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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
December 5, 2005
5:00 P.M.



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


CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Barnes called the December 5, 2005 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Purcell led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Sheriff Fortune informed the Board that he has handed out a report that reflects the activities that took place in his Department for the month of November. Sheriff Fortune said that he has been asked not to read his report any longer.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD

There were no citizens that wished to address the Board.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Chairman Barnes said that he had spoke with Doug Straley today and told him that the Board would approve the resolution today congratulating the Varsity Football Team and schedule another day to present it to them. Chairman Barnes asked Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, to schedule a date with Doug Straley so they can present the resolution to the team.

Chairman Barnes said that he would like to add the Comprehensive Plan as a topic for discussion to the agenda.

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the December 5, 2005 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATION

Introduction James Reece

James Reece, Dominion Power Nuclear Regulatory Senior Resident Inspector, informed the Board that he was here this evening to introduce himself and comment on their inspection activities at the plant. Mr. Reece said that their mission is to regulate the Nations use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment. Mr. Reece pointed out that every nuclear power plant has at least two inspectors and identified Gerald Wilson as the other Resident Inspector at Dominion. Mr. Reece stated that their role is to implement the Inspection Program. Mr. Reece explained to the Board that they are not considered employees of the licensee and are limited to seven years at the plant in order for them to maintain objectivity. Mr. Reece outlined their Inspection Program and what is involved with their daily operations.

VDOT Update

Jamie Glass, VDOT Assistant Resident Administrator, summarized VDOTs current maintenance activities to the Board saying that their crews are conducting vegetation control operations on secondary roads and engaging and responding to our first significant snowfall. Mr. Glass summarized their general activities and response to Mr. Lintecums letter that was dated November 9, 2005 as correcting the Harts Mill Road designation; reviewed the reduced speed sign on Route 15 and advised appropriate staff to remove the sign; reviewed signage at Shiffletts Curve and requested additional signage to reduce speed ahead to 35MPH; personally monitored the intersection of Route 250 and 15 on November 8, 2005 where no u-turns were noted from a north/south directions, but were noted from the east/west direction; submitted a resolution for the Watch for Children at Play sign on Route 722 in the Fredericks Hall area; coordinated receipt of matching funds from the appropriate Louisa County staff, and reviewed passing zone locations on Route 15 north of Boswells Tavern prior to forwarding a letter to their Traffic Engineering Section to ask them to perform a study on this particular area and make recommendations.

Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Glass if he was going to work with them on the Secondary Six-Year Plan or it they needed to reschedule when Milton Thacker, VDOT Resident Engineer, would be available.

Mr. Glass replied that it would be better to schedule when Mr. Thacker is able to attend since he is not aware of what he had been discussing with the Board.

OLD BUSINESS

Resolution - Requesting a Traffic Speed/Safety Study on State Route 208 (Courthouse Road) Near the Entrance to Harris Creek Road (Route 630)

On motion of Mr.Purcell, seconded by Mr.Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted requesting a traffic speed/safety study on State Route 208 near the entrance to Harris Creek Road.

Resolution - Requesting a Traffic Speed/Safety Study at the Intersection of Route 522 (Zachary Taylor Highway) and Route 208 (New Bridge Road)

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted requesting a traffic speed/safety study at the intersection of Route 522 and Route 208.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - Appropriation of the Virginia Department of Housing Community Development Block Grant (CBDG)

Mr. Lintecum explained to the Board that these funds would be used towards the use, planning, and analysis for the need of funding a home for adults. Mr. Lintecum said that they are going to try to have this study done for the $21,000, but he is uncertain if they will be able to.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted to approve the supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3,000 for the CDBG Planning Grant.

Discussion Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review Lindsay Station Subdivision

Darren Coffey, Community Development Director, explained to the Board that this request is a subdivision review of the Lindsay Station Subdivision, which is off of Route 675 (Lindsay Road). Mr. Coffey said that this appears to be in conformance with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Coffey said that this is a preliminary plat review for a subdivision that contains twenty-eight lots in Louisa County and part of the subdivision will be in Albemarle County. Mr. Coffey stated that it meets all of the regulations in terms of minimum lot sizes. Mr. Coffey said that the internal state roads go across two apparent parcels for Tax Map 20-128 and 8-10; therefore it requires a review.

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Lindsay Station Subdivision to be processed administratively.

Comprehensive Plan Review

Chairman Barnes said that the Comprehensive Plan is coming up for review; therefore, he would like to have the Planning Commission look at the current plan and clearly identify the growth areas, include the Shoreline Management Plan, and the affordable housing component to bring their review back to the Board within ninety days.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Gentry saying that they want to make it clear that they do not want the Comprehensive Plan rewritten, but to have these three major items put into their review.

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board agreed to have the Planning Commission review the current Comprehensive Plan to include the growth areas, especially through the I-64 corridor, the Shoreline Management Plan, if approved this evening, and the affordable housing component and report back to them within ninety days with their recommendations.  

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Gentry informed the Board that both he and Mr. Harper have the first New Elementary School Committee meeting scheduled for December 14, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. and asked them to forward any comments or concerns they would like to have addressed.

The Board briefly discussed this topic with Chairman Barnes pointing out that the Board wants a functional school, but it is their responsibility to ensure that it is handled in a fiscally responsible way. Mr. Gentry said that the committees approach has been due to the numbers that they had from 2003/2004 for $12,000,000, which has now increased to $22,000,000. Mr. Gentry said that this committee has been reactivated to try to close the gap some and reach a compromise on the facility. Mr. Gentry said that no one has ever questioned the need for an elementary school, but the numbers and details have to be worked out to close the gap some. Chairman Barnes said that he would like to have this committee put together projections for future needs of schools.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Harper said that he would like to reappoint Brooks Besley to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Purcell said that he would like to reappoint
Jeff Feagans to the Health Center Commission and William Vawter to the Transportation Safety Commission.

        On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board reappointed Brooks Besley to the Planning Commission,
Jeff Feagans to the Health Center Commission, and William Vawter to the Transportation Safety Commission.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT

Mr. Lintecum presented his report highlighting the following items:

Mr. Lintecum informed the re-elected Board members that the swearing in ceremony is scheduled for Wednesday, December 21, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. at the Circuit Court.

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that their Conflict of Interest filings are due and asked that they forward them to Brenda Martin, Executive Manager.

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has enclosed a memo from Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator, regarding a request from Efficiency Roll Off for an increase in their fees to offset their additional fuel costs during the contract.

Mr. McLeod explained to the Board that the contract with Efficiency Roll Off was established in 1998. Mr. McLeod said that it was supposed to have an automatic increase in their rates to match the CPI (Consumer Price Index) yearly changes. Mr. McLeod said the cost of the fuel was not separated in the current contract and Efficiency was requesting a fuel increase because of prices of diesel gas over the past years. The request was sent to
Pat McWilliams, Director of Public Works, which is included in their Board Packet. Mr. McLeod said that the letter referenced what the rates of diesel fuel were at that time and the current price. Mr. McLeod explained he reviewed the current rates to verify the contract rates had been increased by the published CPI numbers. The rates showed they are 7% less than what they should be to keep up with the CPI. Mr. McLeod said that another way to handle the fuel change request is by creating a percentage to use until the contract is renegotiated in 2006 or the BOS could pick to create a rider methodology to use until the new contract. Mr. McLeod said that Efficiency is currently reviewing their options at what they can do differently to make things work better at the refuse sites. He stated they are establishing one more pickup at three different sites and adding another box at each site for December.

The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Mr. Harper pointing out that Mr. McLeod said that energy costs or fuel costs stood independently from the CPI, but the energy costs are an element of CPI. Mr. Gentry said that he would like to have a fuel adjustment clause included in the next contract. Mr. Gentry said that the last numbers that they received from Mr. Bobbitt on November 1, 2005 made reference to a 16% increase and asked if these numbers have been changed to coincide with the decreasing fuel costs.

Mr. McLeod replied that he understood that the energy costs were not included in the published CPI, but it is included in other versions of the CPI. Mr. McLeod said that the federal government had made an issue of fuel not being part of the CPI this year. Mr. McLeod said that some of the different components of the CPI are increased by energy, but the fuel costs themselves are not part of that calculation. Mr. McLeod said that he would verify this information and send an email to the Board. Mr. McWilliams said that diesel fuel has gone down about $.60 from the date of the initial letter. Mr. McWilliams said that he feels that they need to implement a fuel adjustment clause to cover these unforeseen costs.

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board agreed to increase the Efficiency Roll Off Contract by 7% and for a rider to be created.


CONSENT AGENDA

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board agreed to adopt the Consent Agenda for the following four resolutions:

Resolution - Congratulations to the 2005 Louisa County High School Varsity Football Team

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution of congratulations to the 2005 Louisa County High School Varsity Football Team for claiming the Jefferson District Championship Title was adopted.  

Resolution - To Add Shoreview Court and Stonewall Court into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted to add Shoreview Court (New State Route 1128) and Stonewall Court (New State Route 1129) into the VDOT Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia.

Resolution - Supplemental Appropriation to the CIP for Replacement Vehicles

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted approving the supplemental appropriation to the CIP for replacement vehicles in the amount of $800.00 from the sale of a 1993 GMC Pickup, VIN 1FTZF1726WNB78624.

Resolution - Appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for Funds Donated for the K-9 Unit

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted approving the supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for funds donated to the K-9 Unit in the amount of $300.00.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has enclosed a letter from the Governors office regarding the signs for the Trevilian Station Battlefield.

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has enclosed a letter from the Mineral Volunteer Fire Department regarding the proffer with the Cutalong project.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Harper saying that they should acknowledge their letter and let them know that once the transaction has taken place, they would address it at that time.

Chairman Barnes referenced the letter that was received from Mr. Robert Gregory praising the Community Development Department for their professionalism.

LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE

Pat Morgan, County Attorney, did not discuss any legal correspondence with the Board.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

Mr. Harper said that he would like to abstain from a reimbursement check pertaining to him.

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 5-0, with Mr. Harper abstaining from a reimbursement check pertaining to him, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the second half of November 2005, for the County of Louisa in the amount of $338,528.96.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board adopted the minutes of November 21, 2005 as presented.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 5:37 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 for discussion of litigation in the Green Springs area.

2.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the
Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel for discussion of the wells in the Green Springs District.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 6:58 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this the 5th day of December 2005, 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 5th day of December 2005, 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

Amendment to the Louisa County Code Section 14.41, Dogs Running at Large in Certain Subdivisions, to Add Willow Brook Estates Subdivision

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board he received a letter from the Willow Brook Estates Subdivision requesting that they be added to the Louisa County Code, Section 14.41, Dogs Running at large

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. With no one wishing to address the Board, Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.

        On the motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted to amend the Louisa County Code, Section 14.41, Dogs Running at Large in Certain Subdivisions; penalty for violation, to add Willow Brook Estates Subdivision.

Amendment to the Louisa County Code to Propose an Ordinance Creating the Cutalong Community Development Authority

Mr. Lintecum explained to the Board that this hearing is to create a Community Development Authority (CDA) for the Cutalong project. Mr. Lintecum said that this would allow the CDA to have the ability to issue bonds, which would pay for some of the amenities that would go into this development. Mr. Lintecum stated that the Board adopted an ordinance in October that would allow the creation of these Community Development Agencies.  

Mr. Morgan said that he has reviewed the documents that were forwarded by the McGuire Woods Attorney, Bonnie France and have found that everything is in order. Mr. Morgan explained that there is a defined area that would be set up for the Public Service Authority, which is in exhibit A. Mr. Morgan said that if the Board feels that this is a desirable way to allow the development to make improvements, this would be the mechanism that they should use.

The Board discussed this topic with Chairman Barnes saying that the Board of Supervisors under applicable provision of Virginia Code shall appoint the members of the Board for the CDA. Chairman Barnes asked when the Board had to take action by for the proposed appointees. Mr. Purcell said that in Article 4, it says, “that the petitioner proposes that the CDA requests the Board of Supervisors to establish a special assessment upon the property within the District to finance the improvements as provided in the code” and asked if that meant that they would be the ones to establish what the levy is.

Mr. Morgan replied that there is a list of proposed Board members for the CDA that are Larry Quinn Dickens, Lake Anna Design President; Gene Newman, Chase Home Financial Mortgage Loan Officer; Ronald Eugene Craddock of Charlottesville, Virginia; Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Board of Supervisors Representative; and Mary Elizabeth Johnson, Bell Surveys Co-Owner. Mr. Morgan said that he anticipated that the appointments would be named at the same time the creation of the CDA took place. Mr. Morgan confirmed that the Board of Supervisors would be the ones to establish the levy and it would be based upon what the cost of the improvements and the like were. Mr. Morgan said that this would be a special taxing District for the parcels that are identified for the CDA.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. With no one wishing to address the Board, Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.  

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 4-0-1, with Mr. Gentry abstaining, a resolution was adopted to amend the Louisa County Code creating the Cutalong Community Development Authority as identified in the attachment to RES05.135 that is located in the County Administrators Office.

Amendments to the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 86 to Add Division Five, Lake Anna Shoreline Use and Design Regulations

Mr. Coffey stated that the purpose of the Shoreline Management Committee was to examine the issue of shoreline management around Lake Anna. Mr. Coffey identified the members that participated in the Shoreline Management Committee to the Board and said that everything that the committee did was premised on three goals: to protect the water quality, ensure public safety, and to preserve the quality of life. Mr. Coffey gave an overview of the committees recommendations as:

*        Develop use and design standards for adoption in the zoning ordinance to help those that develop along the Lake Anna shoreline.

*        Develop a public education campaign for shoreline stabilization.

*        Develop a public education campaign for point source lake pollution.

Mr. Coffey said that their intent was to encourage the publics health, safety, and welfare with equitable and enforceable conditions for development along the Lake Anna shoreline. He said that unless it is specifically stated otherwise, the provisions set forth in these guidelines do not apply to structures built, or otherwise approved by Louisa County or Dominion, prior to the adoption of these standards. Mr. Coffey said that these standards are mandatory unless the Planning Commission grants a special exception. Mr. Coffey said that they had reviewed Dominions guidelines very thoroughly and decided to say that before they adopt these guidelines then they would not reference a date, so if the guidelines were changed in the future and they agreed with them, they would have to hold a public hearing to amend the ordinance. Mr. Coffey said that they determined that if Dominion could give the County about a four-month notification should they want to make any changes, this would give them time to review, then they would enumerate this in the specific section of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Coffey said that the use and design standards consisted of three main categories for water quality, safe navigation, and neighbor policies. Water quality addressed two main issues for upland erosion and shoreline stabilization, which are intended to go above and beyond what the current E&S Ordinance recommends. Mr. Coffey said that the Soil and Water Conservation District recommended that the preferred method of erosion and sediment control is a riparian buffer, which means that you would have a 100 wide natural forested buffer. Mr. Coffey said that the measures would go above and beyond the standard erosion and sediment. He said that the preferred method was having a 100 wide natural buffer along the shoreline, but they recognize that this would be unfeasible, as many property owners would want to have a view of the lake; therefore, they are not saying that this is required, but a preferred method.  Mr. Coffey said that based on this information, the committee has recommended that they either have that type of buffer or for a slope that is 0-15% you would be required to have an 18” high berm that is 4.5 wide and anything greater than 15% would have the same berm plus a 25 buffer that is undisturbed and vegetated by environmentally friendly innovative organic methods. Mr. Coffey said that if they prefer to use a structural method then they recommend that they use rip-rap, bulkhead materials, or geo-textile fabrics unless otherwise approved by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District. Mr. Coffey said that they recommended water access entrances and fairways into private harbors to be at least 50 in width for safe navigation. The length of a structure on the water should not protrude more than 1/3 of the distance across a cove to a maximum of 150 in Agricultural/Residential areas and 200 for Commercial areas. Mr. Coffey said that they are also recommending that all lake structures have a 2” minimum diameter white reflector affixed along the sides of a structure at intervals of 6, any structures greater than 50 in length would require dark sky lighting and would require all lake structures be in compliance by November 1, 2007. Mr. Coffey identified their recommendations for structures on the water covering the dimensions and the amount of waterfront that is required. Mr. Coffey said that any structure that would exceed these recommended standards would require a special exception. Mr. Coffey identified the changes that were recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffey said that the maximum height for structures would be 20 for a flat roof, 28 for a pitched roof, and 34 for commercial structures. He said that second stories are allowed on structures, but the second level cannot be enclosed. Mr. Coffey said that a pump out station would be required for commercial areas if they introduce traffic into the lake. Mr. Coffey said that they determined that the standards established by Dominion for dredging, excavating, and filling would govern these activities along with other applicable federal, state, and local codes, unless otherwise noted in this section. In conclusion, Mr. Coffey said that if this ordinance were adopted, then it would incorporate the use and design standards that he just reviewed into the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance.

The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Mr. Purcell saying that he would like to ask a couple of questions in order for him to respond to several constituents that have brought this to his attention. Mr. Purcell questioned if the ordinance addressed agricultural activities such as cutting timber and farming under the neighboring policies.  Mr. Purcell asked whether this document gives them control over Dominions operations in any way for what they decide to do on their property. Chairman Barnes questioned what the driving factor was on the inclusion of dark sky lighting in this ordinance.

In response to the Boards questions, Mr. Coffey replied that the ordinance did not cover agricultural activities. Mr. Coffey said that this ordinance would not impact Dominions operations unless they were to construct something new that required a land disturbance permit. Mr. Coffey said that the committee had talked about this topic a lot where they reviewed several other lake communities and found that lighting had been an issue; therefore, they determined that if a structure were projected out more that 50 on the lake, then for safety reasons, they felt that the structure should be lit.    

Mr. Gentry emphasized that the committee focused on water quality, safety navigation, and neighborhood policies. Mr. Gentry said that the lighting fell under the safety concerns.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.

Barb Kempf, Jackson District, informed the Board that she was here this evening to address the issues that were sent to the Board by George Heino, Jr., which Mr. Coffey already addressed one of his concerns by wanting to have the Dominion Guidelines posted somewhere for individuals to review. Ms. Kempf said that Mr. Heinos, second concern was dealing with the light requirements. Ms. Kempf said that Mr. Heino had spoke with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries regarding the lighting and found that they also object to having lights on the lake due to safety issues. Ms. Kempf said that Mr. Heino would like to have the boats in a no wake section at ideal speed within 50 of a dock. Ms. Kempf said that Mr. Heino would like to know who would be responsible to pay for the lighting. She said that he also had concerns about the commercial and common areas of not being consistent on the issue of square footage, which he would recommend 50. Ms. Kempf said that his last concern was the extension of the structures, which he feels that if all structures were in a straight line from their property, then it would not cross in front of someones particular area.

Harry Ruth, Jackson District, reminded the Board that he had previously sent them a letter pertaining to this topic on November 17, 2005. Mr. Ruth expressed his disappointment that the documents were not posted on the web for citizens to review on the Countys website. Mr. Ruth emphasized the importance of having some type of Shoreline Management Policy for Lake Anna. Mr. Ruth said that he has problem dealing with the term that has been referenced for waste heat treatment facility and asked the Board to consider changing it to cooling lagoons, so individuals are not offended. Mr. Ruth said that instead of referring to the Lake as Dominions property, he would prefer that they refer to it as Lake Anna Shoreline. Mr. Ruth said that he would like to have access to review Dominions Guidelines as referenced earlier by Mr. Coffey, but he would like to have the date included to reflect the date that it was effective. Mr. Ruth said that one of the other areas of concern is that the document refers to a “Lake Anna Shoreline Agreement” in lieu of a erosion or sediment control plan, which he would like to have posted on the Countys website for citizens to become familiar with it. Mr. Ruth said that with the way that the document is currently written, there isnt any way for an owner to have access to the lake without having some type of pathway, which is something that they would have to request, but he would prefer that something be added to the ordinance to reflect this. Mr. Ruth said that the stabilization area deals with a $1,000 a day fine and he feels that this is something that should be pointed out to the public since there are procedures that are followed before the fine is implemented. Mr. Ruth said that he has asked Mr. Coffey to change the term “private harbors” and refer to them as coves instead. Mr. Ruth said that dark sky lighting is a concern that he has and feels that structures should have some sort of reflective requirement, but the lighting can deter from night vision on the water and create safety hazards. Mr. Ruth suggested that they require the dark sky lighting for structure that are 100 or longer. Mr. Ruth pointed out that swimming areas are controlled through buoys and Game and Inland Fisheries that have regulations implemented already. Mr. Ruth said that the final area that he would like to address is the commercial common area that is allowed to have 55,000 square feet, but a private homeowner can only have 3,500 square feet if they have 1,000 linear feet, which is a drastic difference and should be more proportionate. Mr. Ruth suggested that they cut the commercial portion back by at least 25%.

Herb Distefano, Spotsylvania County Resident, Lake Anna Civic Association Vice- President,> informed the Board that they feel that the proposed Shoreline Management Policy is a giant step forward in something that has been needed for a long time. Mr. Distefano pointed out that the committee that was put together to review this had an extremely diverse membership that represented all of the stakeholders, which worked together with Mr. Coffey to fashion a set of standards that they ultimately agreed on. Mr. Distefano said that there is not doubt that this will need some fine-tuning at a later date, but this is something that can be addressed as the need arises. Mr. Distefano said that the Lake Anna Civic Association urges the Board to approve the Shoreline Management Ordinance and if it is approved, then they will work to try to get the other two counties to piggyback on their fine work.

Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Harper reiterated that the committee was a very diverse group that worked diligently to generate a document that is both meaningful and functional, but fair to all of the people who participated. Mr. Gentry stated that he has been on a lot of committees since becoming a Board member and this was by far the best. Mr. Gentry said that they all worked hard and thoroughly covered each and every topic. Mr. Gentry said that they recognize the fact that this document is not perfect and there is obviously room for tweaking. Chairman Barnes said that he had concerns with the dark sky lighting issue. Chairman Barnes said that he agrees with Mr. Coffey that Dominions Guidelines should be posted on the Countys website. Mr. Gentry said that he would like to propose the following changes to the ordinance based on input that he has heard since the Planning Commission meeting:

§        Review the definition of the waste heat treatment facility to consider using cooling lagoon and the warm side in the definition.

§        Section 86-455.2, 1A, in the second paragraph, where it refers to any Dominion land, change it to reflect shoreline.

§        Section 86-455.2, 1A, in the sixth paragraph, there was concern about getting over the 25 undisturbed area, he would like to add not to include path to lake structures.

§        Section 86-455.2, 2A, in the first paragraph, where it refers to private harbors and private harbor, he could like to have it changed to cove and coves to make it consistent with the rest of the document.

§        Change the structure from 50 to 100 for those that would require dark sky lighting.

§        Section 86-455.2, 3C, under the I. section, the Planning Commission reduced the commercial common areas by 25%; therefore, he would not propose any further changes to this item.

Mr. Gentry said that the size they specify in this document is strictly for the shoreline stabilization is designed solely for erosion and sediment controls. Mr. Gentry pointed out that solar lighting is encouraged and would not require electricity. Mr. Purcell asked Mr. Coffey to keep track of how many variance requests they receive.

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted to amend Chapter 86 of the Louisa County Code to add Division 5. Lake Anna Shoreline Use and Design Standards with the recommended changes as outlined in the attachment to RES05.162 that is on file in the County Administrators Office.

Amendments to the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 86 to Amend Section 86-2, Planned Unit Development

Mr. Coffey stated that a Zoning Ordinance is a tool that local governments use to implement a division that they set forth in their Comprehensive Plan, so what this Planned Unit Development (PUD) District is included to do is to provide another tool that Louisa County can use to implement its growth areas. Mr. Coffey said that the purpose of a PUD is to allow for more flexibility and creativity than a more traditional zoning district and is another way to effectively implement the growth area concept supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Coffey defined the proposed definition for a PUD as being a development, generally in a designated growth area that utilizes a Master Plan to identify mixed uses with development standards specific to the proposed use. Mr. Coffey explained that an application would consist of the following three primary sections: narrative, an existing conditions map, and a master plan. He said that the goal of a PUD is to encourage development of high quality, which includes several factors such as pedestrian orientation; neighborhood friendly streets and paths; interconnected streets and transportation networks; parks and open space as amenities; neighborhood centers; buildings and spaces of appropriate scale; relegated parking; mixture of uses and use types; mixture of housing types and affordability; environmentally sensitive design; and clear boundaries with any surrounding rural areas. Mr. Coffey identified the minimum area and open space requirements and the overall gross density. Mr. Coffey showed the Board three different examples of PUDs that have been developed while highlighting their overall features. In conclusion, Mr. Coffey said that a Planned District would give the County a flexible tool for implementing the growth area concept and provide guidance to the development community while allowing for creativity, yet retaining maximum discretionary authority for the County.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Purcell saying that when the Board discussed adopting PUDs previously, they had mentioned that they wanted it to be an option and a tool for the Community Development Department to use in conjunction with someone that was applying for rezoning and not a requirement that someone would have to meet in a designated growth area. Mr. Purcell reiterated that a PUD is not a requirement, but a tool that someone can choose to use to maximize what he or she feels is the best use of his or her property. Mr. Purcell said that when they had talked about clustering houses, the example that was used was ten per acre. Mr. Purcell said that inevitably to get that kind of clustered environment and asked Mr. Coffey if it would necessitate water and sewer or if there were other alternatives that are acceptable in a PUD format since the infrastructure is not throughout the County.  

Mr. Coffey confirmed that a PUD is an additional option and not a requirement. Mr. Coffey said that you would want to have water and sewer infrastructure in place to serve a PUD, especially if it were serving ten units or more. Mr. Coffey said that you could have a PUD with a centralized system.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m.

Dave Stone, Louisa District, said that as a natural resources professional, he knows all to well of the inner connection that we have with natural world, which is something people tend to lose sight of how dependant we are on the natural world. Mr. Stone informed the Board that he was here this evening to speak in favor of PUDs as a whole. Mr. Stone said that this type of development begins to address concerns with development and natural resources since it would provide a mechanism to limit environmental impacts from development in a development. Mr. Stone said that this would have a ground water recharge and minimize impervious areas from development. He said that this would increase visual esthetics and help retain a rural character if a piece of land is to be developed. Mr. Stone said studies have shown that people like having open space in a development.

Caleb Stowe, Virginia Resident, informed the Board that during the 1980s, he had the pleasure of being part of a development by the name of Edmonton through his place of employment, which consisted of a porthole of 125 houses. Mr. Stowe said that he was here to speak as an advocate for PUDs. Mr. Stowe stated that PUDs allows for flexibility and design, but it allows that County more control with restrictive ordinance conditions. Mr. Stowe emphasized that a development of this nature allows for quality and affordable housing with more open spaces. Mr. Stowe said that he had a couple of recommendations and pointed out that the main thing about a PUD is that it goes to the philosophy of the cluster concept. Mr. Stowe said that having public utilities in place is a necessity. He said that one of the advantages of this is that it benefits a certain segment of the population that simply want a good place to live with all of the amenities. Mr. Stowe said that in reference to having ten acres as a minimum, he suggested that they allow the proffer to take care of whatever that might be. Mr. Stowe said that density is the key issue. In closing, Mr. Stowe said that he likes this ordinance and urged the Board to adopt it.

Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Gentry said that he likes the PUD concept and he has heard very few negatives, which makes it hard not to accept it. Mr. Harper said that he agrees that if will take having the infrastructure in place. Mr. Harper said that he believes that this promotes a lot of things the Board has said and things that they want to see; therefore, he would support it. Chairman Barnes said that he agrees with everything that both Mr. Harper and Mr. Gentry had to say. Chairman Barnes emphasized the importance of having water and sewer infrastructure in place in their designated growth areas, which is part of their growth management. Mr. Purcell said that he would like to voice some concerns that his constituents have shared with him. Mr. Purcell said that everyone likes a different setting for their living environment. Mr. Purcell said that he agrees that this is a great ordinance as long as it is used as a tool along with the options.                  

On motion of Mr. Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted amending Chapter 86 of the Louisa County Code to amend Section 86-2. Definitions (Planned Unit Development) and to add Division 8A. Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Article II. Districts and District Regulations.

To Enact an Ordinance to Provide for Implementation of the 2004/05 Changes to the Personal Property Relief Act of 1998

Mr. Morgan said that in the last session of the Legislature, the elimination of the car tax was discarded. Mr. Morgan said that Legislature came up with a proposal of allowing for a certain amount of tax relief is sent back to the local jurisdictions, but it didnt continue the percentages for what they were receiving. Mr. Morgan said that this ordinance takes into account that the laws are changing and when it does come time to count, this puts into place before the Legislature starts to meet and perhaps would come up with a different idea on how this program should be administered.

Mr. McLeod explained to the Board that there were options in different parts of this ordinance such as the method for computing and reflecting the tax relief. Mr. McLeod said that one is the model of how the taxpayers have seen it in the past, which is how Mr. Morgan presented his. Mr. McLeod said that a second one that he would like to talk about is allocation of relief among taxpayers. Mr. McLeod explained that the tax program in the past has provided relief for vehicles where as if the vehicle was worth $1,000, then you would not have paid anything due to the tax relief. Mr. McLeod said that this provides another option for them to collect taxes on vehicles no matter what their value was. Mr. McLeod stated that there were 8,414 vehicles that were under $1,000 in value that would have brought in $88,336.42. Mr. McLeod said that the first option mentioned is a transitional provisions that if they didnt pay their taxes when they were supposed to, then they didnt receive any tax relief and the new tax would have to be set each year during the budget.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. With no one wishing to address the Board, Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Gentry saying that he hasnt heard from any of his constituents or anyone else pertaining to this topic. Mr. Harper said that he doesnt believe that most individuals understand this car tax, nor have they ever since it was first introduced. Chairman Barnes asked Mr. McLeod what would happen if the Board did not take any action tonight.

Mr. McLeod said that the Board has to enact this ordinance by the end of the year in order for them to have the flexibility of making changes next year after they know what their numbers are. Mr. Lintecum explained to the Board that if the 70% is not holding anymore and if they dont do something about it and the 70% drops to 50%, then they would not be able to do anything unless they adopt this ordinance.      

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted to provide for implementation of the 2004-2005 changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998 as identified in RES05.164 that is on file in the County Administrators Office.  

Chairman Barnes asked Mr. McLeod to work together with the press to ensure that the Boards position is clear as to why they approved this.

Amendments to the Louisa County Code, Sections 70-33 and Section 70-35 for Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled

Mr. Morgan reminded the Board of the changes that were adopted by them last year concerning tax relief for the elderly and disabled. Mr. Morgan identified the changes that have been made this year at the Boards request as being the increase of the net worth of a family that would qualify from $85,000 to $100,000, adjustments to the scales for income, and increased the amount of the exception from $800 to $1,000. Mr. Morgan said that this would go into effect on January 1, 2006.

Mr. McLeod said that he has looked at this, but he does not see where the ten acres were identified in this documents and asked if it had to be identified. Mr. McLeod said that they were increasing the net worth from $85,000 to $100,000, the tax relief from $800 to $1,000, and allowing up to 10 acres of land with the dwelling.

Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. With no one wishing to address the Board, Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Purcell saying that the Board has discussed this in the past and feels that it is a needed measure to cover more for individuals with what they are trying to help them with. Chairman Barnes said that he would like to commend the Board on their diligent efforts to recognize that those individuals on fixed incomes can try to hold onto what they have. Chairman Barnes stressed the importance of educating the citizens by having work sessions to explain the process, posting an article in the County Messenger, and posting the information on the Louisa County Website. Chairman Barnes said that when this is done, he would like to know how many individuals benefit from these changes and what the dollar amount was.

Mr. McLeod said that he provides them with the details from one year to the next, which he will do again once he has the final numbers.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 5-0, a resolution was adopted amending the Louisa County Code Sections 70-33 and 70-35 to increase the net worth from $85,000 to $100,000, the tax relief from $800 to $1,000, and allowing up to 10 acres of land with the dwelling that will become effective January 1, 2006 as identified in RES05.165 that is on file in the County Administrators Office.

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board voted to adjourn the December 5, 2005 regular meeting at 8:37 p.m.


BY ORDER OF

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