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

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



Board Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell and Jack T. Wright
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Michael Schlemmer, Director of Emergency Services; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager; April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk and Zuwana Morgan, Records Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

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

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Dr. Deborah Pettit, Superintendent, provided the Board with a brochure and bookmarks about the Learners Community.  Dr. Pettit indicated that the Schools were promoting life-long learning for all ages through the handouts.

Dr. Pettit stated the Schools received the official count of 4,570 students, which was 135 more students than last year.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Wright stated he would like to add a resolution requesting a traffic speed/safety study on Cross County Road (Route 522) from State Route 250 for 1.51 miles south to presentations.  Mr. Jennings stated he would like to add a resolution requesting a traffic speed/safety study on Bethany Church Road (Route 655) to presentations.  Mr. Barnes stated he would like to add discussion of water and sewer rates to old business.  Mr. Barnes stated he would like to add discussion of Moss-Nuckols Elementary School to old business.  Mr. Gentry stated he would like to add a resolution to award change order contracts for parking at the Louisa County Aquatic Facility to old business.  Mr. Morgan requested that the Board add parcel 42-19 to delinquent tax sales under consent agenda. Mr. Morgan stated he would like to add discussion for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel to closed session.

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the November 5, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

VDOT Monthly Update - Mark Wood, PE, LS, Louisa Residency Staff Engineer, provided an update of VDOT activities, which included the following:

Maintenance:

Construction: Land Use: Traffic Engineering:

Mr. Barnes questioned what the status was for Byrd Mill Road (Route 649).  Mr. Wood stated VDOT was currently doing an engineering study because it was more work than they initially anticipated.  Mr. Wood stated the road might have to be raised because they ran into some grading issues and VDOT was in the process of evaluating that.  Mr. Barnes requested that Mr. Wood send him an email so that he could inform his constituents.

Mr. Wood said Mr. Glass wrote the following recommendation for Bowlers Mill Road (Route 603):

On Bowlers Mill Road (Route 603) off of Route 15, a local developer is planning a new subdivision at the end of the road.  In working with VDOT, the developer has agreed to build the road and surface treat it if VDOT would pay for the stone for the sub grade.  We think this is a great opportunity to get a road built at minimal cost.  Route 603 is currently in the project pool of the Secondary Six Year Plan and is unfunded.  What we are proposing is that funds be transferred from the Rising Sun Road (Route 775) project that was completed not long ago.  Route 775 has a balance of approximately $147,000.  Of this money, we would like to transfer $50,000 to Route 603 to cover the cost of the stone.  Additionally, we would like for $39,000 to be transferred to Jones Lane (Route 760) which carries a deficit from 2001 that has to be funded and the balance of $58,000 would be applied to the next project on the priority list that needs funding, which is Lewis Hill Lane (Route 673).  As stated earlier, this is an opportunity to get a road built at minimal cost.  Typically, a road like Route 603 would cost around $300,000 to build if it had to be funded and built by state forces or a contractor.  In essence, we are saving $250,000 in the long term and money that would be slated for Route 603 in the future can now be applied to another project on the Six Year Plan.  So, with this being said, I would like to formally request that the Board offer its approval and support to this proposal.

Mr. Wright stated that he had an issue with this request because he hadnt heard about the subdivision.  Mr. Wright said he would like to know more information about the subdivision and the project before it was approved.  The Board requested that Mr. Coffey and Mr. Glass report back to the Board at the next meeting with more information of the project.

Mr. Gentry questioned why there was such a large balance of monies left over from the Route 775 project.  Mr. Gentry stated $147,000 was a sizeable chunk of money left over, which may indicate a problem with the estimates being given for the Six Year Plan projects.  Mr. Wood indicated that he wasnt really familiar with the project; therefore, he couldnt answer Mr. Gentrys question.


Resolution - To request a traffic speed/safety study on Cross County Road (Route 522) from State Route 250 for 1.51 miles south and Bethany Church Road (Route 655)

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting a traffic speed/safety study on Cross County Road (Route 522) from State Route 250 for 1.51 miles south and Bethany Church Road (Route 655).

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion - Draft brochures for distribution about the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan

Mr. Coffey stated a brochure had been drafted about the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Coffey said if the draft brochures were approved, they would be distributed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Form.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the draft brochure about the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan.

Discussion - Amendment to Chapter 70. Taxation of the County Code (Change in ownership of property resulting in prorated exemption)

Mr. Morgan said included in the Board Packet was a draft amendment to the ordinance providing for real property tax relief for the elderly and disabled.  Mr. Morgan stated this section would allow for the Commissioner of Revenue to prorate the amount of exemption if a property changed hands during the tax year.  Mr. Morgan said if the Board deemed the amendment desirable, the matter should be set for public hearing.

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to set public hearing for the amendment to Chapter 70. Taxation of the County Code.

Discussion - Amendment to Chapter 70. Taxation of the County Code (Exemption for motor vehicle owned by disabled veteran)

Mr. Morgan said included in the Board Packet was a draft amendment to the ordinance providing for personal property tax relief for disabled veterans.  Mr. Morgan stated this section would provide an exemption for one motor vehicle owned by a disabled veteran from personal property tax.  Mr. Morgan indicated that the proposed amendment would be a new section to the County tax code and if the Board deemed the amendment desirable, the matter should be set for public hearing.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to set public hearing for the amendment to Chapter 70. Taxation of the County Code.

Resolution - To award change order contracts for parking at the Louisa County Aquatic Facility

Mr. Gentry stated pricing for the parking was requested from subcontractors already on the site and after review of their pricing, all subcontractor prices were either at their original unit costs when awarded the base contract or within acceptable price ranges.  Mr. Gentry said work should be proceeded immediately to run concurrently with the Aquatic Facility already in progress.  Mr. Gentry indicated that the total cost fell below the allocated CIP funding of $125,000.

Mr. Havasy questioned how many parking spaces there would be.  Mr. Linhares said 118.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to award change order contracts for parking at the Louisa County Aquatic Facility.

Discussion - Water and Sewer Rates

Mr. Barnes stated the gists about the water and sewer rates have been blown out of proportion and the previous motion was not to suspend the rates indefinitely.  Mr. Barnes indicated that there was some caution about the economy and the Board had concerns there.  Mr. Barnes said the Board wanted to get economic numbers from a more economic source to look at not just the water rates, but the water needs as a whole from a cost perspective.  Mr. Barnes said he wanted to make it clear that this wasnt a permanent suggestion; it was only temporary.

Mr. Gentry stated he had the opportunity to meet with the Water Authority and he felt like the Board of Supervisors needed to get out of the business of setting rates to begin with.  Mr. Gentry said it seemed like the Board of Supervisors was creating a wall between the two Boards and he would like to back up on what was previously done, as far as delaying the rates for a year and the 90-day ordeal that was set at the last meeting.  Mr. Gentry said he thought the Board should move forward with rescinding those two areas and let the Water Authority move forward with what they were here to do.

Mr. Purcell stated the last thing he wanted to do was create a wall between the Board and the Water Authority.  Mr. Purcell said the citizens of Louisa County had a lot of money invested at Zion Crossroads in the form of water and sewer infrastructure and they needed to see a return on that investment.  Mr. Purcell indicated that he wanted to see that investment returned as quickly as possible and in order for that to happen, there needed to be a synergy in the amount of development so the commercial people would feel satisfied that they could get a good return on their investment should they locate to the County.  Mr. Purcell added he thought raising the rates at this time would slow things even further.  Mr. Purcell said in point of fact, he made the argument before that he thought but for a frivolous lawsuit, the County would have had a lot of these things already.  Mr. Purcell said the lawsuit delayed the County and got it into a market turndown and the County had been unable to create the kind of synergy necessary to get the commercial in here, which was desperately needed to offset and increase the tax base to help Louisa citizens.  Mr. Purcell added that was always his interest and was still his interest.

Mr. Wright stated he thought rescinding the Boards previous actions was the prudent thing to do.


Mr. Gentry stated he would like to make the motion to rescind the previous actions taken by the Board of Supervisors, which were to put a one-year suspension on the increase of the water and sewer connection fees at Zion Crossroads and asking the Water Authority to determine if requiring that a connection must be made within ninety days of the application or any changes in fees would apply was feasible.  Mr. Purcell seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

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

With the votes reflecting 6-1, the Board voted to rescind the previous actions taken to put a one-year suspension on the water and sewer rates at Zion Crossroads and to determine if the idea of stating that a connection must be made within ninety days of the application or any changes in fees would apply was feasible.

Discussion - Moss-Nuckols Elementary School

Mr. Barnes stated he thought there was some discrepancy between the minutes and the motion actually passed at the last Board meeting for the allocation for the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.  Mr. Barnes said he was under the impression that the motion made by Mr. Gentry was to allocate $18 million for the School, not $17 million.

Mr. Wright stated Mr. Harper specifically questioned Mr. Gentry if the $18 million included $1 million that had already been spent on site work.  Mr. Wright indicated that Mr. Gentry clearly stated yes, $18 million did include $1 million for site work already completed; therefore, he didnt understand why there was any confusion about the motion.


Mr. Gentry said at the end of the summation of the motion, he mentioned that the total cost of the project would be $21.5 million.  Mr. Gentry stated the idea was that the new obligation of the County at this point was $21.5 million.

Mr. Barnes requested that the tape be transcribed verbatim.


Mr. Havasy questioned why the Board wouldnt meet with the School Board to get the school issue resolved.  Mr. Wright stated the School Board wanted to meet with the Board in closed session; however, the Board was advised that they couldnt meet in closed session about the issue the School Board wanted to talk about.  Mr. Havasy questioned if they could hold a joint public meeting.  Mr. Wright said the School Board wasnt able to meet in a public meeting because of contractual matters with the architect.  Mr. Gentry said he thought the Board should send the word out that they werent trying to dodge any discussions with the School Board.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - Voluntary water conservation measures

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to enact voluntary water conservation measures.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Gentry said he attended the Louisa Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) meeting; however, he had to leave the meeting earlier and questioned if Mr. Schlemmer would comment about the meeting.  Mr. Schlemmer said about twenty-five people of forty people that were contacted attended the meeting to discuss tier one and tier two of reporting under Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act (SARA), which was the Community Right To Know Act About Hazardous Materials in the County.  Mr. Schlemmer said the Committee was actually looking to be of guidance for an All Hazards Planning Committee, not just a board dealing with hazardous materials.

Mr. Wright stated CSA had been a major subject of the Mayor and Chairs Group.  Mr. Wright said from an administrative cost standpoint of the CSA program, the State had not changed the cost calculations since 1997 or 1998.  Mr. Wright said the Governor has agreed to look at the lack of beds available for the children in the CSA program.  Mr. Wright added that some children have to be sent to other states because Virginia doesnt have available the type of care or treatment that was needed.


BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Barnes stated he would like to re-appoint Tom Filer to the Health Center Commission.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board re-appointed Mr. Filer to the Health Center Commission.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum stated the Louisa Little League requested a waiver of the Wholesale Connection Fee for the irrigation line at the Mineral Baseball Field.  Mr. Lintecum said the Town of Mineral agreed to waive all fees that pertain to the Town.  Mr. Lintecum said based on a past-signed agreement between the Water Authority and the Board, the Louisa County Water Authority was requesting that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors waive the Wholesale Connection Fee.

Mr. Purcell disclosed that Dicky Purcell, the Head Board of Trustees for the Louisa Little League, was his cousin, but he didnt have a conflict of interest.  Mr. Harper stated he was the Town Manager of Mineral, but he also didnt have a conflict of interest.  Mr. Barnes disclosed that he was a professional Athletic Director at a high school.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to waive the Wholesale Connection Fee for the Louisa Little League for the irrigation line at the Mineral Baseball Field.

Mr. Lintecum stated Ms. Shelhorse and two certified arborist have included letters in the Board Packet regarding the need to remove the large maple tree in the courthouse square.  Ms. Shelhorse added that David Stone, certified arborist for the Department of Forestry, also wrote a letter expressing the need for the tree to be removed as soon as possible.

Mr. Barnes stated if possible, after the tree was removed, he would like for the wood to be cut and donated to Social Services for a family to provide for heating.

Mr. Havasy questioned what it would cost to remove the tree.  Ms. Shelhorse said $1620.

Mr. Wright questioned if the tree would be replaced.  Ms. Shelhorse said Mr. Stone suggested that it be replaced with an eight-foot maple tree that could be planted in-house to reduce the cost.

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the request to remove the large maple tree in the courthouse square.

Mr. Gentry questioned what the status was of the Longevity House.  Mr. Lintecum said he met with Mr. Kenney of the Louisa Humane Society and he was supposed to come back with a proposal very soon.  Mr. Gentry said SNAP also had a need and maybe the Humane Society and SNAP could coordinate their needs.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Delinquent Tax Sales

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board authorized the sale of parcels of real property because of delinquent tax sales.

Resolution - To take two (2) streets in the River Run subdivision into the secondary system of highways in Louisa County, Virginia

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to take two (2) streets in the River Run subdivision into the secondary system of highways in Louisa County, Virginia.

Resolution - Recognizing Admiral Dewitt L. Freeman for his years of service to Louisa County

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing Admiral Dewitt L. Freeman for his years of service to Louisa County.

Resolution - For supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for vehicle repairs

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

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the Sheriffs Department for the DMV Ark Angel Highway, Alcohol, Speed and Seatbelt Enforcement Grant

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the Sheriffs Department for the DMV Ark Angel Highway, Alcohol, Speed and Seatbelt Enforcement Grant.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Lintecum stated a Waterworks Construction Permit for Wal-Mart Supercenter was included in the Board Packet.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of October 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $896,062.02.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Jennings, with Messrs Barnes and Purcell abstaining, which carried by a vote of 5-0-2, the Board adopted the minutes of the October 10, 2007 pre-budget workshop.

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Harper, with Mr. Barnes being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the October 15, 2007 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Harper, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:14 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:

1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:03 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

WHEREAS
, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 5th day of November 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 5th day of November 2007, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

To enact Article 1, Costs Reimbursement to Chapter 61, Public Safety of the Louisa County Code.   The ordinance will enact Sections 61-1 through 61-5 to the County Code, enabling the County to bill and collect fees for providing emergency medical transport services. Section 61-4 specifically provides a procedure to reduce or waive transportation fees for individuals with financial hardships.

Mr. Bob Katz, Co-Chairman of the Revenue Recovery Committee, stated Revenue Recovery was a collection of fees for patient transports that would create a continual user-based revenue stream, which would systematically enhance services.  Mr. Katz indicated that Revenue Recovery would utilize funds from insurance providers, which were already included in most premiums.  Mr. Katz stated the need for Revenue Recovery was because projected needs of operating EMS were greater than the current revenue stream.  Mr. Katz added that there had been increased call volume because of population growth and there had been a marked increase in the costs of EMS expenses, such as equipment and ambulances.

Mr. Katz said the Revenue Recovery Program would offset the growing EMS expenditures; however, additional personnel may be required to administer the program.  Mr. Katz indicated that the administrator would be a liaison with the third party billing company, handle patient inquiries, “write-off” charges, be the point person for the program, be a liaison with other jurisdictions and have constant training.

Mr. Katz said billing for service would not impact the organizational structure and the program would have a minimal impact to fundraising.  Mr. Katz added that funds collected through Revenue Recovery would be used to meet the many needs of volunteer and EMS agencies; however, public donations would still be needed to help fund the many costs that each agency incurs to provide services.

Mr. Katz indicated that everyone would receive treatment regardless of his or her ability to pay.
Mr. Katz said the County would utilize compassionate billing to avoid financial hardship to the citizens.  Mr. Katz added that there was no evidence that an EMS Revenue Recovery program would increase insurance premiums and Supplemental Medicare Insurance was sometimes used to help pay the costs.

Mr. Katz said billing for service would benefit the Community because there would be an increased level of education and experience because of better provider retention and more funds available for training.  Mr. Katz added there would also be improved equipment for better patient care and improved QA/QI systems.

Mr. Katz indicated that there were two ways the Committee had looked at to reduce the cost burden on County citizens.  Mr. Katz said the first option was the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) Opinion, which stated if the citizen was a tax payer of the County, only the insurance company would be billed, not the citizen; however, it was a requirement that the patient would have to be billed three separate times and if they paid the bill, the payment would have to be recognized and the patient would have to be reimbursed.

Mr. Katz stated the second option was the Subscription Plan, which would give citizens of the County the option to participate in a plan for pre-payment of one annual fee for ambulance charges not covered by insurance.  Mr. Katz added that the patients would not be responsible for co-pays, deductibles or non-covered services.  Mr. Katz indicated that with the Subscription Plan, an employee would be required to track the database of the citizens and details of the plan.

Mr. Schlemmer stated the estimate of revenue from transports and mileage fees at a forty-five percent collection rate was about $700,000 and the estimate of revenue from the Subscription Plan with an estimated seven percent of households purchasing the plan at $65 per year was $55,137.

Mr. Schlemmer indicated that the following was an estimate of the first year expenses for the program:

-Billing Company - $52,500
-Employee & Benefits - $53,200
-Toughbooks/Software - $60,000
-Drug Box Replacement - $50,000
-Volunteer Requests Continued County funding

Mr. Katz stated the money received from Revenue Recovery could be used for ambulances, equipment, training and education, and supplies.

Mr. Katz stated members of the public must not be afraid to call 911 because of a fee.  Mr. Katz added that EMS providers would always treat and transport a patient to the hospital regardless of the patients ability to pay for the transport.

Mr. Katz indicated that the following were the next steps for the process of implementing the Revenue Recovery Program:

-Adopt an ordinance allowing for a fee for service
-Fees by resolution
-Subscription Fees by County Administrator
-Select thi
rd party vendor
-Complete a Medicare application and obtain a National Provider Number, which takes approximately 90 days to complete
-Apply separately with Medicaid
-Register with insurance companies
-Continue the public education program
-Provider training

Mr. Barnes stated 44 percent of Louisa County students were on free or reduced lunch and he was concerned about how accurate the projected income of $700,000 was.  Mr. McLeod said he determined the number of calls from 2006 and reduced that number based on what type of call was ran and what type of insurance the patient had to determine how often the bill would be written off.  Mr. McLeod said a mature system could be an income of 55 to 60 percent, but the Committee kept the estimate low and only projected an income at a 45 percent level.  Mr. McLeod said a cash flow estimate was also considered because revenue wouldnt be collected at the same time of the transport.  Mr. McLeod added he hoped $700,000 was a conservative number.

Mr. Harper questioned regardless of economic status, a bill would be sent to a patient three times and if the bill were ignored, it would be written off.  Mr. Katz indicated that the Committee was going to ask the public to contact the County if they had a financial hardship instead of ignoring the bill.  Mr. Harper questioned what would happen if a patient didnt pay the bill and they didnt contact the County or have a financial hardship.  Mr. Katz stated after three bills, it would be written off.

Mr. Wright questioned if a toll free number would be provided in order for all citizens to be able to contact the County locally.  Mr. Schlemmer stated the Committee had discussed that option.

Mr. Harper indicated that the presentation said an insurance consultant stated the program wouldnt impact insurance premiums.  Mr. Schlemmer indicated that costs are already built into most insurance premiums for ambulance transports.  Mr. McLeod said the insurance consultant for the County said an ambulance transport was less than one percent of the total cost.  Mr. Harper questioned if the insurance companies pool were built on projections or actual expenses.  Mr. McLeod said the health insurance consultant, as well as other counties have stated that Revenue Recovery wouldnt change insurance premiums.  Mr. Schlemmer indicated that Virginia was one of the last states to go to Revenue Recovery; therefore, this is something that insurance companies across the nation have put in over the years.  Mr. Harper stated that insurance companies are regulated and their premiums have to be based on losses.  Mr. Harper said at some point in time, he thought equalization would take place and premiums would increase to take care of ambulance charges.

Mr. Havasy said insurance premiums have never gone down because the County was paying for this service instead of individual insurance companies.  Mr. Havasy said ambulance coverage is included in almost everyones premium and the program will not make prices increase.

Mr. Barnes questioned what percentage of the population utilized these services.  Mr. McLeod said five to eight percent.  Mr. Schlemmer added that number also included the transient population.

Mr. McLeod indicated that three of the surrounding counties already had the Revenue Recovery Program in place and the Committee discussed working with them to decide on a mutual aid agreement so citizens wouldnt have to pay the total cost if one of the surrounding counties transported them.

Mr. Havasy questioned how many other counties and municipalities in the State of Virginia used Revenue Recovery.  Mr. Schlemmer said about 70 percent.

Mr. Wright opened the public hearing.

Ms. Gina Lombardi, Patrick Henry District, stated in hearing the presentation, she thought Revenue Recovery sounded like a good idea, but she didnt hear what percentage of people that were transported were uninsured.  Ms. Lombardi said it sounded like the assumption was that this County in total was an insured population, which she knew couldnt be the case.  Ms. Lombardi said a lot of the people that were being transported by ambulances were members of underserved populations and marketing of this program would be very essential and a budget would be needed for that.

With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Wright closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.

Mr. Schlemmer stated he didnt have the figures for the uninsured percentage of the people being transported, but he could get that information.  Mr. Schlemmer agreed that marketing the program had to be taken into consideration; however, he didnt think it would be a large cost.

Mr. Gentry said his idea of Revenue Recovery was that the County would try to collect from insurance companies where they could.  Mr. Gentry said he didnt like the idea of the Subscription Plan or the Compassionate Billing Program because he felt like every household within the County paid their $65 through their taxes every year.  Mr. Gentry indicated that he thought the idea of the Program was to try to keep the same service as the County currently had, but gather payment from the insurance companies.  Mr. Gentry added he felt that Section 61-4 (B) Subscription program.
and Section 61-4 (C) Compassionate Billing program. shouldnt be included in the Program.

Mr. McLeod said the Committee looked at different options of the Program to help defray the costs for the citizens.  Mr. McLeod said the Committee decided that the County would use compassionate billing to work with everyone to help them through their issues.

Mr. Gentry said the County shouldnt be sending the message out to any household that they were going to bill them because he didnt want to see a taxpayer be obligated to pay for any service that they were already paying for.  Mr. Wright indicated that the Subscription Plan was optional.

Mr. Harper questioned what the current cost of operating rescue services in Louisa County was.  Mr. Schlemmer said about $1.7 million.  Mr. Harper questioned how much money was projected to be recovered from the Program.  Mr. Schlemmer said about $700,000.  Mr. Harper questioned where the money would go that was collected.  Mr. Schlemmer said the funds would go into operational cost and capital cost for both paid and volunteer personnel.  Mr. Schlemmer added that some localities roll a certain percentage into capital, where they would buy all of the major cost items.  Mr. Harper questioned what the proposal was for Louisa County.  Mr. Schlemmer said the Committee had been discussing that, but they havent come to a consensus at this point.

Mr. Barnes said the County wanted the underprivileged people that would be affected by this Program to understand that they could still dial 911 and get picked up by an ambulance.  Mr. Barnes said he was concerned about Louisa citizens being transported by other counties and being charged for services and he thought a mutual agreement with surrounding counties would be something to look at.  Mr. Barnes said this Program was a way to help maintain and keep the tax rate stable.

Mr. Wright stated he was concerned about trying to make a decision tonight because it was unknown on how the revenue would be handled.  Mr. Wright added he also hadnt heard a recommendation from EMSAL.  Mr. McLeod said the Committee had asked EMSAL to decide exactly on what they wanted out of the Program; however, they were somewhat slow to finalize things.  Mr. Katz said there was a Captains meeting held last week where the topic was discussed.  Mr. Katz said from the volunteers prospective, they would like to allow the system to establish itself and get matured and they would make requests on how to distribute the funds when the system was self-sustaining.  Mr. Katz said at this point in time, recognizing the fact that it was unknown on what the system would mature to, the volunteer squads were requesting that the Board allow funding as it is currently done for at least two years.  Mr. McLeod said from the Countys perspective, a separate fund would be created and funds would be moved from there into operations or capital and the fund would collect over a period of time and roll over from one year to the next.

Mr. Havasy stated he would like to make the motion to approve a resolution to enact Article I. Cost Reimbursement to Chapter 61.  Public Safety of the Louisa County Code enabling the county to bill and collect fees for providing emergency medical transport services.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

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

With the votes reflecting 5-2, the Board voted to approve a resolution to enact Article I. Cost Reimbursement to Chapter 61.  Public Safety of the Louisa County Code enabling the county to bill and collect fees for providing emergency medical transport services.

To enact Louisa County Code, Sec. 74-52, Parking or Standing in Fire Lanes.  Allowing local law enforcement officials to remove vehicles parked in fire lanes at the vehicle owners expense.

Mr. Morgan said it had come to the attention of Mr. Wright that there had been some difficulty with local enforcement of the prevention of leaving parked cars in clearly marked fire safety lanes.  Mr. Morgan said apparently, some local law enforcement officials were reluctant to have cars removed from the fire lanes without a local ordinance in place that provided for such a procedure.  Mr. Morgan said at Mr. Wrights request, he reviewed the ordinance adopted by other jurisdictions and drafted a proposed addition to the Louisa County Code.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve a resolution to enact Section 74-52 of the Louisa County Code to allow law enforcement officials to remove vehicles parked in fire lanes at the vehicle owners expense.

REZ08-07; Ferncliff, LLC, c/o Ron Carter, Agent; Applicants/Owners; request conditional rezoning of approximately 104.6 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD).  The property is located on the north side of Route 250 (Three Notch Road), approximately 0.5 miles west of Route 208 (Courthouse Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 67-9 in the Patrick Henry Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Mixed Use within the Ferncliff Designated Growth Area.

This request is for the rezoning of approximately 104.6-acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD).  The application indicates that the objective for the Ferndale project is “to imagine, design and build a community that implements the strategies outlined in Louisas Comprehensive Plan for the Ferncliff growth area”. The proposed proffers indicate there will be a maximum of 310 housing units and 200,000 square feet of retail/commercial.  Utilities will be provided through central community water and sewer systems.  These systems will have extra capacity, to help serve the Ferncliff Growth Area.  The developer would construct subdivision streets that meet VDOT specifications and will provide any road improvements required by VDOT as a result of this project.

Thirty percent of the project area will remain as open space.  This open space will provide buffers from adjacent properties, along with public amenities, such as walking trails, parks, a ball field, playground, wading pool, and picnic shelters.  These amenities will be available to the general public and available, fee simple, to the County, until December 1, 2012.

Development in this area is a mixture of agricultural parcels with smaller single-family residential parcels, commercial property and community service uses.

With the proposed housing, ten percent would be dedicated for workforce housing, with five percent below $230,000 and five percent below $280,000.  Another ten percent would be dedicated for affordable housing, with five percent below $180,000 and five percent below $150,000.  Twenty-five percent of the total residential units would be targeted towards senior living.  

There were six people, other than the applicant and their representatives, present to discuss this application in the Neighborhood Meeting held on August 8, 2007.  Those present asked questions regarding:

      -        Proposed lot sizes
-        Amount of buffers
-        Number of units
-        Possibility of having a traffic light on Route 250

There were concerns about:

      -        The impact of water demand on groundwater
-        Noise generated by the commercial uses
-        Appearance of the commercial uses
-        Effect on neighboring properties, with taxes and assessments
-        Additional crime that comes with more development
-        Traffic generated by the development

The Development Review Committee met on August 22, 2007 in reference to the requested rezoning application.

The stated concerns presented by the Development Review Committee included water and sewer service, noise from I-64, traffic generated by the site, additional demand on schools and the price of housing.  There were also concerns about the total number of housing units and how to address the increased demand on public services, along with the public funds needed to meet those demands.

A motion was made by Mr. Besley to forward this application to the Planning Commission with no recommendation.  Mr. Speer seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0.

The Planning Commission met on September 13, 2007 in reference to the requested rezoning application.

The Planning Commission stated concerns about the size of the project, impacts on traffic and schools, along with increased demand on other community services.  There was discussion over water and sewer service, noise from I-64, the proposed lot sizes, and affordable housing.  There were concerns about the cost of this development on the County.

Ms. Price motioned to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors with amended proffers.  There was no second.  Mr. Spencer made motion of denial and Mr. Scharf provided the second.    There was a vote of 6-1 for a recommendation of denial to the Board.

The applicant submitted revised proffers, revised October 25, 2007, to be considered as a part of the rezoning application.  These revised proffers were based on the Development Review Committee and Planning Commissions comments and address the following items:

            -        Development Plan
-        Density of Development
-        Central Water System
-        Central Sewer System Extra Sewer Capacity
-        Water and Sewer Availability
-        Road Improvements
-        Road Standards
-        Workforce Housing
-        Affordable Housing
-        Senior Living
-        Public Amenities
-        Project Timeline
-        Adjacent Property Buffer
-        Noise
-        Architectural Review Board
-        Landscape Plan
-        Cash Proffer

One consideration with any rezoning request is whether or not this is spot zoning?  Spot zoning is defined as the reclassifying of one or more tracts of land and the sole purpose is to serve the private interests of one or more land owners instead of furthering the welfare of the entire community as part of an overall zoning plan.

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

(a)        Is the change contrary to the established land-use pattern?  The requested Planned Unit Development zoning is a new district classification that allows applicants to be more creative in the design of their projects and will allow for a mixture of uses.  The rezoning would allow for more intensive residential development than has occurred in this area previously under Agricultural (A-2) zoning, in terms of lot size.

(b)        Is the change in conformance with the comprehensive plan?  Yes, the 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Mixed Use, as part of the Ferncliff Designated Growth Area.

(c)        Would the change create an isolated district unrelated to similar districts (i.e., is this spot zoning?)  While adjoining parcels are zoned primarily Agricultural (A-2), with General Commercial (C-2) near the Route 208 intersection, the change conforms to the Countys vision of mixed use for the area.  There is also existing residential in this area, but at a lower density than what is proposed.

The Board of Supervisors may wish to consider the positive and negative impacts of this proposed rezoning.  Some of the benefits include public amenities, improved or new infrastructure, quality open space, affordable housing, and senior living.  The Board may wish to consider how the proffers address other possible impacts of this project, such as storm water, traffic generation, demand on schools, public safety, additional strain on public services, financial costs of new development, and infrastructure needs such as water and sewer.

Mr. Havasy said under proffer number 1 in the Development Plan it stated that plans would be revised to reflect the new proffers once they were agreed upon by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Havasy said the new proffers were received between the Planning Commission meeting and the Board meeting and questioned if the Applicant was going to take this request back to the Planning Commission to get the new proffers approved.  Mr. Cockrell said he didnt believe so.  

Mr. Havasy questioned what the applicants estimate of water use per day was for a 200,000 square foot commercial site.  Mr. Coffey stated the applicant had their water person there to answer any questions.  

Mr. Havasy said proffer number 10 stated that twenty-five percent of the residential dwelling units would be targeted to the 55 and older age group.  Mr. Havasy indicated that “targeted” didnt necessarily mean “reserved for.”  Mr. Coffey said under State Code, a change like that could be made if the applicant agreed to it because it wasnt a substantial change, it was only for clarification.  

Mr. Havasy said proffer number 11 stated that public amenities will also be made available to the County, fee simple, until December 1, 2012 and questioned if Mr. Cockrell could define “fee simple.”  Mr. Cockrell said fee simple meant that the County would completely own and have all rights to the property.
 

Mr. Havasy said proffer number 17 stated that the cash proffer will not apply to any affordable or workforce units.  Mr. Havasy said the Board never waived fees on workforce housing.  Mr. Cockrell said the cash proffer was voluntary.  

Mr. Gentry said proffer number 2 stated that the development of the property should include up to 310 residential dwelling units and up to 200,000 useable square feet of commercial.  Mr. Gentry indicated that the idea of a PUD was to have a good balance between residential and commercial and questioned how a good balance could be related when the words “up to” was used.  Mr. Cockrell said those numbers were what the applicant was expecting as a maximum.  

Mr. Gentry said proffer number 8 stated that for workforce housing, one half of the units shall be below $230,000 and the other half shall be below $280,000 and questioned where those numbers came from.  Mr. Cockrell stated the applicant worked with the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation and determined those numbers based on the Workforce Housing Income Standards and housing interest rates.  

Mr. Gentry said he had the same concern as Mr. Havasy for senior housing and questioned if twenty-five percent would be targeted for senior housing based on 310 homes or if twenty-five percent would be targeted for senior housing based on what the developer was able to complete.  Mr. Gentry said there were a lot of unclear statements and loopholes within the listed proffers.  

Mr. Purcell said when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the Board adopted growth areas where they were going to concentrate the growth to keep it out of the rural areas.  Mr. Purcell said if PUDs werent going to locate in these places, he assumed that R-2 developments wouldnt either; therefore it would be left with R-1 or some other form of development.  Mr. Purcell questioned if that were the case, how would the County expect to attract commercial development.  Mr. Purcell questioned Mr. Coffey what the general consensus was for PUDs in general from the Planning Commission and the Development Review Committee.  Mr. Coffey said with regard to PUDs in general, he thought there was a good measure of hesitancy at the Planning Commission level in terms of not understanding all of the mechanics, such as density, water usage, traffic, generation, storm water impacts and impacts to schools.  Mr. Coffey said from a planning perspective, they try to achieve a good balance in working with the applicant.  Mr. Coffey added as a project moves through the process, they try to tighten down and address the issues that come up during that process.  Mr. Coffey said the mixed-use designation was created in 2001 and the PUD was created as a tool to try to make well planned and coordinated, mixed-use projects become a reality.
 

Mr. Ron Carter, Applicant, stated various concerns from previous meetings had been the amount of $4362 for the cash proffer.  Mr. Carter indicated that he changed the proffer to state that the amount of the proffer will be the amount the County has established as the cash proffer at the time of the application for the building permit.  

Mr. Carter stated he would build age-targeted units in multiple sections that would basically be one level homes, which would include wide doors with accessible hardware and the option for wheelchair accessible bathtubs.  Mr. Carter added that they would also complete all of the landscape maintenance; however, people that live in those sections would pay a little more in homeowner fees.  

Mr. Carter said he thought another significant part of the plan was that they were going to include a package sewage treatment facility, which would set aside a 50 capacity greater than what they needed for what they were going to do.  Mr. Carter added that amounted to 67,500 gallons per day of sewage treatment capacity.
 

Mr. Barnes questioned how Mr. Carter could guarantee that the affordable housing would be sold at $150,000 or $180,000.  Mr. Carter stated those prices were based on todays numbers and the numbers would increase as inflation impacted them.  Mr. Barnes questioned if the properties would be deed restricted.  Mr. Carter stated he had been working with Mr. Evergreen on that and they possibly could be.  

Mr. Havasy questioned what the estimate of water use per day was for a 200,000 square foot commercial site.  Mr. Carter said the amount of water used would depend on what went into the area.  Mr. Havasy indicated that there should be a basic rule of thumb on how much water commercial amenities used per 1,000 square feet.  Mr. Gary Weisharr, Vice President of R. Stuart Royer & Associates, Inc., stated that the rule of thumb was about .25 gallons per square foot.  Mr. Havasy said according to his calculations, they were only giving about one-third more water, not 50 percent.  

Mr. Havasy said proffer number 3 stated that the applicant will provide water tie-ins for any property within 200 feet of the project for property owners use should they experience problems with their well due to this project.  Mr. Havasy questioned why the applicant stated 200 feet from the property instead of all homes that experienced problems because of the project.  Mr. Carter said they chose 200 feet from the property because the only houses that might potentially be impacted were across the street in the 200-foot range.  

Mr. Havasy said proffer number 6 stated that any road improvements required by VDOT as a result of this project would be provided by the applicant.  Mr. Carter said yes.  

Mr. Havasy questioned for senior housing if Mr. Carter would change “will be targeted to” to “will be provided for.”  Mr. Carter said if it were permissible by the Board he would clarify that.    


Mr. Wright opened the public hearing.

Ms. Robin Patton, Patrick Henry District, stated she noticed that the applicant made the statement about getting this rezoning that the zoning was what it was after he got it.  Ms. Patton said there were some people that thought today, the zoning was what it was and that was what the applicant purchased and that was all he purchased a right for what the property was currently zoned to do.  Ms. Patton said in the staff report, there was a proffer for additional capacity for the water and sewer and as that was expanded on, it turned out that the County wouldnt get any capacity at all.  Ms. Patton added she believed that the applicant stated they were only going to give the County the plans and let them pay to build the additional capacity.  

Ms. Patton said she didnt think any citizens in Louisa County needed what this development was offering.  Ms. Patton said the County was over committed with housing units that have been allocated through other proposals and have encumbered the tax paying citizens of Louisa County beyond anyones ideas.  Ms. Patton said when a growth area was designated in a Comprehensive Plan, she understood that counties had the authority to phase in the growth and just say no until the appropriate infrastructure was in place to support it.  Ms. Patton added that was what the citizens of Louisa County needed the Board to do until someone, besides the citizens, were paying for the additional infrastructure costs because the citizens could not bear the burden anymore.  Ms. Patton stated it was time to reevaluate what belonged to the people that lived here now that was being given away in the meetings for rezonings.
 
Ms. Amanda Welch, Patrick Henry District, stated she was asking the Board to deny this rezoning.  Ms. Welch said for the 310 new homes in this PUD, based on Louisa County statistics, that would mean approximately 600 more adults, 100 more school-aged children and 65 non school-aged children.  Ms. Welch said before another one of these rezonings is done, the costs of them needed to be figured out first.  

Ms. Welch said the applicant stated that for affordable housing, five percent of the homes would be under $150,000 and five percent of the homes would be around $180,000, which was only about a total of 30 homes.  Ms. Welch indicated that there were currently 65 homes in Louisa on the market for under $180,000 and 150 lots on the market for under $50,000.  Ms. Welch questioned if the Board knew how many platted lots already existed in the County.  Ms. Welch stated the Board needed to know that information before they rezoned any property.  Ms. Welch said the explosion of residential development and its impact needed to be considered before the Board let one more PUD or any other residential intensive development be approved.  Ms. Welch added taxes have already been impacted by the reckless decisions made by the Board.


Mr. Tom Lanahan, Patrick Henry District, stated he supported this development because he couldnt imagine a better location for a development like this.  Mr. Lanahan said if Louisa County was going to have any growth, this seemed like the place to put it, in a growth area and between two major highways.  Mr. Lanahan said this development would provide its own water and sewer and he didnt see what the infrastructure cost to the County would be for this.

Mr. Rodney Madril, Mineral District, read the following email sent by Ms. Jean Mason, Patrick Henry District.

As a resident of Louisa County for 27 years, I have seen the County grow tremendously.  Much of the development has not benefited the median income families.  Many of the developments do not provide housing that is affordable for young families or individuals.  The commercial growth, as well as affordable housing planned for the Ferncliff project, will be beneficial to a large population of Louisa.  I believe it is vital that we provide opportunities for young people to remain in Louisa.  I believe this project will provide some of those opportunities.  I support the rezoning needed for this project to advance.  

Mr. Madril indicated that no growth was impractical and impossible and rapid uncontrolled growth was dangerous.  Mr. Madril said what Mr. Carter was proposing was a well thought out, disciplined development that would benefit the County.  Mr. Madril urged the Board to approved this project.  


Ms. Diann Bishop, Patrick Henry District, stated she urged the Board to deny this proposed PUD development.  Ms. Bishop said she lived directly across from the proposed project and she felt that her water table would be depleted.  Ms. Bishop said she understood that the processed sewage would be sent down a dry creek bed and a farmer would take the sludge and put it on his farmland.  Ms. Bishop added that she believed this method would cause an unpleasant smell to all surrounding areas.  Ms. Bishop stated she thought the Comprehensive Plan should had been put on a referendum at a general election to give voters an opportunity to make a decision on the locations for growth areas, which would have also allowed voters to be more aware of the proposed changes.    

Rev. Clyde Nuckols, Sr., Patrick Henry District, stated the issue wasnt necessarily the development; it was the emphasis upon the definite article of uses of natural resources.  Rev. Nuckols indicated that there has only been an examination of the surface water and we didnt know what was below us and how much water was available.  Rev. Nuckols questioned how much water Ferndale would use and where the water come from.  Rev. Nuckols questioned how deep the wells would be drilled.  Rev. Nuckols questioned where the effluent would go.  

Rev. Nuckols said a couple that made $25 per hour and had two children and bought a $200,000 home would have less than $100 per week to spend.
 

Mr. Charles Poindexter, Patrick Henry District, stated this proposed development would be detrimental to the rural character of the area and change the environment forever.  Mr. Poindexter indicated that the taxpayers would have to provide more schools, teachers, county deputies, paid firemen, etc.  Mr. Poindexter stated seven out of ten people live from paycheck to paycheck and with the average income of Louisa, there would be very few people able to buy in this development.  Mr. Poindexter said a direct quote from Mr. Carter was that he was targeting young professionals from Charlottesville and Richmond.  Mr. Poindexter stated this proposed development would only benefit the developer, not the taxpayers of the County.  Mr. Poindexter said the major concerns from people from surrounding areas were the wells becoming dry and contaminated and problems that could arise with the sewage treatment plant.  

Mr. Poindexter said one member of the Zoning Committee had a problem with the taxpayers having to pay for sound barrier walls to prevent noise from the interstate.  Mr. Poindexter said he realized that this area had been put into the Comprehensive Plan, but looking at the big picture, there was no way that this proposal should be supported.


Mr. Dale Coontz, Patrick Henry District, stated he was speaking in favor of this rezoning.  Mr. Coontz said he worked for a construction company and this project would provide him with a job close to home.  Mr. Coontz said he thought the rezoning would also benefit both the County and the residents and the Board should consider rezoning this property.

Ms. Rae Ely, Green Springs District, stated there was a procedure in the County that every applicant should follow and no one should be permitted to bypass the procedures.  Ms. Ely said in this instance, the proffers were amended 24 hours ago and that not only doesnt give the Board of Supervisors a full opportunity to maturely consider what was before them, but it completely cuts out the Planning Commission from reviewing the application in its entirely.  Ms. Ely said more importantly, it cuts out the public from having an opportunity to look at the application, which wasnt fair.  Ms. Ely suggested that the fair thing to do would be to send this application back to the Planning Commission.  

Ms. Ely questioned who would monitor the proffered percentage sales set by the applicant.  Ms. Ely added it was almost impossible to police that kind of thing.  


Mr. Harry Carter, Patrick Henry District, stated he was especially concerned about the water issue because two creeks in the area have dried up within the last ten years.  Mr. Carter said he thought that development was too much for one area.

Ms. Gina Lombardi, Patrick Henry District, stated she had concerns about the sewage treatment center.  Ms. Lombardi questioned over time, who would maintain and operate the sewage plant and where would the funds come from to keep it running if the subdivision was only half full.  Ms. Lombardi added she was also concerned about the water table issue.  Ms. Lombardi said this development would have a huge impact for traffic on Route 250 and she hoped the Board would not pass this proposal.  

Mr. Howard Evergreen, City of Charlottesville, stated he was the director of the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation and one of their goals was to provide affordable housing and decent housing in Louisa County.  Mr. Evergreen said he had worked very closely with Mr. Carter to design a program that would provide at least 30 affordable homes in the County, as well as additional homes for the elderly and the workforce.  Mr. Evergreen stated he dreamed of a community like this where there would be mixed income living together in the same community.  Mr. Evergreen said they have designed a mechanism to also protect the affordability.  Mr. Evergreen said they may not be able to keep it affordable always, but the amount of difference between the market value of the house and the selling price of the house would be recaptured and any money that was recaptured would be put into the down payment fund that had been set up for Louisa County residents.  Mr. Evergreen said from the affordable housing point of view, he hoped the Board would consider this project.

Ms. Kirsten Myers, Patrick Henry District, stated her concern was that the applicant only considered traffic on Route 250 and not Route 208, which was the main road that led to the Town of Louisa.  Ms. Myers said she believed that a traffic light at the intersection of Route 208 and Route 250 was a good idea and something to consider.  

Mr. Gerald Harlow, Green Springs District, stated the Comprehensive Plan, which provides to allow mixed use PUDs along Route 250, needs major revision.  Mr. Harlow said no other County allows for this type of massive development without public water and sewer.  Mr. Harlow said if this proposal were approved, the Board would be opening the County up to hundreds of these types of developments.  Mr. Harlow indicated that the County didnt have the infrastructure here to support this development.  Mr. Harlow added the project didnt match the area.  Mr. Harlow said the County was 20 years ahead of schedule in planning these developments without adequate facilities to support them.

Mr. Gregory D. Hosaflook, Patrick Henry District, stated he understood all of the concerns that people had about the water, the traffic flow, etc. in this particular area; however, growth was coming to the Ferncliff area.  Mr. Hosaflook said if the applicant was going to install the infrastructure necessary to support the development and maybe even turn that over to the County and provide an additional 50 percent capacity for other growth in the Ferncliff area, then it wasnt a bad idea.  Mr. Hosaflook indicated that the proposed development was in a growth area and the applicant has done everything the County requires.  

Mr. Jerry Rosenthal, Patrick Henry District, stated there was a vagueness with the proposal dealing with water and sewer and this development wasnt really for Louisa County or Ferncliff; it was for Ferndale and the people who would live there.

Mr. Lintecum read the following email from Faye Rosenthal, Patrick Henry District.

I am writing to each of you in opposition to REZ08-07, which will be considered at a Public Hearing on Monday, Nov. 5, 2007.  I regret that I will be unable to attend the Public Hearing because of a prior commitment.  I have lived at 877 Holland Creek Rd. in Ferncliff, in the Patrick Henry District, for almost 32 years.  I am pleased that the Planning Commission voted 6-1 against the conditional zoning request.  I am embarrassed that the Planning Commissioner from my district Patrick Henry was the one to vote for it.  The reason that she gave was, more or less, everybodys doing it and it will happen anyway sooner or later, so we should just do it now.  I think that any of you who are parents would recognize that if your child asked you to give them permission to do something that you disapproved of and they gave the reason “everybodys doing it” you would not hesitate to withhold permission.  This Board of Supervisors has the right and responsibility to withhold approval of this application.  The reasons are many, but lets start with the following:  every residence built in Louisa County costs us the resident taxpayers money.  It took me many years to accept that this is true, but Ive heard it reported time after time at all kinds of official County meetings.  I dont need to elaborate on that point you all know it.  Louisa is a rural county and many of us would like it to stay that way.  I grew up first in apartment houses and then in a house on ¼ acre in the suburbs before moving to the farm where I have resided for the past 31+ years -- but I cannot imagine what 10-plus units per acre would look like here in Ferncliff nor do I want to imagine that.  Thats what Ferndale would be.  If you subtract the 30 acres that Mr. Carter says he will “make green” (although I would argue that its already green), and the 15 acres of commercial, and acreage taken for roads and water and sewage treatment, etc. youre left with 465 units on less than 46.5 acres, so in my book that comes to 10-plus units per acre.  Can you imagine what that will look like in a neighborhood that is now mostly farms and residences on at least 3 acres each?  Several Planning Commissioners pointed out the inanity of the terms “affordable housing” and “workforce housing” that this applicant and others are throwing around in an effort to make it look like their development is going to help middle income people in Louisa County.  Home prices just on either side of $200,000 are really not affordable, even to new teachers in Louisa County who would supposedly be part of the “workforce housing” customers.  The truth is, as Mr. Carter quite honestly pointed out early in the application process and I know that Mr. Wright addressed this publicly at that point these homes could provide affordable housing for people coming from Charlottesville or Albemarle, who might have to pay an extra $100,000 or so for a comparable house there.  They might be willing to buy out in Ferncliff and then drive their gas-guzzlers to work and back.  And they will send their children to Louisa schools and dump their trash in Louisa and demand that we hire more police to keep them safe all this while they are buying their gas and furniture and appliances and food and clothing outside of Louisa County.  Please vote against turning nice rural Ferncliff into the Charlottesville suburb of Ferndale.                                        

With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Wright closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.

Mr. Carter said one comment was that the County was going to be saddled with the cost of the sewer plant.  Mr. Carter said that wasnt the intent, the intent was to provide the design to the County and as other land along Route 250 was developed, the County could charge the other applicants their share of the cost for the plant.  

Mr. Carter said he was under the impression that the proffers could be changed any time prior to the Board meeting.  

Mr. Carter indicated that they would have a professional operating the plant and all of those costs would be borne by the people who paid the rates there.  

Mr. Purcell said he thought the Board needed to look at the concept of having PUDs in growth areas.  Mr. Purcell said it was consensus of the Board that they wanted to develop on water and sewer, which cost a lot of money to put in.  Mr. Purcell indicated that the Board knew that if they didnt get commercial and industrial development in the County to help offset the tax rate, the County would just develop residentially and provide no help to the tax payers.  Mr. Purcell stated the Comprehensive Plan was designed to get the population centered in order to bring in commercial to help the reduce the citizens taxes.  

Mr. Purcell said with regards to this particular project, he saw some problems with it; however, he thought the applicant had done a lot to help the project be better.    

Mr. Havasy said since the Comprehensive Plan came about, it seemed like 95 percent of the people in Louisa County agreed to keeping the County rural and he had a hard time looking at 310 units on 100 acres as keeping the County rural.  Mr. Havasy questioned how many of the 17 proffers were changed.  Mr. Coffey said there were only three to four adjustments that he detected in the changes on the proffers.  Mr. Coffey added they were all changed for clarification purposes to incorporate items that they had discussed with staff or Mr. Barnes.  Mr. Coffey indicated that proffer changes were allowed by law prior to the public hearing and they happen with almost every conditional rezoning.  Mr. Coffey stated all of the changes that have ever happened have been a reflection of the input given by citizens and appointed or elected officials.  


Mr. Havasy questioned how many test wells would be drilled around the entire site to monitor the waters for the neighbors.  

Mr. Gentry stated the reason the applicant amended the proffers was because he was attempting to address the concerns from the previous meetings.  Mr. Gentry stated he would like to see a PUD heavy on the commercial and light on the residential.  Mr. Gentry added he didnt think the infrastructure was quite ready for this particular development.


Mr. Jennings said this development would be a change in the community, but at the same time, the applicant did meet the three guidelines and the project was in compliance.  Mr. Jennings added he thought the Board needed to be consistent on their decisions for PUDs.  Mr. Jennings indicated that this particular PUD addressed affordable housing and housing for senior citizens.  Mr. Jennings said that area was a good area for water; therefore, he didnt think water was an issue with this project.  Mr. Jennings said also, he didnt think that traffic on Route 250 would be an issue.      

Mr. Harper said there were a lot of very strong positives with this project and some concerns with it as well.  Mr. Harper stated he liked PUDs and he thought they were the way to go, but he didnt contemplate being on private wells; however the Board had rezoned a lot of property residential that were on individual wells.  Mr. Harper said when the Board asked the applicant about monitoring the wells, he didnt recall the Board asking residential rezonings if they were going to be monitoring the wells; therefore, he thought that was an unfair request for this particular applicant.
 

Mr. Wright indicated that he thought the development would be an awful heavy load for that area.  Mr. Wright stated the proffers were a one-time payment, not an annual payment, and the cost implication of the project to the County would have to be considered.

Mr. Barnes stated the County and the Board needed to decide on what they were going to do with PUDs.  Mr. Barnes said any seminars about growth issues state that growth should occur along interstates and interchanges.  Mr. Barnes said 30 homes for affordable housing may not seem like a lot to some people, but that would be 30 more people able to own a home.  Mr. Barnes stated if another residential home werent built in Louisa County, taxes would increase because properties would be worth more.  Mr. Barnes added Louisa had been very consistent with the tax rates for the past ten years.  Mr. Barnes said this was an innovative project that a lot of people werent ready for.  Mr. Barnes said he was concerned about the water and the sewer piece of the project and he would like to see the developer address some issues with the water concerns.    


On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, with Mr. Havasy voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board voted to postpone the decision for the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 104.6 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) indefinitely to give Mr. Carter an opportunity to address the citizens and Boards concerns about water and sewer for the project.

REZ11-07; Gregory D. Hosaflook, Applicant and Gregory D. and Suzette L. Hosaflook, Owners request rezoning of approximately 0.7 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to General Commercial (C-2).  The property is located on the south side of Route 250 (Three Notch Road), immediately west of the Route 659 (Kents Store Road) intersection.  The property is further identified as a portion of tax map parcel 67-(2)-A, in the Patrick Henry Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Community Service within the Ferncliff designated Growth Area.

This request is for the rezoning of approximately 11.51 acres from Agricultural (A-2) and General Commercial (C-2) to entirely General Commercial (C-2) for the purpose of having consistent zoning on the property.

Approximately .7 acres of the subject parcel is currently zoned Agricultural (A-2), located at the back of the parcel.  The surrounding properties are zoned Agricultural (A-2) and primarily General Commercial (C-2).

Besides the applicant, no one was present to discuss this case at the Neighborhood Meeting held on September 12, 2007.

The Development Review Committee met on September 26, 2007 in reference to the requested rezoning application.

The Development Review Committee commented that the requested rezoning was appropriate, especially for the area.  There were no stated concerns or questions.

A motion was made by Mr. Jennings to forward this application to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval.  Mr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0.

The Planning Commission met on October 11, 2007 in reference to the requested rezoning application.

The Planning Commission commented that the requested rezoning was appropriate, especially for the area.  There were no stated concerns or questions.

A motion was made by Ms. Price to forward this application to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval.  Mr. Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0.

The requested rezoning appears to be consistent with the 2006 Comprehensive Plan designation of Community Service, within the Ferncliff Designated Growth Area, and consistent with the zoning and development of adjacent properties.  The request is also consistent with recent rezoning cases in this area.

Mr. Wright opened the public hearing.

Ms. Gina Lombardi, Patrick Henry District, stated she was not opposed to the rezoning request, but she wanted to state that her property abutted Mr. Hosaflooks property and was also split zoned.  Ms. Lombardi said apparently, sometime in the past, it was decided that so many feet from I-64 or Route 250 had to have a commercial zone.  Ms. Lombardi said she wished that something else could be done for a consistent zoning on a property because it seemed ashamed that people had to go through such trouble to get a small portion of a lot rezoned.

With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Wright closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the request for rezoning of approximately 11.51 acres from Agricultural (A-2) and General Commercial (C-2) to General Commercial (C-2).

CUP06-07; G. B. Duke, Applicant/Owner requests the issuance of a conditional use permit for the construction of mini-warehouse units.  The property is located on the southeasterly side of Route 652 (Kentucky Spring Road), 0.2 mile south of Route 739 (Plum Tree Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 46-(36)-12, in the Jackson Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Low Density Residential within the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area.

This area is zoned predominately Agricultural (A-2) and Residential General (R-2), with a small strip of commercially zoned property directly to the north.  The Board of Supervisors recently rezoned this property, along with the adjoining parcels, to Light Commercial (C-1).  The proposed use, mini-warehouse, should have minimum impacts on traffic, public services or local infrastructure.

Except for the applicant, there was no one present to speak during the Neighborhood Meeting held on September 12, 2007.

The Development Review Committee met on September 26, 2007 in reference to the requested conditional use permit.

The Development Review Committee did not state any concerns about the proposal.  There was discussion about having 24-hour access to the units, where the hours of operation applied only to when there would be staff on site.  There was also discussion about access to the site from the internal subdivision street and signage.

A motion was made by Mr. Winston to forward this application to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval.  Mr. Speer seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0.

The Planning Commission met on October 11, 2007 in reference to the requested conditional use permit.

The Planning Commission did not state any concerns about the proposal.  There was discussion about the hours of operation.  The Commission decided to limit public access to the facility, from 6:00 a.m. to 12 a.m.  There was also discussion about fencing for the storage units.

Mr. Winston made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval, where an attendant may be present between 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and with no public access between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.  Mr. Spencer provided the second, the motion carried with a vote of 7-0.

It does not appear that the requested conditional use permit for the construction of a mini-warehouse will have an adverse impact on the area.  The Board of Supervisors may wish to consider the following conditions, along with any other conditions the Board deems appropriate:

      1.        Normal hours of daily public access shall not be earlier than 6:00 a.m. or later than midnight, with additional access permitted under exigent or emergency circumstances.
2.        All lighting shall be of the dark sky variety.
3.        The proposed conditional use must obtain site plan submittal with administrative review and approval.
4.        All rental or use agreements shall prohibit onsite storage of hazardous materials that could be reasonably expected to cause injury or harm to adjacent properties or to the            general public and shall empower the owner/operator to abate such condition without prior notice to the tenant.
5.        All rental or use agreements shall provide that all stored materials must be contained within the designated storage unit.
6.        The facility shall be surrounded by a visual and/or aesthetic vegetative buffer including a landscaped strip not less than fifteen feet wide.
7.        The Board of Supervisors or their designated representative reserves the right to inspect the premises at any time without prior notice.
8.        Violation of any of the conditions shall be grounds for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit.


The Board of Supervisors may wish to consider conditions dealing with the type of fencing, landscaping and signage.

Mr. James Lillie, Agent for G. B. Duke, stated proffer number 1 was revised to add additional access under exigent or emergency circumstances.  Mr. Lillie said he expanded on proffer number 4 because he wanted to make it a more subjective standard to give some sort of a vehicle for the owner/operator to be able to control and abate any situation if it were discovered that there were hazardous materials being stored there.  Mr. Lillie indicated that the word “screening” was conspicuously absent in proffer number 6.

Mr. Wright opened the public hearing.

With no one wishing to speak, Mr. Wright closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the request with amended for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a self-storage (mini-warehouse).

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the November 5, 2007 meeting at 10:03 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


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