Contact Sitemap Search
|Board Members Present:||Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr. and Jack T. Wright|
|Others Present:||C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Dale Mullen, County Attorney; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Bar Delk, General Manager, Louisa County Water Authority; Robert Gibson, Director of Economic Development; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Alyson Simpson, Acting Deputy Clerk and Brittany Shupe, Records Clerk|
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Harper called the October 20, 2008 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Barnes led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Harper said there were no Constitutional Officers present, but the Board did receive a memo from Ms. Gloria Layne, Treasurer. Mr. Harper said Ms. Laynes memo was addressing the dual mailing of tax statements and the Board was welcome to respond to the memo via email to Ms. Layne.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Harper said he would like to add a discussion on Rural Estate (RE) on behalf of Mr. Havasy. Mr. Spencer said he would like to add a discussion on the Fluvanna/Louisa Water Project.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the October 20, 2008 agenda was adopted as amended.
Presentation - A resolution congratulating the Louisa County Rotary Club on the occasion of its 70th anniversary
Mr. Jack Manzari said he brought along several fellow Rotarians to address the Board. Mr. Manzari said the Rotary Club is an organization that participates in a lot of good activities, as can be learned from reading the resolution. Mr. Manzari thanked the Board for all the work they do for the good of the County.
Mr. Lintecum read the resolution and presented a framed copy to the Rotary Club members.
Discussion - Development Review Committee
Mr. Spencer said the DRC was founded approximately four years ago and he was appointed as Chairman to the Committee. Mr. Spencer said after each meeting, which has always been held on the last Wednesday of each month, he sent a report to the Board members about what took place at the meeting. Mr. Spencer said the DRC has routinely tabled cases when the applicant does not show up or when the applicant is totally unprepared. Mr. Spencer said at the September DRC meeting, a case was tabled for those exact reasons and several days later a special meeting of the DRC was called. Mr. Spencer said only two members showed up to the special meeting and it takes four members to have a quorum. Mr. Spencer said the case was sent on anyway and was supposedly fast-tracked.
Mr. Spencer said he sent Mr. Harper an email right after the meeting that stated he was resigning from the DRC. Mr. Spencer said if the DRC is not going to give equal justice to everyone in the County, he wants no part of it. Mr. Spencer said he has resigned and he does not care what the Board decides to do with the Committee.
Mr. Wright said after reading the information provided to the Board by Mr. Mullen, he feels that this DRC is not a Board function. Mr. Wright said the DRC does not report to the Board nor did the Board establish the DRC. Mr. Wright said the DRC was set up as an advisory committee to the Planning Commission and he feels this issue should be sent back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright said he feels there does not need to be a Board liaison to serve on this Committee anymore. Mr. Wright said the whole issue should be sent to the Planning Commission for them to deal with and decide if they want to keep the Committee in place, but there should not be any direct representation from the Board.
Mr. Gentry said he agreed with Mr. Wright. Mr. Gentry said the DRC is a Planning Commission committee and the Planning Commission needs to be the body to decide if the DRC is beneficial. Mr. Gentry said he feels the DRC used to run well and perform its intended purpose and by the time the cases got to the Board level, most of the difficult questions had been reviewed and discussed. Mr. Gentry said he would hate to see the DRC disbanded because then the Planning Commission would have to deal with all the issues up front at their meeting. Mr. Gentry said he did propose that the Board send the DRC issue to the Planning Commission to make a final decision.
Mr. Harper said the Chairman of the Planning Commission had sent an email expressing his desire to continue with the DRC. Mr. Harper asked staff to advise the Chairman of the Planning Commission that the DRC was their committee and the Board would no longer have a liaison on that Committee.
Mr. Barnes said the Board needs to make sure that all Committees know their responsibilities. Mr. Barnes said he supports sending the DRC issue back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Harper said it has been brought to his attention that there was a motion made by Mr. Spencer and seconded by Mr. Gentry at the last Board meeting to disband the DRC. Mr. Harper asked Mr. Spencer if he wanted that motion acted on.
Mr. Spencer said yes, he had made a motion at the last Board meeting to disband the DRC and he still makes the motion and the Board can vote however they like.
Mr. Harper said there is a motion on the floor to disband the DRC. Mr. Harper then said it had been brought to his attention that Mr. Spencer withdrew the motion to disband the DRC at the last Board meeting based on the minutes.
Mr. Byers said there is some validity in what Mr. Spencer has said. Mr. Byers said this Board pushes to have as much consistency in processes as they possibly can.
Decision - Amendments to sections of the Louisa County Code, (Chapter 74. Traffic and vehicles)
Mr. Mullen said the proposal before the Board is a resolution to enact changes that would make driving while intoxicated one of the included offenses under the Louisa County code with the idea being that fines formerly collected by the State Code would go to the County. Mr. Mullen said the idea did seem like a great idea, but there have been concerns raised by the Board. Mr. Mullen said the Board had questioned the unforeseen impact of taking these charges into the County system. Mr. Mullen said he would ask the Board for a motion to postpone the decision on this until the November 17, 2008 meeting when he expected to have more definite answers. Mr. Mullen stated he had met several times with members of the Central Virginia Regional Jail Board and also talked with County Attorneys of other localities who expressed they have had a negative experience with taking State charges into the County Code.
Mr. Mullen said some of the unforeseen costs include an additional $8 per day that the State does not pay to the Central Virginia Regional Jail. Mr. Mullen said many DUI and DWI charges carry mandatory jail time and the Court appoints Counsel, which could also be seen as a cost to County. Mr. Mullen said he is not sure that the overall benefit to the County is outweighed; however, he would like additional time to get more answers for the Board.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to postpone the decision on a resolution to adopt ordinances amending Chapter 74. Traffic and Vehicles, as they pertain to enforcement of driving while intoxicated violations by Louisa County in order to adopt state law by reference, as set forth in Attachment A until the November 17, 2008 meeting.
Discussion - Countys responsibility to fund CSA expenditures
Mr. Mullen said he was specifically asked by members of the Board about the increased expenses in Social Services, particularly in CSA, and what would happen if the Board refuses or votes not to pay for its proportional share. Mr. Mullen said that choice would probably result in legal proceedings against the Board to force the Board to do what they are required to do by law. Mr. Mullen said that State law requires local units of government to participate in certain Social Services programs in which the administrative cost is shared by federal, state, and local governments. Mr. Mullen said the Board has very little direct responsibility over the execution of those programs. Mr. Mullen stated the largest share of the County budget for Social Services goes towards programs mandated by State and Federal laws or regulations because the associated State and Federal funding is insufficient to administer the programs. Mr. Mullen said because of the insufficient State and Federal funds, the State put in place a provision that can force the Board to fund the programs. Mr. Mullen said because of these consequences, he does not think it is reasonable that the Board consider a failure to fund mandated programs.
Mr. Wright said this is one of the reasons that the County approved the Cost Containment Study Committee for CSA funding. Mr. Wright said when he asked Mr. McLeod what the County share was for Social Services, he was told it would be an approximate full $2 million. Mr. Wright said he was not going to ask for a response from Mr. McLeod as Mr. McLeod may have misunderstood the question, but Mr. Wright wanted to clarify that the County share is always 44%.
Discussion - Renovations to General District Courthouse
Mr. Lintecum said there is a letter from Judge Whitlock laying out her request as well as a drawing and cost estimate prepared by Mr. Linhares in reference to the proposed renovations in the General District Courthouse. Mr. Lintecum said the total cost is estimated at $18,384.
Mr. Gentry said he would like to have recommendation from Mr. Lintecum since the only information provided was the letter from the judge.
Mr. Lintecum stated he recommends the Board move forward.
Mr. Wright motioned for approval of the request for renovations to the General District Courthouse.
Mr. Harper said there was a motion on the floor and asked if the $18,384 would come out of the Facilities Management budget.
Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.
Mr. Harper said he would not support the request because he is not going to support any structural changes to any building at this point.
Mr. Spencer said the Courthouse was just done a few years ago and it was done the way everyone wanted it. Mr. Spencer said he had a problem with nine (9) receptacles and a phone data outlet costing $1,131 as shown in the cost estimate.
Mr. Harper said the bigger issue is with the space because everyone tends to think if its built, they can fill it and the next request will be for personnel.
Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Wrights motion.
|Fitzgerald A. Barnes||Yes|
|Dan W. Byers||No|
|Willie L. Gentry, Jr.||Yes|
|Willie L. Harper||No|
|Richad A. Havasy||No|
|P.T. Spencer, Jr.||No|
|Jack T. Wright||Yes|
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 3-4, the motion failed to approve the request to proceed with the proposed renovations at the General District Courthouse.
Consideration - Governors Development Opportunity Fund Performance Agreement for C3RS, Inc.
Mr. Lintecum said C3RS, Inc. is a new industry located in what is known as the “Library Tract” of the Industrial Air Park. Mr. Lintecum said this is money the County applied for and the match will come from the proceeds of the sale of the land by the Industrial Development Authority.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the proposed agreement between the County of Louisa, the Industrial Development Authority, and C3RS, Inc.
Resolution - Awarding the contract to connect the “Library Tract” sewer lines to the Regional Sewer Treatment Plant
Mr. Bar Delk said the sewer line on the “Library Tract” was put in a couple years ago but it was not completely connected and he was instructed by Mr. Gibson to go ahead and have that done. Mr. Delk said an advertisement for bid went out and the Water Authority received nine bids with the lowest bid being $54,220.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved a resolution authorizing a contract with J & L Excavating, L.L.C. for IDA Utility Improvements.
Recommendation - Planning Commissions review of a potential Fire Protection Ordinance
Mr. Will Cockrell said Dave Stone with the Forestry Department came before the Board in April to discuss a potential Wildfire Protection Ordinance. Mr. Cockrell said Mr. Stone had concerns about houses and residential subdivisions being built in pine plantations. Mr. Cockrell said the Board sent the item to the Planning Commission and it was discussed at several work sessions. Mr. Cockrell said the Planning Commission recognized the importance of educating citizens on the danger of wildfires in pine plantations, but the Planning Commission had concerns with how the County would implement the standards that were put forward. Mr. Cockrell said the Planning Commission recommended that this act as an educational piece and the County put forward efforts to educating citizens about wildfires.
Mr. Harper said the recommendation from the Planning Commission is for the County to take an educational approach rather than regulatory processes.
On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved for the County to take an educational approach rather than a regulatory approach on wildfire protection.
Mr. Harper asked what is going to happen next with this educational idea.
Mr. Cockrell said if the County would like to take the initiative to start the educational process on wildfires, he would suggest getting with Mr. Dubé, Fire Chief, to talk about how that can be done. Mr. Harper said that was a good plan.
Mr. Byers suggested that staff develop some type of brochure on pine plantations and wildfire protection to provide when people apply for building permits.
Discussion - Code Enforcement Procedures in the Department of Community Development
Mr. Jeremy Camp said he was presenting a Violation Notice and Correction Order form to the Board which he would direct staff to use for code compliance issues. Mr. Camp said the purpose of this form is an effort to implement fair and consistent procedures for dealing with non-compliance issues, particularly zoning issues.
Mr. Harper said he agrees that having a form helps Code Enforcement make sure that cases are handled in a uniform manner. Mr. Harper said it also helps to make sure that the same information is provided each time.
Mr. Byers asked if a phone number could be incorporated on the form that would allow the caller to directly contact the Code Enforcement Officer handling the case rather than just the general office number.
Mr. Camp said he would do that and the intent was to have an introduction letter sent with these notices that would include that information.
Discussion - Rural Estate (RE)
Mr. Havasy stated that when the Board enacted the Rural Estate (RE) zoning, he believes they were not completely aware of the repercussions. Mr. Havasy said the Board has worked with citizens and the planning department to do a lot of things in the County and one of those things was designating growth areas and non-growth areas. Mr. Havasy said at the time of decision, the RE district appeared to have a lot of potential, but what has happened is this zoning can go into areas where growth is not wanted causing havoc among citizens and placing subdivisions where they are not wanted.
Mr. Havasy made a motion to send the RE zoning district back to the Planning Commission to review and have public hearings to do away with the RE district. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.
Mr. Barnes stated he was going to abstain from this vote.
Mr. Harper said he was not going to support the motion because he feels there are good elements to the RE zoning district. Mr. Harper said he particularly likes the 50% open area requirement and he doesnt want to do away with the RE zoning district all together just because its not working in one area right now.
Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Havasys motion.
|Dan W. Byers||Yes|
|Willie L. Gentry, Jr.||Yes|
|Willie L. Harper||No|
|Richad A. Havasy||Yes|
|P.T. Spencer, Jr.||Yes|
|Jack T. Wright||Yes|
|Fitzgerald A. Barnes||Abstain|
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 5-1-1, the Board voted to send the Rural Estate (RE) zoning district back to the Planning Commission to review and have public hearings to do away with the RE zoning district.
Discussion Fluvanna/Louisa Water Project
Mr. Spencer said a couple months ago the Board voted to spend $13 million on the James River water supply project at Zion Crossroads. Mr. Spencer said at the last budget meeting a $22.5 million price was given to the Board. Mr. Spencer asked the Board if they are committed to $22.5 million. Mr. Spencer said if the Board spends $22.5 million on the water project and $8 million on the sewage, the total is more than $30 million and he is not going to support that. Mr. Spencer said the Lake Anna area, the Blue Ridge Shores area, and the Towns of Louisa and Mineral all need help and he is not going to support $22.5 million at Zion Crossroads.
Mr. Wright said this project is not only going to benefit the Zion Crossroads area, but it will be transportable to other developmental areas. Mr. Wright said it may cost more in the future, but hes not sure the County can go any other way than to keep Zion Crossroads moving because whats up there now is not a permanent water supply.
Mr. Barnes stated he feels that the conversation is not about whether or not to do the job. Mr. Barnes said the question is whats the best route from a financial standpoint to make this project happen. Mr. Barnes said the decision to do the project has been made, but what the Board needs to look at now is how to fund the project and how to look at different funding methods.
Mr. Havasy said he agrees with Mr. Barnes and Mr. Wright. Mr. Havasy said the County has already invested a lot in Zion Crossroads and he feels all would be lost if the Board backs down now.
Mr. Harper asked about the amount of money spent in Zion Crossroads versus the amount of revenue generated from Zion Crossroads. Mr. Lintecum said the County has spent $8,882,253.23 in Zion Crossroads and the County has realized revenue of $11,341,984.32. Mr. Harper asked if these numbers reflected all nine years of effort the County has put into the Zion Crossroads area.
Mr. Byers asked if these numbers were everything to date. Mr. McLeod said those numbers were through June 2008. Mr. Spencer asked what the County had spent there since June 2008. Mr. McLeod said he did not have the report with him, but he said the engineering was definitely under $100,000.
Mr. Gentry said the reason he questioned the amount of money for this water project is because he was given a number of $58 million and therefore he questioned the $45 million price that was originally given to the Board. Mr. Lintecum said the $58 million was the price for going a different route all the way to Fork Union, which the Board is not planning on doing.
Mr. Spencer said its great that the revenue is $11 million and the County only spent $8 million, but that does not include the over $30 million the Board is getting ready to spend. Mr. Harper said there is an investment up front, but then the County will recover from that investment.
Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum and Mr. McLeod to provide a quarterly update to the Board on the expenditures versus the revenues at Zion Crossroads.
Mr. Barnes said he attended the Charlottesville Area Realtors luncheon and from what he understands Louisa County and Nelson County may be the only two Counties whose budgets will come out in the positive this fiscal year. Mr. Barnes said the realtors are well aware of the activities at Zion Crossroads and more and more people are becoming interested in that area. Mr. Barnes stated he feels that says a lot about the Board and their commitment to commercial growth.
Mr. Wright said he is on the Thomas Jefferson Planning Commission and they are in search of an Executive Director. Mr. Wright said they have narrowed the applicants down to one top choice, however, that information is still confidential because the applicant has not accepted the position yet.
Mr. Wright said he also wanted to report on the CSA Cost Containment Study. Mr. Wright said he could not go into a lot of detail because most of the information is confidential, however, he could say that he was impressed with Jack Gallagher who was hired to help with the study.
Mr. Byers said the Board doesnt have much choice when it comes to funding mandated programs. Mr. Byers said the study has enlightened him because he never knew much about CSA. Mr. Byers said the focus of this study is to critically evaluate all aspects of CSA and then collectively come up with ways to reduce the number of people who are involved in the program as well as related costs.
Mr. Gentry said he provided a summary of a meeting for a joint Board of Supervisors and School Board committee. Mr. Gentry said the committee was covering five issues and he would like the Board to read over the summary and contact him or Mr. Byers with questions. Mr. Gentry said there are still about six issues that have received no response and that he hopes to have answers for soon. Mr. Gentry said there was clarification on the 82% graduation rate. Mr. Barnes pointed out that if a student gets a GED, it still counts against the graduation rate.
Mr. Spencer said he went to the Jaunt meeting and questions were raised about providing late evening Jaunt services. Mr. Spencer said people are calling the rescue squads just to get a ride to Charlottesville to get medicines and prescriptions filled. Mr. Spencer said Jaunt also announced that they had new large capacity buses that will be running through the County to hopefully help cut back on some of the trips.
Mr. Harper said at the Central Virginia Regional Jail Board meeting there was discussion about going from a jail board to a jail authority. Mr. Harper said if the Board is going to do anything, it needs to be done before the end of November. Mr. Harper said for that reason, Mr. Lintecum is going to go ahead and set up the public hearing so the Board can consider a decision.
REZ05-08; Route 15 Commercial Industrial Center, L.C. and Zion Crossroads 8, L.L.C., Applicants/Owners; c/o Richard G. Purcell and Robert F. Stockhausen, Jr. request an amendment to proffer numbers 1, 2 and 4 approved under REZ08-90 on December 3, 1990.
Mr. Camp said this is a request for proffer amendments for Route 15 Commercial Industrial Center, L.C. and Zion Crossroads 8, L.L.C. Mr. Camp said the subject site consists of approximately 32.5 acres with a total of 8 lots which are currently zoned IND.
Mr. Camp said the request is to amend the proffers adopted by the Board in the initial rezoning that took place in 1990. Mr. Camp said the stated intent of the application for making these changes was to make the site more suitable for commercial land uses rather than industrial uses as was first intended.
Mr. Camp said the original proffers in 1990 included a 100 buffer along Route 15 with evergreen screening and tree preservation, a 25 buffer along rear and side property lines with tree preservation, an agreement to connect to public water and sewer, and a list of restricted uses. Mr. Camp said the proposed amended proffers include a 60 buffer along Route 15 with commercial landscaping replacement, a 25 buffer along side and rear property lines with the ability to have that waived by the adjacent property owner, an agreement to connect with public water and sewer, a list of restricted uses, a list of additional restricted uses, a restriction of industrial uses to the three rear lots only, and a provision to protect against clear cutting the site without immediate replanting.
Mr. Camp said on October 9, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request for three primary reasons and the applicants have since then addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Camp said the first reason for denial dealt with concerns about some industrial uses not being restricted and particularly that industrial uses could be located along Route 15 in the front of the subject site. Mr. Camp said the uses identified with high concern included construction yard, heavy industrial, medium industrial, resource extraction, and salvage and scrap extraction. Mr. Camp said the applicants have addressed this concern by stating that the frontage lots would only be allowed for general commercial uses, which are allowed in the IND district. Mr. Camp said the current proposed proffers called for the commercial uses to be in the front of the subject site along Route 15 and if there were any industrial uses, they would have to locate on the rear three lots.
Mr. Camp said the second reason for denial dealt with concerns that no steps were taken to protect the existing trees and clear-cutting was possible. Mr. Camp said the applicants have addressed that concern by proffering that, excluding work necessary for utilities, the trees must remain on each individual lot until site development occurs. Mr. Camp said, however, all the existing trees could be cut and removed, but it would require immediate replanting to follow.
Mr. Camp said the third and last reason for denial by the Planning Commission dealt with concerns about the actual width of the buffer. Mr. Camp said in the original proposal to the Planning Commission, the buffer was proposed to be 40 and the Planning Commission felt that was insufficient. Mr. Camp said the applicants have addressed that concern by increasing the width of the buffer to 60, which is consistent with the width of the commercial buffer for the Shoppes at Spring Creek along the same Route 15 Corridor.
Mr. Camp stated there was no provision for a future bike trail granted to the County and the applicant also denied the 40 right-of-way request from VDOT.
Mr. Camp presented to the Board an illustration of what the 60 buffer area and 25 buffer area would look like along the front, rear, and side property lines. Mr. Camp also presented to the Board an exhibit of the landscape detail proposed by the applicants that he stated is consistent with the landscape design of the Shoppes at Spring Creek. Mr. Camp said the landscape plan includes a provision for a “cluster-type” planting that would include a hedgerow, small trees, shrubs, and large trees. Mr. Camp said the proposed landscape plan would accommodate visibility because there would be some areas in between “cluster” plantings that would allow people to see some of the commercial development while driving down Route 15, but still allows for a nice landscape.
Mr. Byers asked Mr. Camp about the significance of the additional VDOT right-of-way request and the bike trail. Mr. Camp said those were two ideas for proffers, but were not identified as major concerns. Mr. Camp said there had been discussion about those two items, but they were not included in the proposal before the Board at the time. Mr. Byers asked if those would be included inside the 60 buffer area. Mr. Camp answered yes.
Mr. Byers asked what the additional VDOT right-of-way was for. Mr. Camp said VDOT had initially asked for 40 of additional right-of-way for future improvements along that section of Route 15, even though there were no plans to improve that portion of Route 15. Mr. Byers asked if that would be 20 on each side of Route 15. Mr. Camp said VDOT was requesting all 40 of right-of-way from this property.
Mr. Spencer said if the County grants the 60 buffer and VDOT comes in and takes 40 right-of-way, it only leaves a 20 buffer area. Mr. Camp said that was correct. Mr. Spencer said there has been a lot of discussion about the construction of the UVA Credit Union on this subject site and they have already turned in their site plan, which shows a 100 buffer. Mr. Camp said that was correct and that was one of the points of confusion early on. Mr. Spencer asked if this case had anything to do with the UVA Credit Union or fast-tracking their way through the system. Mr. Camp said the only way it would impact the UVA Credit Union is that they would be responsible for the landscaping. Mr. Spencer asked if there was a problem with the buffer width. Mr. Camp answered no.
Mr. Wright asked where most of the parking would be in relation to Route 15. Mr. Camp said the only site plan submitted so far has been for the UVA Credit Union.
Mr. Barnes asked what the current buffer width is along that portion of Route 15. Mr. Camp said it was 60 in other areas, but this property was proffered as 100 in 1990. Mr. Barnes said the 60 proposal before the Board is not anything unusual. Mr. Camp said no and it is what he would recommend. Mr. Barnes said the 60 is consistent with other buffers along Route 15.
Mr. Spencer asked if Route 15 is already four lanes wide at the Shoppes at Spring Creek. Mr. Camp said yes.
Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.
Ms. Mary Johnson, Bell Surveys, said the Route 15 Commercial Industrial Park is owned by two entities and the entities are made up of several family members. Ms. Johnson said the subject site was zoned IND in the 1990s and included four original proffers.
Ms. Johnson said there has been discussion about why a 60 buffer as opposed to a 100 buffer. Ms. Johnson said most commercial uses will require more parking than the industrial uses. Ms. Johnson said the UVA Credit Union is part of the banking industry and is an exception to that rule because most people will park, go into the bank, and be back out within 10 minutes or they will utilize the drive-thru. Ms. Johnson said the request for a reduced buffer is beneficial. Ms. Johnson said the UVA Credit Union would like to occupy Lot 8 of the development; however, they would not like to have a screening buffer. Ms. Johnson said the UVA Credit Union would like to have a landscaped buffer in order for the community to see their building, and also for safety reasons.
Ms. Johnson presented a layout to the Board showing the development and the location of the buffers. Ms. Johnson said the proposed 60 buffer will run along the entire frontage of the development along Route 15. Ms. Johnson said the 25 screening buffers would remain in place along the rear and side property lines. Ms. Johnson said the only difference in the side and rear property line buffer is if the adjacent property owner wishes to reduce, remove, or change the buffer, they have to make application through the Community Development department. Ms. Johnson said Lots 4 through 8 are along Route 15.
Ms. Johnson said this case has been through the DRC and there were questions posed that the agent from Bell Surveys, Milton Maxton, could not answer. Ms. Johnson said answers to those questions were, however, provided at the Planning Commission level. Ms. Johnson said the applicants did receive the denial recommendation from the Planning Commission and have adhered to all their suggestions. Ms. Johnson said industrial uses on Lots 4 through 8 have been proffered out. Ms. Johnson also stated that each lot will have to submit a site plan to the Community Development department for review and the proposed landscape buffer is consistent with the Shoppes at Spring Creek to give a uniform look to the Route 15 Corridor.
Ms. Johnson presented a diagram to the Board showing the location of the development and the location of the Historic Green Springs District. Ms. Johnson said there is approximately 1,700 feet lying between the northern most point of this development and the beginning of the Historic Green Springs District. Ms. Johnson pointed out that the northern property line of this development is almost directly across from the Spring Creek development.
Mr. Spencer asked Ms. Johnson how large the buffer is on the Spring Creek development across the road from this development. Mr. Camp said in the residential area across Route 15, the buffer is 100.
Mr. Byers asked if he understood Ms. Johnson to say that VDOT said there is no need for additional right-of-way. Ms. Johnson said VDOT did not say that. Ms. Johnson said VDOT said they can discuss the right-of-way issue at the time of site plan review.
Mr. Spencer said he was at the DRC meeting and Mr. Wood with VDOT asked for 40 additional right-of-way so when they went to widen Route 15 they would not have to fight with a condemnation. Ms. Johnson said she contacted Mr. Wood after that meeting since she was not able to attend and she and Mr. Wood talked in public at the second DRC meeting about the additional right-of-way. Ms. Johnson said VDOT is trying to acquire all of the 40 right-of-way on one side of the road since they cannot get any on the other side.
Mr. Barnes asked if it was common for banks and other commercial places to not want to be shielded by a lot of vegetation. Ms. Johnson said that was correct, they do not want to be shielded.
With no other questions from the Board, Mr. Harper opened up the public comment.
Mr. Robert Johnson, Jr., Hanover County, said he owns Parcel 4, which is directly in the back. Mr. Johnson said he is not part of the Green Springs Historic District, but he is zoned A2. Mr. Johnson said his issue was the right-of-way through this site to his property. Mr. Johnson said that is one of the issues the Board brought up to the applicants. Mr. Johnson said the right-of-way that did exist ran across four out of the eight parcels going to the back of the site. Mr. Johnson said the 60 buffer did seem right with what the buffers were at Lowes. Mr. Johnson said he also realized that Route 15 is already four lanes in front of Lowes whereas it is only two lanes in front of this development. Mr. Johnson said with that thought in mind, the 100 buffer makes sense, especially is VDOT is looking to take 40. Mr. Johnson said he was at the DRC meeting and the VDOT representative did ask for the 40 right-of-way. Mr. Johnson said there were other issues brought up at the DRC meeting about industrial uses. Mr. Johnson said some of those industrial uses came back at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Johnson said he was against those uses at the back of the development because he owns land to the rear of the development.
Mr. Rex Murphy, Green Springs District, said he owns Aspen Hill farm and he had owned it since June 1974 and his parcel adjoins the subject development. Mr. Murphy said, as a Historic Green Springs landowner with a conservation easement, he remains concerned about the development for several reasons. Mr. Murphy said the first reason is the insufficient buffer. Mr. Murphy said a full screening buffer around the development is important for the beauty, security, and environment. Mr. Murphy said the second reason is for the recent clearing and cutting of about a dozen or more trees, which is unacceptable. Mr. Murphy said the reason provided was for the installation of either water or sewer, but it seems the amount of trees cut down was excessive. Mr. Murphy said the full screening of 100 along Route 15 would keep with the rural and scenic feel of the Historic Green Springs District. Mr. Murphy said another reason is a concern for security of the adjoining landowners. Mr. Murphy asked what security, such as fences, is going to be provided to protect the adjoining landowners from trespassers employed by the businesses. Mr. Murphy said he already had enough problems with illegal hunting on his property. Mr. Murphy said another concern of his was the access to Route 15. Mr. Murphy said it was his understanding that the access through the subject development would remain open. Mr. Murphy said this would still cause landowners to have limited access to Route 15. Mr. Murphy said the road has been used for 50 or 60 years to access the one-room schoolhouse on his property. Mr. Murphy said adjoining landowners want to be sure they will still have this access to Route 15. Mr. Murphy said his last concern is with the list of uses on the property. Mr. Murphy said he has learned what will not be on the property, but he would like to learn what the uses on the property are going to be.
Mr. Charles Kincannon, Keswick, Virginia, said he owns adjoining land in the Green Springs voting district that is part of Spring Creek residential and Spring Creek Business Park. Mr. Kincannon said he agrees that the buffer should be protected, but he feels that 60 is sufficient. Mr. Kincannon said people in Spring Creek would very much love to have the commercial development on this subject property. Mr. Kincannon said he would strongly urge the Board to consider the reduced buffer.
Mr. Barry Lawrence, Glen Allen, Virginia, said he doesnt necessarily object to how the applicants plan on developing the property. Mr. Lawrence said he is concerned with the right-of-way issue. Mr. Lawrence said there has been a prescriptive easement and as the property has begun to clear and develop, a lane that was used to access his property has disappeared. Mr. Lawrence said he did talk to Eric Purcell who assured him that access to his property would be guaranteed and maybe even enhanced. Mr. Lawrence said he was not able to attend the first DRC meeting, but at the second DRC meeting he felt the proffers had successfully proffered out the industrial uses. Mr. Lawrence said when the case got to the Planning Commission, he learned that the proffered uses had been revised and there have been further changes to the industrial uses. Mr. Lawrence stated he feels like a 25 buffer is not enough along the rear property line where the industrial uses will take place.
Mr. Butch Duke, Patrick Henry District, said he was speaking in favor of the project. Mr. Duke said it seems like this development is consistent with what is desired to be in this area. Mr. Duke said he would encourage the Board to do everything they can to welcome developments like this.
Ms. Rae Ely, Green Springs District, said she is speaking on behalf of herself and of the Historic Green Springs District. Ms. Ely had Mr. Camp show the Board a picture of the aerial photographs of the subject development showing what she called the destruction of the buffer through the years. Ms. Ely said the parcel in question does adjoin the Historic Green Springs District, which is quite a long way from the Zion Crossroads intersection. Ms. Ely said none of the Board members would recall when the original rezoning took place in 1989. Ms. Ely said it was a highly pretentious event and the belief at the time and the belief today is that the land never should have been rezoned industrial. Ms. Ely said that the rezoning was improvident and that reflects today in the continuing trouble.
Ms. Ely said her suggestion is that this case is not a true rezoning application. Ms. Ely said this is an effort by the original and successive owners to take a legal maneuver and attempt to get out from under many, many years of blatant violation of a County ordinance. Ms. Ely said this property has been in clear violation of the proffers which were part of a legal contract between Louisa County and the citizens of Louisa County who expect to be able to rely on the contracts entered into by way of proffers.
Ms. Ely said because the Board was not here for the original rezoning, they do not realize how pretentious it was to rezone this land to industrial. Ms. Ely said this property was a bargain purchase by the Purcells for $2,500 an acre. Ms. Ely said the Board may wonder what difference that makes and it may not make any difference. Ms. Ely said the fact is that the purchase was a great deal and the Purcells wanted to maximize the value and no one can blame them for wanting to do that. Ms. Ely said the issue is that the one thing that needed to be protected and preserved was the small stretch of land between the mess at Zion Crossroads and the beginning of the Historic Green Springs District. Ms. Ely said there is only a small stretch of natural woodland that allows the soul to relax and to have a beautiful drive. Ms. Ely said that is Charles Purcells price for his rezoning the 100 buffer to be maintained in its natural condition. Ms. Ely said ever since the rezoning, that buffer has been a thorn under the Purcell family saddle and every effort has been made to get rid of the buffer. Ms. Ely said the first thing that happened is they did get rid of the buffer. Ms. Ely said they went in with bulldozers and tore it down. Ms. Ely said the aerial photographs of the property confirm what happened. Ms. Ely said the land was a healthy, vibrant stand of timber more than 90 high with a healthy stand of undergrowth. Ms. Ely said there are letters from Charles Purcell saying that the timber was not healthy to try and excuse the destruction of the property. Ms. Ely said the timber was healthy because you can look at the timber all around the subject property and its still standing.
Ms. Ely said the hearing tonight is not about a rezoning. Ms. Ely said the hearing is to ask to be excused for being in violation of County ordinances for many years. Ms. Ely said if thats what the County is in business to do, then fine, its their business. Ms. Ely said that is the signal that will be sent to everyone else. Ms. Ely said if the Board does not enforce the proffers on this property, whose proffers are going to be enforced. Ms. Ely said this type of action is known in court as coming before the court with unclean hands and she wanted to tell the Board that the applicant on this case is coming before the Board with unclean hands.
Ms. Ely said to reduce this buffer to 60 and then let VDOT condemn 40 of those feet at a big, fat price is an insult to intelligence. Ms. Ely asked the Board to give the applicant a chance to go back and replant the buffer. Ms. Ely said to say that they will plant flowers and all is ridiculous. Ms. Ely said the applicant and the successor made a deal and it was not a good deal and they should be stuck with it.
Mr. Earl Poore, Green Springs District, stated he owns property about a mile east of the subject property and he is a member of Servants of Christ Baptist Church. Mr. Poore said he was in favor of the request and encouraged the Board to take a good look at what was before them. Mr. Poore said this project was intended for the beautification of the County.
With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.
Mr. Byers asked if a piece of property is rezoned, is there any prohibition about the applicant re-petitioning for another rezoning. Mr. Mullen said no.
Mr. Spencer asked if proffers are a contract. Mr. Mullen said it is an agreement and can be enforced as an ordinance. Mr. Spencer asked what the County is going to do about this. Mr. Spencer said there were letters sent to Mr. Purcell in 2004 and 2005 about the cutting of the trees and the violation. Mr. Spencer asked if the County was going to pursue the violation or is it a dead deal. Mr. Mullen said it is his understanding that the buffer has been replanted. Mr. Mullen said he visited the site with Mr. Camp. Mr. Mullen said it is his understanding that it has been the policy of Community Development to withhold enforcement action while compliance is sought in some appropriate cases. Mr. Mullen said he does not know, short of demanding immediate reforestation, what could be done to get that particular strip of property back into compliance. Mr. Spencer asked if the applicants could still be charged. Mr. Mullen said he believes they could.
Ms. Johnson said several people spoke of the right-of-way. Ms. Johnson said the right-of-way issue to the other properties has been resolved. Ms. Johnson said there was some confusion back in 1994 where an adjacent property owner had contacted the Route 15 Commercial Industrial owners and asked them about maintaining their access. Ms. Johnson said off the end of the cul-de-sac, there is a gravel road that has been built for the benefit of the neighbors to allow them to continue to use the property to access their property.
Ms. Johnson said she believes the industrial uses are also a point of confusion. Ms. Johnson stated the original 1990 proffers had specific uses that were proffered out on the property and those have not changed. Ms. Johnson said there were about 30 industrial uses proffered out the first time and this proffer amendment has added an additional 34 industrial uses to the list to be proffered out. Ms. Johnson said she wanted to clarify that there have been no additional industrial uses proffered back in and there have been 34 additional industrial uses proffered out.
Ms. Johnson said she agrees with Ms. Ely that this application is not a rezoning request. Ms. Johnson stated this is an application for proffer amendments, which has happened before in this County and is common. Ms. Johnson said time changes things and there is a need to change the original proffers that were made.
Ms. Johnson addressed the VDOT right-of-way issue. Ms. Johnson said if there were a concession to allow for the additional 40 right-of-way, there would be a horrible disconnect with the properties. Ms. Johnson said she does not think its fair to hold this application responsible for that and its not the issue at hand.
Mr. Havasy asked Ms. Johnson what happens to Route 15 when it comes down where the extra lanes are and what is the landscape there. Ms. Johnson said where the landscape comes down is well before this property where Route 15 is down to two lanes. Mr. Havasy said it then drops into a hill. Mr. Havasy asked Ms. Johnson if the applicant did give VDOT 40 right-of-way to make Route 15 four lanes, does she think the property owners before this property would be willing to give up their land in order to four lane Route 15. Ms. Johnson said in her experience, it is highly unlikely that property owners are going to line up to give their property away for right-of-way. Mr. Havasy said VDOT has talked about making Route 15 four lanes for a long time and the big block that everyone agrees on is the Historic Green Springs District. Mr. Havasy said he does not even thinks its reasonable to believe that VDOT would increase Route 15 to four lanes and then have to quickly go back to two lanes in a bottom at a bad curve with no guardrails. Ms. Johnson said it would not make a lot of engineering sense to her. Mr. Havasy said VDOT would have to go back to two lanes there because the agreement is that Camp Creek is the line of demarcation and the commercial growth cannot go past that.
Mr. Spencer said he had the minutes from the October 2, 2008 DRC meeting with him and Mark Wood was the VDOT representative present. Mr. Spencer stated Mr. Wood said at that meeting that VDOT was still interested in acquiring the 40 additional right-of-way to accommodate a four lane widening because it is still outside of the Historic Green Springs District. Ms. Johnson said Mr. Wood did say he would like to have the 40 right-of-way. Mr. Harper said that was not the issue before the Board.
Mr. Havasy said he is a firm believer in the Comprehensive Plan because it designates certain areas for growth. Mr. Havasy said he believes that County wants commercial growth, industrial growth, and tax revenue. Mr. Havasy said the County has expended money putting water and sewer at Zion Crossroads to make it an ideal place for commercial business. Mr. Havasy said Spring Creek has come into the County with their outstanding project which is something everyone can be proud of. Mr. Havasy said if a small piece of the County is sacrificed for growth, the rest can be protected and that commitment has been made at Zion Crossroads. Mr. Havasy said if commercial growth is discouraged, the County is losing potential tax revenue and is forcing the County citizens to drive to Charlottesville or Richmond to spend their money. Mr. Havasy said the VDOT right-of-way issue is absurd because of the layout of the land and VDOT is not going to spend millions for a quarter of a mile of road.
Mr. Havasy motioned to approve the request for proffer amendments. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.
Mr. Gentry said the likelihood of VDOT ever requiring additional right-of-way in that area is slim and he feels the VDOT issue should be taken off the table. Mr. Gentry said he is a very strong believer that the 60 buffer is plenty.
Mr. Wright said he feels the proposed commercial development is a much more beneficial use to the County and for that he supports this application.
Mr. Barnes said nine or ten years ago, the Board got together to decide on what they wanted the County to look like from a commercial standpoint. Mr. Barnes said they determined they did not want a “Route 29” with everything right on top of each other. Mr. Barnes said looking at Zion Crossroads is the way to do it with the buffers in place and the beautification. Mr. Barnes said for that reason the County should be proud that there is commercial growth and he has to support more.
Mr. Spencer said the Shoppes at Spring Creek is a beautiful project, but there is also a four-lane highway in front of that project. Mr. Spencer said he sees the violation on this property as well as the buffer situation. Mr. Spencer said if the Board grants the 60 buffer and VDOT comes along and takes 40, it only leaves a 20 buffer. Mr. Spencer said he could support the 60 if there was already a four-lane highway. Mr. Spencer stated that he does not see how the Board will ever be able to enforce a proffer violation again.
Mr. Byers said it is unfortunate that whoever cut the trees from the buffer in the first place has brought a lot of confusion and emotion to the property that could have been handled a lot easier.
Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Havasys motion.
|Willie L. Gentry, Jr.||Yes|
|Willie L. Harper||Yes|
|Richad A. Havasy||Yes|
|P.T. Spencer, Jr.||No|
|Jack T. Wright||Yes|
|Fitzgerald A. Barnes||Yes|
|Dan W. Byers||Yes|
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board voted to approve REZ05-08; Route 15 Commercial Industrial Center, L.C. and Zion Crossroads 8, L.L.C., Applicants/Owners; c/o Richard G. Purcell and Robert F. Stockhausen, Jr. request for an amendment to proffer numbers 1, 2 and 4 approved under REZ08-90 on December 3, 1990.
Mr. Havasy said he would like to re-appoint Rachel Jones to the Transportation Safety Commission. Mr. Spencer said he would like to appoint Mr. Gentry as the second representative for Louisa County to the Jaunt Board of Directors.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0 with Mr. Gentry being absent at the time of vote, the Board re-appointed Rachel Jones to the Transportation Safety Commission and appointed Mr. Gentry to the Jaunt Board of Directors.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
Mr. Lintecum said he needs a resolution as a DEQ requirement in order for the Board to direct him to move forward with the water supply plan.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to instruct the County Administrator to send the Countys letter and supporting documentation to the Department of Environmental Quality in reference to the long range water supply plan.
Mr. Byers asked about the number of inspections going from 80 to 142 and questioned if the County was counting the number of inspections differently than in the past. Mr. Lintecum said with each commercial project, there are multiple building permits. Mr. Byers asked if the County was using this to say they are doing more work. Mr. Lintecum said this report is showing the increase in commercial projects, which causes an increase in inspections.
Mr. Gentry said the County Administrators report was very well put together and he enjoyed the update from the departments.
Mr. Byers said when looking at Revenue Recovery the Board needs to be able to see a report at the end of the year showing how much it cost to administer the program and how much revenue was generated. Mr. Byers said he would like to be able to make a comparison to see how beneficial the program is.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Resolution - For a supplemental appropriation for telecommunication tower review fees
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation for telecommunication tower review fees.
Resolution - For a supplement to the County Administrators department for employee recognition
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplement to the County Administrators department for employee recognition.
Resolution For smoke free indoor air
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for smoke free indoor air.
Mr. Byers asked if this resolution meant that restaurants could not have smoking inside. Mr. Lintecum said this was only a resolution, not an ordinance. Mr. Byers asked if this resolution was paving the way for the County to look into what people do. Mr. Lintecum said this resolution is meant to give the community a sense about how the Board feels. Mr. Harper said Mr. Byers could request pulling this resolution if the Board agrees. Mr. Havasy asked if the information listed in the resolution about second hand smoke was a fact or someones opinion. Mr. Havasy said there are two pools of thought on second hand smoke.
Mr. Havasy made a motion to remove this resolution. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.
Mr. Barnes said this is a resolution in theory and thought, not legislation. Mr. Barnes said this is a theory of support and has nothing to do with legal action.
Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Havasys motion.
|Willie L. Harper||No|
|Richad A. Havasy||Yes|
|P.T. Spencer, Jr.||No|
|Jack T. Wright||No|
|Fitzgerald A. Barnes||No|
|Dan W. Byers||Yes|
|Willie L. Gentry, Jr.||No|
Mr. Lintecum said the significant item under correspondence is the public hearing for the Bunting House, hopefully for foster care children.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Mr. Gentry and Mr. Wright abstaining from their mileage payment only, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of October 2008 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $771,736.53.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the September 29, 2008 meeting.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the October 6, 2008 meeting.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the October 20, 2008 meeting at 8:24 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
WILLIE L. HARPER, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA