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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
5:00 P.M.

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

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Barnes called the November 6, 2006 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Jennings led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Sheriff Ashland Fortune provided additional information to his monthly report which included Sheriff fees of $445, 110 warrants served, 1112 civil papers served and 104 traffic summons issued.

CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD

John Carroll, Cuckoo District, stated that there appears to be a deficiency in the Shoreline Management exception process.  Mr. Carroll indicated that the 50 fairway regulation is not a reasonable number if there is not going to be an exception process.  Mr. Carroll noted that no one else requires a 50 fairway.  Mr. Carroll stated that these coves are so site specific there is no magic number.  When a resident is denied a boathouse it has a negative impact on the property values.  These residents were granted a right by Dominion to build boathouses or docks with the only exception being no living space.  Mr. Carroll doesnt see any gain denying requests when there is only a 30 fairway.  Mr. Carroll further noted that reducing A-2 regulations to seven is going to cause a burden on families who have held on to their land.  Mr. Carroll suggested that perhaps there is a middle ground that could be met; such as if property is held for five years or more, then a resident can get the maximum amount of division rights.

Doug Whitlock, Mineral District, representing Lake Anna Land Corporation indicated that he was in attendance to address Shoreline Management guidelines.  Mr. Whitlock referenced an application in which the resident was unable to build a boathouse due to an existing boathouse across the cove.  He indicated that when coves already have boathouses in them, residents face difficulty building across from them and meeting the 50 fairway.  Mr. Whitlock stated that these coves are narrow and in general it will be difficult to meet the 50 regulation.  Mr. Whitlock indicated that he would like to see the guidelines revisited to come up with something more flexible.  Mr. Gentry, aware of the referenced application, asked if the boathouse could go deeper into the cove, which would also be closer to the applicants home.  Mr. Whitlock indicated that in order to move farther into the cove the required layout would create other problems, such as a pie shaped pier that would be difficult to navigate a boat to.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, indicated that there is an additional resolution for approval recognizing Mr. Tom Sneed for his 38 years of service to the Virginia State Police.  Mr. Morgan indicated litigation in the Mineral District needed to be discussed during closed session.  

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the agenda as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

VDOT Monthly Update Postponed until 11/20

Resolution Recognizing First Sergeant Tom Sneed for his thirty-eight years of service to the Virginia State Police
Mr. Gentry indicated that First Sergeant Tom Sneed retired November 1st and the Transportation Safety Commission will be presenting him with a certificate in appreciation of his service.  Mr. Gentry stated that he thought it would be appropriate for the Board to present Mr. Sneed with a resolution recognizing his service at the Transportation Safety Commission dinner.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, Mr. Gentry, Mr. Harper, Mr. Havasy, Mr. Jennings, Mr. Purcell and Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, Mr. Gentry, Mr. Harper, Mr. Havasy, Mr. Jennings, Mr. Purcell and Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing First Sergeant Tom Sneed for his thirty-eight years of service to the Virginia State Police.

Update Rural CSA
Paul Oswell, Director of Social Services, referenced his memo regarding an update of the Bunting property.  Mr. Oswell noted that the Rural CSA group has been meeting for several years in an effort to address the ever-growing CSA costs.  The group has talked about the opportunity to develop its own services to help reduce these costs. The Bunting property came available and it was suggested the County buy this property to operate some level of services.  Mr. Oswell stated that Rural CSA is excited about the chance to create a Continuum of Care.  They are currently working on a study on how to best develop this property.  Tentatively the plan is to use this space to be a preventive for children going into more restrictive treatment and as a place where a child can move to from a more restrictive residential care facility.  Mr. Oswell indicated that following an inspection of the property they have developed a list of items the house will need in order to use the facility. In addition, OCS is offering a grant for innovate community efforts to allocate funding for startup costs for community based services for children and adolescents who are placed in out-of-community residential care or who are at risk for such placement.  Mr. Oswell noted that Rural CSA is in an excellent position to secure one of these grants.  The funds will not be used to build a group home, as OCS has made it clear they would rather see the development of Continuum of Care. Mr. Oswell stated that there are currently fifty children in foster care.  

During discussion with the Board, Mr. Wright asked that Mr. Oswell touch on the rising cost of CSA, what percentage is county money versus state money and the study done by Fluvanna in trying to hold down costs.  Mr. Oswell indicated that CSA is all state and local funding, no federal.  Every locality has a match rate and Louisa has one of the highest in the state at 44%.  Fluvanna County has done a comprehensive study and the same concerns that Fluvanna has are basically the same that Louisa would have.  This study will be used in applying for the grant being offered by the Office of Comprehensive Services.  Mr. Purcell questioned if the County is attempting to develop a new revenue stream by combining interests with surrounding localities.  Mr. Oswell indicated that if we join together with other localities we have a better chance when applying for grants.  Mr. Gentry indicated that taxpayers should be aware of the funds the County puts into this program, noting that a payment of $116,684.06 is included in the bills currently before the Board for approval.  Mr. Harper questioned why the grant is more interested in services instead of facilities.  Mr. Oswell indicated that they feel the expense of creating preventive services is more beneficial than building new facilities.  Mr. Harper questioned who set the match rate and Mr. Oswell indicated that it was based on ability to pay and was set in 1992-1993.  Mr. Oswell indicated that this house would be limited to only six children and there will not be a problem keeping the facility full.  Mr. Harper questioned how this would be cost effective and Mr. Oswell indicated that there would be more specialized care in this type of environment and it would be provided at cost.  Mr. Barnes questioned if the treatment facilities are where our greatest expenses come from and can this facility handle some of those children.  Mr. Oswell indicated that this facility will be able to handle some of these children, but it is not a simple matter of moving children to a lower level of care.  Mr. Barnes questioned the percentage of kids that would require this level of care.  Mr. Oswell stated that he did not know this percentage at the moment and Mr. Barnes indicated that this is something that needs to be reviewed.  Mr. Oswell indicated that he would return at a later date to receive approval for the grant application.

OLD BUSINESS

Subdivision Review BBS Corporation, Applicant/Owner Mineral Magisterial and Voting Districts Route 644 (21 Lots) Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development, indicated that this is a revised plan for the Mount Airy Subdivision in the Mineral Magisterial and Voting District which was tabled at the October 16th Board meeting.  The revised plan shows the parent parcels on the same sheet and how many lots on each parcel.  There is also a fax giving their rational for the 21 lots.  The new internal subdivision street will be a state road and the 100-foot buffer will be a vegetative buffer.  The number of lots proposed remains 21.  

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Coffey what the staffs position was and Mr. Coffey indicated that they had advised the applicant in writing that the Board had questioned why the number of lots was greater than 18 and suggested to the applicants that they consider reducing the total number of lots.  

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which failed to carry by a vote of 5-2 against, with Messrs. Harper and Gentry voting in favor, the Board voted to deny the application as submitted.

Mr. Purcell recommended sending this application back to staff with a recommendation for an 18-lot subdivision.  

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to send the application back to staff with a recommendation for an 18-lot subdivision.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution Supplemental appropriation of proffer funds
Mr. McLeod indicated that there is a resolution to do a supplemental appropriation of proffers received over the past two years totaling $49,560.  Those funds are currently in the capital funds balance and he suggests it be appropriated to the new elementary school.  Mr. McLeod indicated that a methodology needs to be set up for use of proffers in the future so the requests come before the Board in a timely manner.  Mr. Wright asked what other options there were for this money and Mr. McLeod indicated these funds could be allocated to anything that is in the CIP.  Mr. Purcell questioned how this would affect the cost of the school and Mr. McLeod stated that the bottom line remains the same but it will be less money the County would have to borrow.  Mr. Gentry indicated that he feels this money should go back into infrastructure costs at Zions Crossroads or the pool project.  Mr. Barnes acknowledged Mr. Gentrys concerns but noted that the school is the foremost project right now and feels that is were the money is currently needed.

On motion by Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Gentry voting against, the Board adopted a resolution to do a supplemental appropriation of proffer funds.

Resolutions To award the contracts for the Telecommunications Master Plan and application review to CityScape Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Coffey stated that an RFP was sent out, seven qualified responses were received and the selection committee chose to interview four firms.  All four firms offer the same three basic services:  master plan zoning ordinance amendment service, application agreement review service and site leasing management service.  Mr. Coffey indicated that what was presently before the Board is the master plan zoning ordinance amendment service which is $53,200 and also the application agreement review service which is $4,000 for any future applications.  If acceptable this alleviates the burden from staff, gives a more professional thorough analysis for the Board during the CUP process and would ensure conformance with the plan.  Mr. Coffey indicated that fees would have to be amended by ordinance following proper advertising.  The fee would include our $500 CUP fee plus the $4,000 fee, which is not out of line with other communities and would be paid at the time of application submittal.  The Committee is recommending CityScape and this company specializes in these services.  

During discussion with the Board, Mr. Wright questioned who organized the committee and who served on the committee.  Mr. Coffey indicated that he had organized the committee and the committee included himself, Will Cockrell, Bob Hardy, Jason Pauley, and Faye Stewart.  Mr. Coffey noted that Mr. McLeod and Mr. Lintecum were kept inform during all steps of the process.  Mr. Havasy questioned the return address of Florida and Mr. Coffey stated that the home office is in Florida but our contact is in Virginia Beach.  Mr. Coffey assured the Board that he personally checked all of the references.  Mr. Gentry stated that we have expertise in house for some of the administrative tasks that are listed and questioned if that could save us money by reducing some items.  Mr. Coffey indicated that the company offers a turnkey project and he negotiated as much as he could.  Mr. Coffey noted that if he felt this could done in house we would, but feels if it is to be done properly it should be done by a company that knows what they are talking about to ensure a quality product.  Mr. Purcell agreed with the choice but questioned where Cityscape is going to start at in looking at the county and its needs.  Mr. Coffey stated that they will do a complete analysis of the county, for the county, and it will not be compared to anyone else.  Mr. Coffey assured the Board that as the Planning Director, when projects are outsourced the quality control will be done by himself and if things are not done correctly he will take care of them.  

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to award the Telecommunications Master Plan to CityScape Consultants, Inc..

Mr. Harper indicated that he feels that once the map is received we should be able to handle the other tasks ourselves.  Mr. Coffey indicated that due to the complicated nature many counties have moved to this service.  Mr. Coffey further indicated that the cost of the master plan service was reduced if this serviced is also accepted.  Mr. Havasy asked how reluctant providers will be to pay this additional fee and Mr. Coffey indicated that the does not feel it will have any affect.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Harper against, the Board agreed to award the Application Review contract to CityScape Consultants, Inc..

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Barnes indicated that he has a request for two Board members to attend a luncheon in Charlottesville on November 29th.  If any Board members can attend please let him know by Wednesday.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Gentry asked that Ms. Hortense Lewis be reappointed to the Health Center Commission.  Mr. Wright asked that Mr. Scott Dickson be appointed to the Workforce Investment Act Board to replace Joe Sabel who has resigned.

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board reappointed Ms. Hortense Lewis to the Health Center Commission and appointed Mr. Scott Dickson to the Workforce Investment Act Board.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum indicated that there is a need for a budget calendar again this year.  Mr. Lintecum referenced a memo from McLeod regarding the Countys credit rating and that Mr. McLeod had received proposals from three vendors and recommends Springsted Incorporated.  Mr. Harper questioned what this is needed for.  Mr. McLeod indicated that it would be beneficial in getting the best financing available for the large projects that the County will be facing in the near future.  Mr. Harper questioned whether the County could beat the VACO/VML or state bonds. Mr. McLeod indicated that we dont know for sure but this gives the County the opportunity to receive the best rates possible and the VACO/VML would be an AA rating.  Mr. McLeod indicated that there is no mechanism in place to get the state rating.  Mr. Harper indicated that he couldnt support this motion unless it is known whether or not the County can pool with the state.  Mr. Barnes noted that other localities are also concerned with their credit ratings.  Mr. McLeod indicated that this is an initial cost to begin the process and additional cost requirements will need to be met at a later time.  Mr. Wright indicated that the County has to have a plan in place and needs financial options.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved moving forward with starting the process to create a credit rating.

Mr. Gentry indicated that there had been a request from the IDA for an additional $25,000 for moving the dirt pile at the Betty Queen Center.  Mr. Gentry indicated that he feels this is a reasonable amount to complete the project.  Mr. Harper questioned if there was an initial estimate done and Mr. Jason Pauley, County Engineer, stated that we did not have any actual numbers for the total cost estimate provided by the IDA.  Mr. Barnes asked if this dirt is moved will it completely resolve this issue and Messrs. Pauley and Gentry confirmed that it will.  

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved allocation of $25,000 in additional funds for moving the dirt pile at the Betty Queen Center.  

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution Appropriation to CIP for funds donated for the creation of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitors Center

On motion by Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, the Board adopted a resolution to appropriation to CIP for fund donated for the creation of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitors Center.

Resolution Authorizing allocation of emergency preparedness funds from Virginia Department of Emergency Management

On motion by Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing allocation of emergency preparedness funds from Virginia Department of Emergency Management.

Schedule Public Hearing Amend the Louisa County Code, Section 14.41, dogs running at large in certain subdivisions, penalty for violation; to add Hidden Hills Subdivision, Green Spring District, Louisa County, Virginia. (December 4, 2006)

On motion by Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved to schedule the public hearing to amend the Louisa County Code, Section 14.41, dogs running at large in certain subdivisions; penalty for violation, to add Hidden Hills Subdivision, Green Spring District, Louisa County, Virginia. (December 4, 2006)

Schedule Public Hearing REZ16-06; Eloise N. Rogers, Applicant/Owner; Mary Johnson, Bells Surveys, Inc. Agent; requests rezoning of approximately 29.263 acres from Agricultural (A-2) and Residential General (R-2) to General Commercial (C-2).  The property is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Route 208 (New Bridge Road) and Route 670 (Oak Grove Drive).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 17-25, in the Mineral Magisterial and Voting Districts. (December 4, 2006)

On motion by Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved to schedule the public hearing for REZ16-06; Eloise N. Rogers, Applicant/Owner; Mary Johnson, Bells Surveys, Inc, Agent for December 4, 2006.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the second half of the month of October 2006 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $780,286.31.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the October 2, 2006 minutes.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the October 16, 2006 minutes.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:10 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. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this the 6th day of November 2006, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and

WHEREAS, 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this the 6th day of November 2006, 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 Consultation with Legal Counsel, in accordance with 2.23711(a)(7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consulting with counsel.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZ14-05; Mack R. and Julie B. Houston, Applicants/Owners request rezoning of approximately 99.00 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Residential Limited (R-1).  The property is located on the northeast side of Route 618 (Belsches Road), between Route 601 (Bumpass Road) and Route 701 (Borden Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 76-14, in the Jackson Magisterial and Voting District.  The 2006 Louisa County Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural; Very Low Density Residential.  The nearest growth area is the Lake Anna designated growth area approximately one mile north of the subject property.

There were five persons present for the Neighborhood Meeting held on January 11, 2006.  The concerns and questions presented were entrance locations, covenants, notification to lot purchasers of adjacent uses, number of perk sites on property, location of the pond on-site, what size homes will be constructed, any proffers that were proposed and affect on water supply.

The Development Review Committee met on January 25, 2006 to review this request.  The applicants representative discussed the number of lots, soils, road and lot layout, and proffers that the applicant would be willing to submit.  The Committee discussed, in detail, the questions and concerns that were raised at the Neighborhood Meeting and voted 7-0, to forward a recommendation of denial to the Planning Commission based on their analysis and conclusions presented by Staff.  It was also the recommendation of the Committee that the applicant work with Staff to develop proffers prior to the Planning Commission meeting.

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on February 9, 2006 at which there were four people present who spoke against the requested rezoning.  These individuals did not feel that the questions asked during the previous meetings had been adequately answered and again reiterated concern about adjacent land use.  The Commission discussed the issues identified and the issue of spot zoning and voted (5-0, with Mr. Barlow abstaining) to forward a recommendation of denial to the Louisa County Board of Supervisors on the requested rezoning.

There does not seem to be any direct benefit to the surrounding neighborhood to approve a rezoning to residential to allow the increase in density that an approved rezoning would permit.  The proposed use represents an incompatible land use for this area in that the predominant land use is that of agricultural parcels.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as agricultural, which is intended to promote the open character and protect active agricultural uses.

In conclusion, it appears that a zoning change in this area serves only the private interest of the applicant and does not further the welfare of the entire community as part of an overall zoning plan.  The request is incompatible with the area land use and zoning patterns; inconsistent with the 2006 Comprehensive Plan designation of this area as Agricultural; and appears to represents spot zoning.  Mr. Coffey indicated that the proffers he gave to the Board are revised and substantially increased.  

During discussion with the Board, Mr. Purcell asked if work was started on this project using the previous comprehensive plan.  Mr. Coffey indicated that it was based on the old comprehensive plan, which did not show this as a growth area, and the Buckner area was listed as a growth area.  There was some discussion whether the area between Lake Anna and Buckner as well as Bumpass should be growth areas.  The Planning Commission felt very strongly that there was no growth in these areas and in fact that the Buckner growth area should be deleted from the plan.  

Mr. Barnes opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if they wished to speak.  Mr. Jim Lilly addressed the Board indicating he represented the applicants.  Mr. Lilly stated that one of the considerations they had in trying to figure out whether this area at the intersection of Rt. 601 and Rt. 618 should be a designated growth area centered on the fact that there was a designated growth area at the Buckner intersection of Rt. 650 and Rt. 618.  Mr. Lilly stressed that the property proposed for rezoning is unique having very large road frontage and development of this property in any kind of a sensible way under agricultural zoning would end up not using it well.  Mr. Lilly referenced the updated proffers that were submitted and reviewed them with the Board along with maps of the property and surrounding areas.  The proffers included roads and entrances into the subdivision, lot sizes, open areas, affordable housing, buffers, and building setbacks which are agricultural zoning setbacks.  Mr. Lilly indicated that the applicants have also set aside 10-acres that has been donated to the Lake Anna Community Church.  Mr. Lilly stressed that the infrastructure needed for this area to be a growth area already exists and that this is not an inconsistent or incompatible use for this property.  Mr. Lilly stated that with the proffers that have been offered they have taken this property out of the category of spot zoning and this project fulfills what the Board has established as wanting for subdivisions.  

Mr. Randy M. Jackson, Patrick Henry District, indicated that he was raised in the Jackson District and is currently building a house in the Patrick Henry District.  Mr. Jackson indicated that he supports this application and feels that this is a great opportunity for the County to have affordable housing in the Jackson District.

Mr. Sam Sieg, Jackson District, indicated that he is the Pastor for Lake Anna Community Church.  Mr. Sieg indicated that the church is very excited about this opportunity and feels that the churchs growth and ambitions will be beneficial to the community.  Mr. Sieg noted that the church desire that this facility to also be used as a community center.

Mr. Gary Claveloux, Jackson District, indicated that the questions previously asked in regard to this rezoning have not been answered.  Mr. Claveloux indicated that the signs for this rezoning were hidden and fell from heavy rains which prevented a lot of citizens from being at this meeting.  Mr. Claveloux stated that last February the citizens were told that the application was being rescinded and taken down and would not be extended or postponed.  Mr. Claveloux indicated that this proposal keeps changing and nothing is concrete such as previously there were two entrances and now there are three or four.

Mr. William Goodman, Jackson District, indicated that he owns property across from the proposed subdivision.  Mr. Goodman stated that he owns close to 380 acres with 200 acres fenced in and runs foxhounds about four nights a week.  Mr. Goodman noted that what they consider to be affordable housing does not seem affordable to him.  Mr. Goodman expressed his concern that new residents will not be happy with the fox pen on his property and it will cause problems for him in the future.

Ms. Monica Jackson, Patrick Henry District, stated that she feels that the Houstons are trying to do something beneficial for the community.  Ms. Jackson feels we need to come together as a community and support each other.  Ms. Jackson feels the complaints given for not supporting the Houstons are inadequate and are selfish excuses.  

Mr. Lilly stated that the donation of property to the church is not dependent on the approval of the application.  With no additional citizens wishing to speak Mr. Barnes closed the public hearing and brought discussion back to the Board.

During discussion by the Board, Mr. Wright stated that he is concerned that this property had a subdivision approved with a CUP about three years ago with a maximum of 15 homes.  Mr. Wright questions whether we are setting a precedent where property that has not yet been developed will return for additional lots.  Mr. Wright noted that the roads in this area are not designed for this kind of development and this will put additional strain on the schools.  Mr. Gentry noted that during the Development Committee meeting and the Planning Commission meeting this was ruled as spot zoning and questioned Mr. Coffey whether he had heard anything that changed the spot zoning determination.  Mr. Coffey stated that in his opinion from a planning perspective there had not been anything said to change that fact.  Mr. Coffey indicated that there were a lot of discussion during the Comprehensive Plan process about whether this should be a growth area, but we cannot have the entire county as a growth area and we must have defined growth areas.  Mr. Coffey stated if an exception were made for this, then it would be questioned for others.  Mr. Purcell stated that he applauds Mr. Goodmans stance and agrees that if people move into these areas they must be willing to accept the uses of the surrounding property in that area.  Mr. Purcell further noted that this is a rezoning request, not a by-right development and the applicants have spent their money going through this process the right way and thinks the County needs to be careful with the definition of spot zoning.  There was a lot of concern about not having enough growth in these areas and this proposal provides that.  Mr. Purcell stated he doesnt feel this will hurt the County.  Mr. Havasy stated that he applauds so much about this project but there have been 20-30 people who have reviewed this and not approved it and he has to side with our experts in this area.  Mr. Barnes stated that he is torn because he believes in the rights of owners and affordable housing, however, he is concerned with the compatibility of this project with other landowners.  Mr. Barnes stated under the previous CUP the applicant could still get seventeen lots on this property if the soils check out.  Mr. Barnes noted that this is a great concept, just in the wrong place.  Mr. Jennings noted that a lot of pain has gone into this application and applauds the Houstons on their efforts.  Mr. Jennings indicated that this is spot zoning, is incompatible with the comprehensive plan, there are too many lots, and the surrounding land-owners have concerns and he feels this would be better suited if done in five-acre parcels.

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which failed to carried by a vote of 6-1 against, with Mr. Purcell voting in favor, the Board voted to deny the rezoning request.

REZ12-06; B. T. Goodman Builders, Inc., Applicant; Kosmo Corporation c/o Pamela Smook Oliver, Owner; Cameron B. Wood, Agent; requests rezoning of approximately 88.79 acres from Agricultural (A-1) to Agricultural (A-2).  The property is located on the west side of Route 601 (Wickham Road), 1.9 miles north of Route 33 (Jefferson Highway).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 84-51, in the Jackson Magisterial District and Jackson Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural; Very Low Density Residential.

The A-2 zoning district is intended to be for agricultural use and the rezoning would appear to conform to the existing zoning of surrounding parcels, which is a mixture of A-1 and A-2.   However, the proposed use of the property into a 39 lot subdivision represents a more intensive level of residential development in the area which is currently large agricultural parcels with some single family residential lots ranging in size from 5-7 acres.  The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Agricultural; Very Low Density Residential.  An A-2 zoning district conforms to the surrounding area, which currently is a mixture of A-1 and A-2 zoning.

At the Neighborhood Meeting held on July 12, 2006, there were nine people present and concerns expressed by these individuals were: location of houses to adjoining properties, septic tank proximity to existing wells, the amount of housing units effect on local schools, quantity and speed of traffic, responsibility of maintenance of buffers, general growth the County, rural character, affect on property taxes, and the lack of fire protection in the area.

The Development Review Committee met on July 26, 2006 to review the referenced rezoning application.  It was the consensus of the Committee, that there were concerns with this type of application of connecting two parent parcels for subdivision development, in light of the recent Board of Supervisors discussions and subdivision reviews.  They therefore recommended forwarding the application to Planning Commission for review with no recommendation, 6-0.

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on August 10, 2006 at which time the applicant requested that action on the request be tabled until the September Planning Commission meeting.  At the September Planning Commission meeting the applicant and their agent discussed the entire project with respect to proffers, number of lots, restrictive covenants, affordable housing standards, road standards, exterior construction materials, foundation construction materials, establishment of a homeowners association, open space and recreation areas, fire department dry hydrant, emergency access road, natural buffer, landscape berm, utility lines and water and sewer service.  By a vote of 6-1 the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.

The application appears to conform to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation of this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential and is partially consistent with the surrounding zoning and current development/uses.  The proposal represents a more intensive level of residential development in the area, which is currently large agricultural parcels, with some single-family residential lots ranging in size from 5-7 acres.  There is an extensive list of proffers that were submitted for the Boards review.

Mr. Barnes opened the public hearing and asked the applicants if they wished to speak.  Mary Johnson, Bells Surveys, indicated that Mr. Goodman is the contract purchaser of this property and is a custom homebuilder operating out of Doswell.  Ms. Johnson stated that they fully understand and respect the concerns the Board and Committee have regarding subdivisions in the A-2 zoning districts.  Ms. Johnson noted that she thinks the Board will find this application is genuinely consistent with what the County will be asking developers to consider if they want a higher density then what is allowed for by right.  Ms. Johnson stressed that this is a rezoning request with voluntary proffers.  Ms. Johnson referenced maps during her discussion with the Board, which shows zoning of the surrounding area and the proposed lots.   Ms. Johnson noted that this rezoning would be consistent and in conformance with the surrounding growth in the community and offers a package that gives back to Louisa County and the local community.  Mr. Cameron Wood addressed the Board stating that he is a real estate broker and appraiser based out of Hanover and is representing Mr. Goodman.  Mr. Wood indicated that they believe this rezoning request conforms with the surrounding area and is not a spot zoning request.  Mr. Wood stated that it is their desire that this project be something they can be proud of and adds to the neighborhood and community.  Mr. Wood referenced a map of the subdivision while discussing the project and the proposed proffers which include: berms; buffers around the entire property; state maintained streets; set aside and fencing in the two existing cemeteries with private entrances; set aside a pond and a 7-8 acres area that includes a pole building to dedicate to a community organization, non-profit organization, or to the property owners association with the agreement that community/non-profit organization may use the facility for community events; build two pavilions and benches by the pond; connect an existing roadway as a fire/EMS emergency access road; affordable housing of not less than four homes; furnished tot lot, lots will not be further divided; exterior construction materials; no mobile homes; installation of dry hydrant with all-weather access road and parking area; and all utility lines will be under ground.

Mr. Walt Ven Huizen, Jackson District, addressed the Board stating he has property adjoining this property and feels that this is a good project for the area.  

With no other citizens wishing to speak Mr. Barnes closed the public hearing and brought discussion back to the Board.  Mr. Havasy asked what the percentage of open space would be and Ms. Johnson indicated that the open space would be approximately 19.4%.  Mr. Gentry stated that this was a very well done presentation and proposal.  Mr. Purcell noted that this is a rezoning request and the largest parcel is next to timber companies and they will not have a problem with it.  Mr. Jennings felt that the overall plan looked good, although there was a concentration of lots on the front, and he liked the opportunity for a charitable organization to utilize the open space.  Mr. Barnes indicated that it makes sense to allow the rezoning.

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the rezoning application.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to appeal the recent circuit court ruling that was presented.

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the November 6, 2006 regular meeting at 8:35 p.m. until Wednesday November 8, 2006.



BY ORDER OF


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

LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA