of Directors at Pine Harbour and they never said that they approved this request.  Ms. Schneider said she had heard from many people in the community stating that they never knew about this.  Ms. Schneider indicated that she didnt know the process on advising the community of the neighborhood meeting, but no one received a letter.  Ms. Schneider added that she was concerned that the community never got a fair chance to know what was going on.  Ms. Schneider said this area was not a place to put commercial and she hoped the Board would make the right decision.  

Mr. John W. Keziah, Prince William County, stated he was the property owner of lot 150, which was directly adjacent to the property of this request.  Mr. Keziah indicated that the changes that were submitted reduced his concerns, however, the rezoning would still affect the Pine Harbour community.  Mr. Keziah stated that this would be a commercial lot in the middle of nowhere and he would like for the application to be denied.  

Mr. Gary Griffith, Jackson District, stated this application was to downzone from C-2 to C-1 to put a lighter commercial use there and to reduce the area to create not just a vegetative buffer, but also a residential zoning buffer.  Mr. Griffith stated that he saw how hard the applicant had worked to takes steps to make it fit into the community and the surroundings and he hoped the Board would give strong consideration on the effort that had been put into this request.  

Mr. James Smith, Cuckoo District, stated that there are two major commercial areas that were currently being developed at Route 652 and Route 208.  Mr. Smith added that the rezoning being proposed was only about two miles from Route 208.  Mr. Smith indicated that the plan for the area was for Lake Anna residential property and questioned why more commercial should be added to the area when the other two hadnt been developed yet.  Mr. Smith said more commercial property would only be attracting more traffic in the area and he would be concerned about safety features if this request were approved.    

Mr. George Washington, Cuckoo District, stated he was opposed to this request because it would be a safety factor.  

Mr. Brenton Wine, Jackson District, stated he would like more commercial for business amenities and he was speaking in favor of this rezoning.  

Ms. Katherine Perkins, Cuckoo District, stated she was concerned about the plan development and she objected this rezoning.  Ms. Perkins said she could not sacrifice convenience for safety and this request was not needed.  

Mr. Charles OMelia, Jackson District, read an article from the Central Virginian Newspaper written by Irene Luck describing the current developments on Route 652.  Mr. OMelia stated that he was opposed to having more commercial development.

Mr. Carroll indicated that VDOT made the determinations to address safety issues.  Mr. Carroll added that VDOT had already approved six entrances, which three have only been proffered to be used.  Mr. Carroll stated that he had not heard one negative comment about the request until now.  

Mr. Gentry stated that he felt the developer had made a tremendous attempt to mediate and listen to Pine Harbour.  Mr. Gentry said the developer requested to change the zoning from general commercial to light commercial and he thought that was a benefit to the Pine Harbour community.  Mr. Gentry added that the developer also left a residential lot that remained as a buffer for Pine Harbour.  Mr. Gentry stated that he thought VDOT would make sure that there were appropriate turning lanes.  

Mr. Gentry said he would like to make the motion to approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 8.59 acres from Residential General (R-2) to Light Commercial (C-1) and 5.93 acres from General Commercial (C-2) to Light Commercial (C-1) with the proffers as offered by the applicant.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.
PRESENTVOTE
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper Yes
Richad A. Havasy No
Allen B. Jennings No
Eric F. Purcell Yes
Jack T. Wright No

With the votes reflecting 4-3, the motion passed to approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 8.59 acres from Residential General (R-2) to Light Commercial (C-1) and 5.93 acres from General Commercial (C-2) to Light Commercial (C-1) with the proffers as offered by the applicant.

REZ07-07; G. B. Duke, SUN, LLC and LKA Contracting, Inc., Applicants/Owners; c/o James L. Lillie, III, Agent requests conditional rezoning of approximately 35.2254 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Light Commercial (C-1).  The property is located at the intersection of Route 652 (Kentucky Springs Road) and Route 739 (Plum Tree Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcels 46-(36)-Lots 1-12 (Formerly TMP 46-56), in the Jackson Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Low Density Residential within the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area.

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

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

(a) Is the change contrary to the established land-use pattern?  The uses that are allowed under the Light Commercial (C-1) District may be inconsistent with most of the surrounding properties.  The land uses in this area are predominately single-family homes and agricultural lands.  Currently, this area lacks any significant commercial development that would be allowed under the proposed commercial zoning.  Staff is processing a site plan for the adjacent commercially zoned property, for a mini-storage facility and the associated office.

(b) Is the change in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan?  The subject property is within the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area.  The Comprehensive Plans states that growth areas “should have well planned, high quality development that contains a healthy mix of uses, incomes, and open space”.  With this application, the subject properties are designated as Low-Density Residential, which is intended to support residential development rather than commercial.  The applicant states that the C-1 zoning would provide a limited commercial node for this area, which would service the surrounding residences.  The Comprehensive Plan designates commercial and community service nodes within the Lake Anna Growth Area, which area intended to serve that same purpose.

(c) Would the change create an isolated district unrelated to similar districts (i.e., is this spot zoning?)  The area is zoned predominately Residential General (R-2) and Agricultural (A-2).  There is a strip of General Commercial (C-2) zoning adjacent to the subject properties.  The Light Commercial (C-1) zoning district is the least intense commercial zoning in the county but may be contrary to the surrounding zoning districts, even though there is already a limited amount of commercial zoning in the area.

There were eight people present, including the applicant and their representative, at the Neighborhood Meeting held on May 11, 2007.  These individuals expressed the same concerns as previously expressed for the C-2 application such as spot zoning, no plan for the lots and uncertainty of development.  

The Development Review Committee met on May 22, 2007 to review the requested rezoning.  The primary concern with this application remains the appropriateness of more commercial zoning in this area with over 8.5 acres of existing commercial that has not been fully utilized in the past.  Concern was also expressed over the proposed zonings compatibility with the comprehensive plan.

It was the Committees opinion that the Planning Commission and Board would want to see specific details on the types of uses being proposed for the area.  It was suggested to the applicant that they request a deferral until they could finalize any proffers they were proposing.  The applicants indicated that they were confident they could have these prepared prior to the Planning Commission meeting.

A motion was made and seconded to forward this rezoning request to the Planning Commission without a recommendation.  The motion passed 7-0.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 14, 2007 at which seven people spoke in favor of the request, in addition to the applicants representative, and three people spoke in opposition.  Those in favor indicated that they would like to see commercial services in the area and felt there was a need for them.  Those opposing the request did not want to see junk in their back yard, had concerns regarding future property values, traffic increases and the density of commercial businesses that could be placed on one lot in the form of a mini-mall, etc.

The Planning Commission voted, 6-0, to forward a recommendation of approval on the requested rezoning to the Board of Supervisors with the proffers offered by the applicant and a recommendation that the proffers be amended to refer to the Louisa County Landscape Manual.

Mr. Jennings said the subject property was already zoned A-2 and divided and questioned what the original intent of the property was.  Mr. Coffey said it was initially subdivided for residential use under the A-2 regulations.  Mr. Jennings questioned if the owner had a privilege under Board action of rezoning a piece of property after it had already been divided into commercial.  Mr. Coffey said a rezoning is a discretionary action and the owner had the right to make a rezoning application, even though the property had already been subdivided.  Mr. Jennings questioned per parcel or per lot.  Mr. Coffey indicated that they could do per lot, but the spot zoning issue would be more relevant for one lot and the applicants decided to rezone the whole area as a node.  Mr. Jennings questioned what the zoning fee applied to.  Mr. Coffey said the zoning fee was applied per application and was processed as a single entity, regardless of the number of owners.  

Mr. Havasy questioned if the three lots that face Route 652 had the right to put a driveway on that road.  Mr. Coffey said it is subject to VDOT approval, but the intent would be to use the internal subdivision road.  Mr. Coffey added that there was no proffer saying where those parcels would access.  

Mr. Purcell questioned if they could have a commercial property that accessed onto the road without a commercial entrance.  Mr. Gentry said it would have to be a commercial entrance.  


Mr. James Lillie, Applicant, stated it was the intent to have all of the lots use the internal subdivision road.  Mr. Lillie said one of the most important proffers they had was the fact that regardless of what kind of reconfiguration was done on the property, there were only going to be 12 lots.  Mr. Lillie indicated that there hadnt been anything done from an engineering standpoint, but a preliminary look had been taken at this property and it lent itself to a development from a storm water management with two retention ponds.  

Mr. Lillie indicated that as preparation for the application, they circulated a form of request for County approval.  Mr. Lillie added that the form stated that later this year, Louisa County would consider the approval of commercial establishment to be located on the east side of Kentucky Springs Road (Route 652), south of its intersection with Plum Tree Road and Route 739.  Mr. Lillie indicated that the form also listed examples of types of businesses that people wanted to put there.  

Mr. Lillie said proffers had been submitted and he understood that there were concerns about proffer number 14 automobile parts/supply, retail.  Mr. Lillie indicated that the County had definitions for various uses and it defined automobile parts/supply, retail as retail sales of automobile parts and accessories, typical uses include automobile parts and supply stores that offer new and factory built parts and accessories and include establishments that offer minor automobile repair services as an accessory use.  Mr. Lillie said he understood the concern to be expressed as having junk vehicles or junk yards, which was not permitted with this proffer.

Mr. Lillie stated a lot people were concerned about the impact of commercial development and what would be done with the property.  Mr. Lillie indicated that the developer had no desire to have adverse impacts on the property.  

Mr. Gentry questioned if there were any proffers that would prevent this development from being 12 parcels with a different use on each one.  Mr. Lillie said no, it was encouraged that there would be different uses within the area.  
 

Mr. Arthur Golden, Jackson District, stated that he was against this proposal.  Mr. Golden said that nothing had changed with this development since the last time it was presented to the Board, other than the fact that they want to rezone to C-1 instead of C-2.  Mr. Golden indicated that there were a number of commercial properties that hadnt been developed, which were in an area of the Comprehensive Plan that was for residential.  Mr. Golden stated that he hoped the proposal would not be approved.  

Ms. Michele Scheurenbrand, Jackson District, stated that sections of her property were attached to the proposed rezoning property.  Ms. Scheurenbrand said she couldnt help but wonder what type of businesses would be successful in this area.  Ms. Scheurenbrand indicated that most people that had bought property in this area knew that it was secluded and private.  Ms. Scheurenbrand stated she was not opposed to commercial development if it was in the appropriate area.    

Mr. Jay Scheurenbrand, Jackson District, stated that he had lived on the lake for 15 years and he would be directly affected if this rezoning were approved.  Mr. Scheurenbrand indicated that the sales unit had not visited him to question his input for the project.  Mr. Scheurenbrand stated this rezoning would be considered spot zoning and he was not in favor of this proposal.  

Mr. Brenton Wine, Jackson District, stated that this area was a good place for commercial and he thought a commercial establishment would make traffic slow down rather than speed up.  Mr. Wine indicated that businesses would add to the tax base and he would rather spend money in his own community.  Mr. Wine urged the Board to support this proposal.

Mr. Gary Griffith, Jackson District, stated the property that buffered against Plum Tree and Clearwater was all zoned C-2.  Mr. Griffith indicated that this development would bring positive jobs and amenities to the area and he hoped the Board would consider that.  

Ms. Barbara Bishop, Spotsylvania County, stated she was not a Louisa County resident, but she had chosen to operate two businesses in this area.  Ms. Bishop added that her family had chosen Louisa/Mineral to be their hometown.  Ms. Bishop stated she offered her clients her ability to give valuable resources to solve their problems for shopping and service needs.  Ms. Bishop indicated that she was in favor of the rezoning because Plum Tree would offer a solution to be able to build relationships in an attractive setting for a hometown community center rather than just a place to live.  

Mr. Ed LaPlace, Jackson District, stated what bothers him the most was that there was a lot of embellishment of the amenities that would be located there.  Mr. LaPlace said it didnt make sense to put more commercial in that area.  

Mr. Gary Muller, Jackson District, stated the underlying issue remained the same as the April 2, 2007 meeting that this was spot zoning.  Mr. Muller said Mr. Coffey stated that this rezoning would expand on existing commercial zoning, which the Comprehensive Plan did not support.  Mr. Muller said the applicant stated that this rezoning would provide a limited commercial node for the area, which would service the surrounding residences.  Mr. Muller stated that he was a surrounding resident and he did not need the services.  Mr. Muller indicated that there were ample commercial sites that would take care of his services.  Mr. Muller said the Comprehensive Plan designates commercial nodes within the Lake Anna growth area and Plum Tree wasnt listed as such.  Mr. Muller requested that the Board hear the voices of surrounding residents.  

Mr. Michael Bryant, Jackson District, stated there was commercial property within the area that was not used.  Mr. Bryant said he didnt want the Board to rezone commercial properties every time the residential market slowed down.  Mr. Bryant said he didnt want junk in his backyard and he hoped the Board would deny this proposal.  

Mr. Steve Moore, Jackson District, stated that he didnt need commercial activity in his backyard and asked the Board to think carefully about this rezoning because Louisa County was beautiful and he didnt want to spoil that.    

Mr. Charles OMelia, Jackson District, stated this proposal was considered spot zoning and if the Board approved it, they were basically giving the developers the right to build a construction yard in the middle of a residential community.  Mr. OMelia said he hoped if any Board members had any direct association with the two contractors that they would abstain from voting.

Mr. Roy W. Howes, Jackson District, stated the reason that the applicant was requesting this rezoning was because they couldnt get access to the lake with the lots zoned residential.  Mr. Howes added the Board should not let that happen.  Mr. Howes indicated that there was enough commercial land on Route 652 that nothing had ever been done with.  Mr. Howes stated that he was firmly opposed to this request.  

Ms. Susie Bryant, Jackson District, stated she was the president of the Clearwater Association.  Ms. Bryant indicated that she compared C-1 zoning to C-2 zoning and the only true difference was that there are 15 types of businesses that were listed as a CUP for C-1.  Ms. Bryant said on the applicants proffers, they wanted to be able to use a CUP and she found that disturbing.  Ms. Bryant stated that the applicant also proffered that they would pave a portion of Route 739, which had nothing to do with the issue now.  Ms. Bryant said she thought we should wait and see what amenities come from the unutilized properties that were already zoned commercial.  Ms. Bryant said she was trying to preserve where she lived, the rural atmosphere and the simplicity of the lake, which was what drew her here in the first place.

Ms. Kathy Bernard, Jackson District, stated that she lived close to this property and no one had asked for her opinion.  Ms. Bernard said she did not need or want any commercial.  Ms. Bernard stated she originally bought her property almost ten years ago based on what she thought the County was going to do after looking at the Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Bernard recommended letting Cutalong develop before anything else was rezoned.  

Ms. Judy Chaplin, Jackson District, stated that she moved here in 2000 and had enjoyed the naturalness, beauty and peacefulness of Lake Anna.  Ms. Chaplin said she was very opposed to this request and she thought the area should stay as it was.  

Ms. Phyllis Mullins, Jackson District, stated that Elk Creek Convenience Store served her needs and she was against this proposal.

Mr. John “Jack” Higgins, Fairfax County, stated he purchased his property by Lake Anna in 1982.  Mr. Higgins said Louisa County was a wonderful place and asked the Board to not change the culture and to not allow commercial development.

Mr. Dan Budi, Jackson District, stated he originally bought land in Louisa County for his family to get away from the city because he didnt want to live next to a commercial area.  

Mr. Gene Newman, Jackson District, stated he welcomed the opportunity to be able to shop within the County.  Mr. Newman stated Louisa County was losing good quality people for the fact that there werent amenities around the Lake.  Mr. Newman asked the Board to give utmost consideration for the approval of this request.  

Ms. Belinda M. Wiley, property owner of the Jackson District, stated she owned property adjacent to this proposal.  Ms. Wiley said she believed it was time for some commercial growth on this side of the Lake and thought it would be aesthetically fit to put this into the neighborhoods.  Ms. Wiley said new growth and development would build stronger relationships between the community and the businesses.  

Mr. Kevin B. Moody, Brandywine, MD, stated he owned property in this area and he was emphatically in favor of this project being approved.  Mr. Moody added there was nothing more constant than change.

Mr. Dennis Schultz, Jackson District, stated he was the owner of one of the applicants, LKA Contracting.  Mr. Schultz said he lived two miles from the proposed property and he wasnt looking at doing something that would be unattractive.  Mr. Schultz added he was one of the premier builders on the lake and he wanted to keep it that way.    

Mr. Fred Walker, Jackson District, stated if neighborhood residents needed all of this property rezoned then they would ask for it.  Mr. Walker said he hoped the Board would turn down this proposal because it wasnt needed.  

Mr. Dave Moberly, Cuckoo District, stated a lot of people were not able to live here full time because of the lack of services that were offered.  Mr. Moberly said he was in favor of this proposal because this area needed more commercial development and he liked the concept of the request.    

Mr. John Carroll, Cuckoo District, stated that Louisa was lacking services and he hoped for more commercial development.  

Mr. Doug Hewitt, Jackson District, stated he thought there was more than enough commercial property in that area and he was against this proposal.

Mr. Purcell indicated that Lake Anna was probably the biggest example of spot zoning in the State of Virginia.  Mr. Purcell added the lake had given people a great opportunity to live, work and develop families.  Mr. Purcell said any applicant had the right to come before the board to ask to rezone their property to a higher and better use.  Mr. Purcell said when talking about someone elses land, he thought people needed to be very careful when they said they would ask for what they needed.

Mr. Barnes said the last time this came up, he had concerns about it being rezoned to C-2.  Mr. Barnes said Ms. Bryant stated that all the uses were essentially the same for C-1 and C-2, but C-1 required a CUP for certain uses.  Mr. Barnes indicated that a CUP was a very strong tool if it was used properly.      

Mr. Harper questioned if the CUP process would be altered by the action made tonight on the rezoning.  Mr. Coffey said no.  

Mr. Jennings stated that he had no possible conflict of interest and he could act very accordingly on his own.  Mr. Jennings said when people purchased their land, they didnt purchase it for a commercial area; they purchased it for a nice place to live.  Mr. Jennings indicated that this would be contrary to the established land-use pattern, it would not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and it would create an isolated district unrelated to similar districts.

Mr. Gentry said he looked at this situation as being very unusual and he understood the views of the neighborhood residents.    

Mr. Wright indicated that he was concerned that there were several places in the area that were already zoned as commercial that hadnt been developed.  

Mr. Purcell said he didnt think it was appropriate to judge a rezoning request by a private property owner based on other rezoning requests that have happened now, in the past or in the future.  Mr. Purcell added that doing so is a disservice to the applicant and he didnt think it was legal.  

Mr. Havasy said one thing that interested him about this whole project was that it had 687 feet of road frontage and it was a commercial subdivision that would be buffered on three sides.  


Mr. Barnes said he previously voted against this proposal because the request was for C-2 and he wanted to see it be rezoned to C-1.  

Mr. Jennings said he would like to make the motion to deny the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 35.2254 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Light Commercial (C-1). Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

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

With the votes reflecting 3-4, the motion failed to deny the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 35.2254 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Light Commercial (C-1).

Mr. Purcell said he would like to make the motion to
approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 35.2254 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Light Commercial (C-1) with the proffers as offered by the applicant.  Mr. Havasy seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

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

With the votes reflecting 4-3, the motion passed to approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 35.2254 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Light Commercial (C-1) with the proffers as offered by the applicant.

MEETING EXTENSION

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Wright stated he attended a Workforce Investment Board meeting regarding the realignment.  Mr. Wright said they suggested letting the counties get involved with making the realignment decision.  Mr. Wright said he would be meeting with groups around the State to come up with their own recommendations.  Mr. Wright indicated that they were looking at merging Louisa with another area close by that would be homogeneous with what the County had.  Mr. Wright added there would be another meeting on August 15, 2007.  

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Wright stated there was a letter included the Board Packet recommending that the Board appoint the County Administrator or a Board member to represent Louisa on the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development.

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Mr. Lintecum as the Board representative for the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development.  

Mr. Jennings stated he would like to re-appoint Blucher Reidelbach to the Board of Road Viewers.  

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board re-appointed Mr. Reidelbach to the Board of Road Viewers.  

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum recommended that the Planner position for the Community Development Department be advertised because of current and future planning needs.  Mr. Lintecum added that this need had arisen based upon the States requirement for a transportation plan and meeting the cluster development mandate.

Mr. Purcell questioned was it not consensus of the Board to add a member to the building staff right now and in light of the fact, according to Louisas representative, some of the unfunded mandates were going to be more in the discussion phase instead of the mandate phase and questioned if that was still an appropriate recommendation.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that he wouldnt of recommended having another Planner on staff if he didnt think it was appropriate.  

Mr. Barnes stated he would be prudent to add one FTE in light of some of the numbers on the Community Development staff report on the declining of building permits and then find out that some things in the General Assembly dont pass.  Mr. Havasy said one of his concerns was when he heard people say that they were getting poor service because of lack of staff.  Mr. Havasy indicated that he didnt think that growth would be slowing down in Louisa County.  Mr. Harper said he wrote an email going into the budget to not add anyone to the payroll and he was still with that opinion.  

        On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Mr. Barnes abstaining and Messrs Purcell and Harper voting against, which carried by a vote of 4-2-1, the Board voted approve the Planner position.

Mr. Lintecum said over the years, the Louisa County Circuit Court House has continually encountered issues with the heating and cooling system.  Mr. Lintecum added that Mr. Linhares included a memo in the Board Packet regarding his opinion about the Countys options.  Mr. Lintecum recommended the County purchase a new heating and cooling system for that facility based on recent problems with the system.

Mr. Jennings said he met with Mr. Linhares and toured the facility and it seemed that the system needed to be replaced.  Mr. Harper questioned why they didnt include a new system in their budget.  

        
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Purcell, with Mr. Harper voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board voted to authorize replacement of the heating and cooling system in the Louisa County Circuit Court House.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Animal Control Report - Sheep

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board authorized payment of $300 for two sheep that were killed by an unidentified dog.

Animal Control Report - Chickens

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board authorized payment of $150 for six chickens that were killed by an unidentified dog.

Resolution - Authorizing allocation of Emergency Preparedness Funds from Virginia Department of Emergency Management

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing allocation of Emergency Preparedness Funds from Virginia Department of Emergency Management.

Resolution - Proclaiming August 26, 2007 as Womens Equality Day

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution proclaiming August 26, 2007 as Womens Equality Day.

Resolution - Supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Office for the K-9 program

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Office for the K-9 program.

Resolution - Supplemental appropriation for water connection fees received for Zion Crossroads

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for supplemental appropriation for water connection fees received for Zion Crossroads.

Resolution - Supplemental appropriation for Emergency Services for the 2006 Citizen Preparedness and Citizens Corps Program

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for supplemental appropriation for Emergency Services for the 2006 Citizen Preparedness and Citizens Corps Program.

Resolution - Supplemental appropriation for vehicle sales

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for supplemental appropriation for vehicle sales.

Resolution - Supplemental appropriation for State funding related to the Victim Witness Assistance Program

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for supplemental appropriation for State funding related to the Victim Witness Assistance Program.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, with Messrs Gentry, Havasy and Jennings abstaining on bills pertaining to them, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the month of July 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $1,882,491.93.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the July 2, 2007 meeting.

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the July 23, 2007 joint meeting with the School Board.

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the August 6, 2007 meeting at 11:24 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


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