Contact Sitemap Search
|Board Present:||Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell and Jack T. Wright|
|Others Present:||C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; and April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk|
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wright called the September 17, 2007 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Gentry led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD
Mr. Pete Bradshaw, Fluvanna County, stated he represented Spring Creek and was here to speak about the rate structure and hookup fees that were poised to be adopted. Mr. Bradshaw said a public hearing was held relative to the rate increases and a number of speakers came forward and recommended that the Water Authority study different options relative to funding and develop a well thought-out cost benefit and financial feasibility analysis, based on the capital improvements that would be necessary to construct the facilities that were anticipated. Mr. Bradshaw requested that the Board, if legally feasible, determine what could be done to delay the decision for the establishment of the new rates until it could be determined if a satisfactory analysis had been undertaken to observe the situation in the future, in terms of an appropriate time frame for repayment of debt and a clear and well-articulated capital improvement program financial analysis.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Barnes stated he would like to add a discussion of water and sewer rates to old business. Mr. Lintecum stated he would like to add a resolution to take road F089 (Atkinson Road) into the secondary system of highways in Louisa County to new business.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the September 17, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.
Update - Process to amend the Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Coffey stated he discussed this matter with the Planning Commission at a workshop last Thursday. Mr. Coffey said the Planning Commission wanted to make sure that the drafted amendment process meant that a landowner could only request an amendment to the Plan for their land. Mr. Coffey indicated to the Planning Commission that was correct and if a landowner wanted to make the amendment broader, they would have to approach the Board to discuss that. Mr. Coffey said there was a $500 Comprehensive Plan amendment fee that would be paid when the application was submitted. Mr. Coffey said the Community Development Department would do a quick analysis of the proposed amendment and it would be put on the Boards agenda for review. Mr. Coffey added the Board would determine if they wanted to put it in the process to consider it and refer it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffey said after it went to the Planning Commission, it would come back for final approval from the Board.
Mr. Coffey said if there were no other modifications, he would place the information into a brochure format for information purposes and include an application form. Mr. Coffey stated he would present the brochure and application form to the Planning Commission and the Board for approval to be able to implement the policy within the next few months.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board gave Mr. Coffey the direction to proceed with the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion - Longevity House
Mr. Lintecum said he met with Mr. Andrew Kenney of the Louisa Humane Society and their main interest in the property was its location, which was adjacent to the dog pound. Mr. Lintecum said they proposed to add facilities to store cages and have runs for the dogs, as well as a spay and neuter facility. Mr. Lintecum said in talking with Mr. Kenney regarding the possibility of building a new Animal Shelter, he indicated that working with the County with the new facility and the old dog pound would be preferable to renovating and using the Longevity House.
Mr. Lintecum said Mr. and Mrs. Colvin of Aging Citizens Relocation and Referral Services Incorporated (ACRRS) met with him to explain their interest in the
Longevity House. Mr. Lintecum said ACRRS was a 501(c) 3 organization that provided services to help senior citizens with relocation and referral services. Mr. Lintecum said they would use the Longevity House as their office and they would work with the Red Cross to provide emergency housing services at the facility. Mr. Lintecum said they requested the County donate the property to ACRRS and they would not ask the County for money; however, they would ask the County to donate more land in the future for parking and other uses. Mr. Lintecum said they indicated that they would seek grants and donations to fund the remodeling and operations of their organization. Mr. Lintecum added they would start renovations immediately, using volunteers and donated materials to save the historic parts of the house.
Mr. Lintecum said Mr. and Mrs. MacDonald were proposing to purchase the property for $25,000, contingent on selling another property they own. Mr. Lintecum said if they obtained the property, they would secure the house and begin researching and finding pictures of the house in order to restore and preserve the property to its original view. Mr. Lintecum added they would begin working on the house in the spring. Mr. Lintecum said after completing the restoration, they would move into the house or find someone to locate in the house that valued it as a historic property.
Mr. Purcell said he thought that all three proposals would do very well in managing the property, but he tended to lean towards restoring the property for historical purposes. Mr. Havasy stated he almost completely agreed because he was strongly in favor of historical preservation, but his only reservation was possibly giving up a piece of land that may be needed in the future for a new Animal Shelter.
Mr. Barnes stated the Humane Society would be a great use of the property if it could be restored for an office and an adoption program. Mr. Barnes added this was public property and he would like to see it used to benefit the public. Mr. Barnes noted that his second choice would be the proposal from the ACRRS.
Mr. Gentry stated he would put priorities on the two 501(c) 3 organizations and he would lean towards the Humane Society only because of the location with the dog pound.
Mr. Jennings said he thought the 501(c) 3 organizations were for the Community. Mr. Jennings said one problem he had was that it wasnt discussed about how much it would cost to renovate the building. Mr. Jennings indicated that he would be abstaining from this issue because he has had prior commitments to two out of the three applicants.
Mr. Harper indicated that his biggest concern was that the building was located in the middle of the property. Mr. Harper said if the Board decided to chose the Humane Society or the ACRRS, he would be more interested in a long-term lease as opposed to transacting the property; however, if the MacDonalds proposal was chosen, they were interested in buying, not leasing.
Mr. Wright said his least preferable proposal was the Humane Society. Mr. Wright said if their proposal were chosen, that would be duplicating what was already being done at the animal shelter. Mr. Wright indicated that the proposal from the ACRRS concerned him because they stated they would ask the County to donate more land in the future. Mr. Wright added what also concerned him with that proposal was he didnt know what the chances were of them getting funding from grants to help with the renovations. Mr. Wright indicated that his decision would be between the MacDonalds proposal and the ACRRS proposal.
Mr. Barnes indicated that he thought leasing the property would be the Countys best option and the Humane Society would be the best applicant for the property.
Mr. Gentry indicated that he liked the last sentence of the Humane Societys proposal, which read, “The Longevity House can be saved, additional animals can be saved and a historic building will be restored and saved for future generations.” Mr. Gentry added he thought the location was what separated the Humane Society from the other two proposals.
Mr. Wright questioned who would want to put money into renovating the building to only be able to lease for a short-term. Mr. Harper indicated that the lease would have to be a long-term lease and the property would remain entitled to the County. Mr. Purcell said he thought a long-term lease was a good idea.
Mr. Purcell said the Board had always harped individuals that if they wanted to preserve historical landmarks, then they would have to purchase them and that was offered by the proposals, which he thought was laudable. Mr. Harper agreed and indicated that if the leases fell through, he would support the sale.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Messrs Wright and Havasy voting against and Mr. Jennings abstaining, which carried by a vote of 4-2-1, the Board voted to accept the Louisa Humane Societys proposal with a long-term lease as negotiated by Lintecum.
Discussion - Water and Sewer Rates
Mr. Barnes said he thought the recent increases in the water and sewer rates should have included a more detailed explanation of the fees. Mr. Barnes indicated that he thought the County needed to be fair to not only the citizens, but also to the new and existing businesses to make sure the fees was justifiable. Mr. Barnes added he thought the rate increases would hinder businesses in Louisa County. Mr. Barnes said the fees were adopted last Thursday, but he understood that the Board of Supervisors had the authority to suspend the fees for up to one year for a complete study to be done. Mr. Morgan said he didnt believe that was correct but he would research that and let the Board know.
Mr. Purcell said he didnt think that people understood how bad the lending market was now and because of that, people were having a hard time arranging their financing for large projects. Mr. Purcell said he thought the rates were relevant for discussion because it was the Boards responsibility to look out for the taxpayers investments. Mr. Gentry agreed and said he thought the timing was bad with what the economy was doing and doubling the fees at one time was too excessive.
Mr. Jennings said he thought the rate increases seemed to be astronomically high; however, the rates were set much lower than proposed. Mr. Jennings said he thought the Board should try to lower the rates to be helpful to people who needed the services.
Mr. Harper questioned what percentage the rates increased. Mr. Barnes stated the rates increased by fifty percent. Mr. Harper said the Water Authority calculated the costs for the rate increases based on expansions and growth in the future. Mr. Harper said because the rates had been kept fictitiously low, the increases looked astronomical, but the rates were actually where they needed to be.
Mr. Barnes indicated that there were other ways of financing water and sewer projects and he wanted to make sure that the other avenues had been addressed first. Mr. Barnes stated he would like the Board to ask the Water Authority to suspend the rate increases for up to one year until clear justification was established. Mr. Purcell agreed.
Mr. Havasy said the rates should have been increased gradually and future growth should have been planned for before now. Mr. Havasy indicated that he would like to know how the rates compared with adjoining counties and he would like for the increases to be postponed until an analysis could be completed. Mr. Havasy added the last thing the County should do was stop commercial growth.
Mr. Wright said reducing rates because of high interest was not the reason rates should be reduced; however, they were being increased too high. Mr. Wright indicated that a precedent was being set that would have to be paid for in the future. Mr. Wright said he thought the right thing to do was to ask the Water Authority for a postponement with the rate increases.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to ask the Water Authority to suspend the rate increases for up to 12 months for a detailed analysis to be completed on alternative ways to finance improvements and for a plan for all growth areas.
Discussion - Commissioner of Revenue's request for a refund for Tri-Dim based on amended personal property tax return
Mr. Morgan stated Ms. Nancy Pleasants, the Commissioner of the Revenue, requested to allow for a tax refund of $48,995.54, based on overpayment of taxes for years 2004, 2005 and 2006. Mr. Morgan said Ms. Pleasants memorandum to the Board stated the overpayment was due to amended tax returns that were filed by Tri Dim Filter Corporation. Mr. Morgan said based on the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3980, a corporation that was aggrieved by an assessment had the right to request that the Commissioner adjust the assessment within three years of the last day of the tax year that the assessment was made to correct the assessment.
Mr. Morgan said apparently there were faulty accounting procedures on the basis of Tri Dim where certain property was identified incorrectly. Mr. Morgan said he reviewed the record with Ms. Pleasants to determine if this was a legitimate and lawful claim. Mr. Morgan said the Commissioner of the Revenues analysis of the overpayments appeared to be correct and a refund should be in order.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the Commissioner of the Revenues request to issue a refund to Tri Dim in the amount of $48,995.54 based on overpayment of taxes for years 2004, 2005 and 2006, and for the Treasurer to issue a check to Tri Dim in the amount of $48,995.54.
Discussion - Claim submitted by Edward and Gail Massey
Mr. Morgan said a claim dated August 14, 2007 was received from the Legal Aid Justice Center on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Massey under the provisions of the Virginia Code, Section 15.2-1243. Mr. Morgan said the claim was in the sum of $3,560, which reflected costs for daycare and clothing allowances. Mr. Morgan said because he had a close relationship with the Masseys and their children, it was asked that an independent analysis be done of the claim to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Morgan said the claim arose out of a contract with the Department of Social Services in the area of placement agreement boarding home documents. Mr. Morgan said the documents were analyzed and determined that it was a contractual claim with the Department of Social Services. Mr. Morgan said although the Board appointed the members of the Social Services Board, it was not directly responsible to the Board of Supervisors; therefore, the recommendation from the County Administrator was that the request be denied.
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell abstaining, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, the Board voted to deny the claim submitted by Edward and Gail Massey.
Resolution To take road F089 (Atkinson Road) into the secondary system of highways in Louisa County, Virginia
Mr. Lintecum said road F089 (Atkinson Road) was currently maintained by the Ashland Residency, even though the road was physically located in Louisa County and he thought it would be appropriate for Louisa to maintain the road.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to take road F089 (Atkinson Road) into the secondary system of highways in Louisa County, Virginia.
Mr. Gentry indicated that the Board asked VDOT to study the speed limit at the school site on Route 208 (Courthouse Road) once more and it seemed to be getting a lot of attention. Mr. Gentry said he attended a meeting with the District Administrator, the Louisa Administrator, Dr. Pettit and Mr. Szalankiewicz and they determined several scenarios for the proposal.
Mr. Harper said last Monday, there were several serious incidents across the County and a lot of input from local citizens, several fire companies and Emergency Services was received. Mr. Harper commended everyone involved on their professional help.
Mr. Wright stated a letter was included in the Board Packet from the Emergency Services Department requesting the Boards participation in an organizational meeting to be held on October 17, 2007 and requested that the EMSAL and Fire Association representative also attend.
Mr. Wright stated he attended two meetings this month with the Piedmont Workforce Council. Mr. Wright indicated that the State was looking to realign all workforce areas by community colleges and he didnt see how 23 community colleges would be able to handle 118 entities. Mr. Wright stated Louisa was going to be grouped with the Richmond area, but hopefully the Board talked them out of that with the letter they sent. Mr. Wright noted that another meeting was scheduled for September 18, 2007 in Richmond.
Mr. Gentry said he attended a rural summit conference and he found that Louisa County was furnishing a lot services to the rural and elderly people within the County. Mr. Gentry said he was disappointed that the conference was centered mostly on counties in the south of Virginia.
Mr. Wright said there was an organization in Buckingham County that provided medical services to counties for people that had additional medical needs and couldnt afford medical insurance. Mr. Wright stated a grant had been approved for Louisa County to get a facility located at the SAGE building.
Mr. McLeod said the Board joined the NACo Drug Prescription Program. Mr. McLeod indicated that this program would give people, both with and without insurance, a discount for prescriptions. Mr. McLeod said the program would be effective October 1, 2007 and it would be advertised.
Mr. Barnes stated he would like to re-appoint Barbara Penington and Carl Perkins to the Commission on Aging. Mr. Jennings stated he would like to re-appoint Sanders Wyatt to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Ms. Penington and Mr. Perkins to the Commission on Aging and Mr. Wyatt to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
Mr. Lintecum said the October 1, 2007 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors would be conducted at the Louisa Town Hall.
Mr. Lintecum indicated that the draft letters to the IND property owners were included in the Board packet.
Mr. Wright questioned if a date had been set for the Board Retreat. Mr. Wright indicated that a Board Retreat needed to be set as early as possible.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Resolution - Proclaiming the month of October 2007 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Harper, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2007 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Resolution - Declaring October 2007 as Clean Up Louisa County month
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Harper, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution declaring October 2007 as Clean Up Louisa County month.
Mr. Lintecum stated he received a letter from Governor Kaine that recommended Louisa County be a designated drought area.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Harper, with Mr. Gentry abstaining on bills pertaining to him, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of September 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $522,864.63.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the August 29, 2007 planning workshop.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the September 4, 2007 meeting.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:24 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 Board.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Mr. Havasy being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:05 p.m.
RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Havasy being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 17th day of September 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 17th day of September 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.
Mr. Lintecum introduced Ms. Zuwana Morgan, Records Clerk for Administration.
Amendments to or the creation of the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances which will amend, recodify or create a new Telecommunications Master Plan and Ordinance for the purpose of regulating the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure in Louisa County. In addition, adoption of the amendments will repeal/rewrite the existing Article IX. Telecommunications Regulations contained in the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Coffey said earlier this year, the Community Development Department officially started the Telecommunication Master Plan process. Mr. Coffey added that a Telecommunications Ordinance was also drafted that would replace Article IX of the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance with regards to telecommunication regulations. Mr. Coffey introduced Ms. Susan Rabold, Project Manager for CityScape Consultants.
Ms. Rabold said the process started by developing a wireless Telecommunications Master Plan. Ms. Rabold said CityScape observed the location of all existing towers within and around a one-mile perimeter of the County. Ms. Rabold added the height of the towers were also observed and mapped out. Ms. Rabold added CityScape went through a series of mapping exercises that showed the impacts of terrain, demographics and projected demographics. Ms. Rabold referenced and explained a map that identified existing towers and showed projections for 2020 with topography. Ms. Rabold added that there was a lot of interest in looking at the possibility of using County-owned property for future wireless telecommunications at the structure.
Ms. Rabold indicated that the next step in the process was to complete a survey for types of infrastructure citizens would like to see in the County. The following is a list in order of preference.
Ms. Rabold said the next strategy was to look at zoning districts and identify the types of uses of the facilities that would be allowed in the various zoning districts. Ms. Rabold referenced and explained a permitted use table that showed whether certain types of facilities would be allowed by right or with a CUP in the different zoning districts. Ms. Rabold said one of the changes that was made in the review process of the ordinance pertained to the mitigations. Ms. Rabold said mitigated WCFs were permitted by right unless the mitigation of an existing un-illuminated WCF was required to become illuminated. Ms. Rabold said in this instance, the mitigation would require a CUP.
Ms. Rabold stated the remaining part of the ordinance basically filled in the gaps of the development standards of what was expected, such as landscaping, heights, and setbacks.
Ms. Rabold stated CityScape made corrections to the ordinance based on comments from the Planning Commission, which included the separation of broadcast facilities. Ms. Rabold said it was always intended that broadcast would be treated differently because they were, typically, very tall towers that would exceed the 300-foot maximum in the proposed text. Ms. Rabold added the existing definition of broadcast was modified, making the facilities a requirement of a CUP. Ms. Rabold said CityScape also changed the name of the ordinance from “Wireless Telecommunications” to “Telecommunications.”
Mr. Graven Craig, Louisa, District, stated he represented National Communication Towers, LLC, which was a Richmond-based company that built cell towers independently. Mr. Craig added they find sites where they could maximize the amount of coverage and minimize the number of towers that any given area would need.
Mr. Craig said in the ordinance, there was a requirement to provide building samples for the towers. Mr. Craig said his client stated that was not possible if the tenants were unknown and suggested the County change the requirement to say the materials would have to be a non-glossy finish or neutral in color.
Mr. Craig said another requirement listed was that propagation studies be provided for every light pole or power line within two miles of the suggested site. Mr. Craig said his client stated that in a rural community like Louisa County, that could be somewhat excessive and suggested the County consider changing the requirement to say any power line, water tank or silo that was taller than 80 feet.
Mr. Craig stated a requirement was also listed in the ordinance that all fencing should be opaque and the suggested building materials be wood or brick. Mr. Craig said his client indicated that wood fences deteriorate rapidly and brick walls were very expensive and not necessary. Mr. Craig said his client suggested including chain link fences with an anti-climbing device to the requirement.
Mr. Craig added that his client thought the simulations were extreme and should be limited to historic areas.
Mr. Chuck Rothenberg, Hanover County, stated he represented Verizon Wireless. Mr. Rothenberg said Section 86-484.2(b)(1) was a provision that provided to install a tower taller than 199 feet, the applicant would have to demonstrate that the tower, if it were reduced to 199 feet, would unequivocally require additional towers within two miles of the site. Mr. Rothenberg said depending on the type of service that the provider was using, it could be very difficult to show that the two-mile radius would actually be penetrated by the need for other towers. Mr. Rothenberg said the way this was written, the Board had no discretion in saying, after all circumstances, that a tower taller than 199 feet would be appropriate. Mr. Rothenberg suggested language be added to say unless given all circumstances, the Board would determine that a height up to 300 feet was appropriate or require additional towers within three miles instead of two.
Mr. Rothenberg said Section 86-484(m)(3) dealt with the abandonment of a tower and suggested adding language that stated the tower owner would not have to remove the foundation to the extent that it was below ground because aesthetically, it would look the same.
Mr. Wright closed the public hearing and gave the applicant a chance to answer questions from the speakers.
Ms. Rabold said the ordinance required to provide building samples for the towers because a lot of times the materials were site specific. Ms. Rabold indicated that the materials become part of the CUP application so that when the site was built, it would match the expectations during the CUP process. Ms. Rabold discouraged the Board from accepting only the non-glossy and neutral finishes because it was very limiting.
Ms. Rabold said in regards to the fencing, she thought there was flexibility because the ordinance allowed for an alternative equivalent to be presented.
Mr. Coffey said Mr. Craig stated that he thought the simulations were too extreme and questioned if Ms. Rabold could address that. Ms. Rabold said the topography in this area changed drastically and the designated distance was included in the ordinance so that each site could be accommodated.
Ms. Rabold said when CityScape completed the surveys, the recommendation was to not have the towers lit; however, towers over 199 feet had to be lit. Ms. Rabold said with that, there was a strong sense that the height of the new towers should be limited to 199 feet. Ms. Rabold added that when CityScape did the Master Plan, it was evident, based on the maps, that in some instances the 199 feet towers with topography wouldnt be adequate enough; therefore, CityScape made a recommendation to allow for applicants to apply for towers up to 300 feet, given that evidence was provided that the need existed.
Mr. Coffey said Mr. Rothenberg was concerned about tower abandonment and having to remove the foundation. Mr. Coffey said the ordinance didnt require that the foundation be removed, but the language didnt state that. Mr. Coffey said in some situations, the property owner may want the sub-surface removed, but typically, it wouldnt be an issue.
Mr. Gentry questioned if the foundation was generally covered up if it wasnt removed. Ms. Rabold said yes.
Mr. Purcell questioned if Mr. Coffey felt that the plan would allow the County to adequately attract the customers for location and colocation in growth areas to handle increasing needs for the entire plethora of uses that are being dealt with. Mr. Coffey said he believed that the Master Plan would help facilitate the infrastructure at a faster pace. Mr. Purcell questioned if there was an appeals process in regards to the height of a tower. Mr. Coffey said any new towers were a CUP and the Board would have the final decision.
Mr. Havasy questioned if there would be adequate coverage in the Green Springs Historic District. Ms. Rabold said yes.
Mr. Harper indicated that he thought the fencing should be standard for all areas. Mr. Harper questioned if a specific color for a lighted tower that was being mitigated could be required. Ms. Rabold said a dual lighting system could be required, which was a white strobe by day and a red blink by night. Mr. Harper said if a proper site for a tower couldnt be located, he didnt have a problem placing it on County-owned property; however, he didnt want the County recruiting for that.
Mr. Wright indicated that the tower owner would be leasing the property where the tower was located and he thought the property owner would have say as to whether or not they wanted the foundation removed if the tower was abandoned. Mr. Wright indicated that the Board of Supervisors did not approve most of the current towers that were over 300 feet because they were State or Federal owned.
Mr. Gentry indicated that he thought the Master Plan could do a lot for the County.
Mr. Barnes said he thought the public sector would be in competition for the private sites. Mr. Barnes added that school divisions were starting to take advantage of the cell towers being placed on school properties because it was a source of revenue.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to amend Article IX. Telecommunications Regulations in the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance with clarification to Section 86-484(m)(3) stating that the foundation would be required to be covered up or removed at the property owners request.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to adopt the Telecommunications Master Plan.
To amend the Louisa County Code, Appendix A Schedule of Fees to implement a $2,000 fee under Telecommunication Structures for Non-Licensed Colocation.
Mr. Coffey said if the County wanted to encourage colocation, high-speed internet, broadband and wireless services county-wide, there should be a fee structure that would differentiate between licensed telecommunication facilities, which was a $4,000 review fee, and non-licensed colocation. Mr. Coffey added a fee of $2,000 would allow for encouragement for an existing colocation at a reduced price.
Mr. Brian Gilbreth, Louisa District, stated he operated Central Virginia Technology Group, which was a wireless broadband provider currently in the County of Louisa. Mr. Gilbreth indicated that he didnt know there was currently a charge to colocate non-licensed equipment on another site. Mr. Gilbreth added that the company couldnt afford to build a site and for them to want to deploy throughout the County, a $2,000 fee to colocate didnt encourage them to provide their services. Mr. Gilbreth stated he disagreed with being charged a fee per site.
Mr. Coffey said the fee was put in place a year ago, but the County hadnt been requiring a review or building permit to anyone that colocated on a tower. Mr. Coffey said with the adoption of the ordinance and the Master Plan, a building permit would be required. Mr. Coffey added this was a process that was put in place to ensure that the towers and colocations were done correctly. Mr. Coffey indicated that this was a fee reduction in the sense that the fee that was implemented last December was going to apply uniformly to anything that colocated on a tower.
Mr. Gentry questioned if colocation could be done for less than $2,000. Mr. Coffey indicated that he got the price quote from CityScape. Mr. Barnes questioned if the broadband cost could be altered to lessen the burden to provide for smaller companies. Mr. Coffey stated this was intended to be a discount. Mr. Coffey said CityScape would still have to complete some level of a propagation study structural analysis and a site inspection for any structure that would be located on a tower.
Mr. Harper stated that $2,000 might have more of an impact on broadband providers than people thought. Mr. Barnes said he thought there had to be a way to structure the fees for smaller companies. Mr. Purcell agreed.
Mr. Havasy questioned how many fees would be charged if a tower had three colocators before the application was submitted. Ms. Rabold said they would be packaged together and there would only be one fee; however, if a colocator were added after the application was submitted, they would be charged separately.
Mr. Coffey indicated that he would pass the conversation along to Mr. Edwards through CityScape and if, for any reason, the fees could be reduced more than $2,000, he would bring the ordinance back to the Board.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, with Messrs Barnes, Purcell and Harper voting against, which carried by a vote of 4-3, the Board adopted a resolution to amend Appendix A Schedule of Fees of the Louisa County Code to include a non-licensed colocation fee of $2,000.
Mr. Lintecum indicated that he had heard two sides on whether or not the Board wanted towers on County property and questioned what the direction of the Board was. Mr. Harper stated he didnt have a problem with towers being located on County property; however, he didnt want the County to solicit them. Mr. Barnes said the County shouldnt solicit the towers, but if the County were approached, it would be a way to generate revenue. Mr. Havasy stated he trusted the Community Development Department and CityScape to locate the towers where they would best serve the purpose. Mr. Purcell suggested the Board email Mr. Lintecum with their comments and discuss the topic at the next Board meeting. The Board agreed.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the September 17, 2007 meeting at 8:31 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
JACKSON T. WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA