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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
DECEMBER 12, 2007
7:00 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; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager; April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk; and Zuwana Morgan, Records Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Wright called the December 12, 2007 meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 7:00 p.m.  Mr. Purcell led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the December 12, 2007 agenda was adopted.  

PUBLIC HEARINGS

To amend Chapter 70. Taxation, Article II.  Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly or Totally Disabled, by amending  Sec. 70-33. Same--Requirements. of the Louisa County Code, to allow the Commissioner of the Revenue to prorate the exemption where changes in income, financial worth, or in ownership of property causes the property to no longer be qualified for exemption under the provisions of Article II.

Mr. Morgan said the Commissioner of Revenue had requested that the Board consider this particular amendment to the County Code.  Mr. Morgan said the ordinance, as its currently written, doesnt address if the property for some reason became no longer qualified for tax exemptions.  Mr. Morgan indicated that the Commissioner didnt currently have the authority to make changes to the assessment or the exemption once it was granted.  Mr. Morgan said this amendment allowed for the pro-ration of property tax in the event the property became no longer qualified for the tax exemption.
 
Mr. Wright said for clarification, this amendment doesnt change the eligibility requirements of this program.  Mr. Morgan stated that was correct.

Mr. Purcell stated he was under the assumption that if someone bought a piece of property that had been under this program, the County would notify them that the property would lose that status.  Mr. Morgan said yes, that would happen.
 
Mr. Havasy questioned if the Board was only voting on Section B of the ordinance.  Mr. Morgan said thats correct, the other portions were as they already existed in the ordinance. Mr. Havasy said in reading Section A (4) and adding up the calculations, someone could make $42,500 per year and receive tax exemption from the County.  Mr. Havasy added he believed that was entirely too high.
 
 
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. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Jennings, with Mr. Havasy voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board adopted a resolution amending Chapter 70. Taxation, Article II.  Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly or Totally Disabled of the Louisa County Code by amending Sec. 70-33. Same Requirements.

To amend Chapter 70. Taxation, Article IX. Special Provisions for Personal Property Tax, by enacting Sec. 70-239. Exemption for motor vehicle owned by disabled veteran. of the Louisa County Code.  Creating a separate personal property classification for one car owned by a disabled veteran and to exempt that vehicle from personal property tax.

Mr. Morgan said the Commissioner of Revenue found that the State Code allowed the Board of Supervisors to create a separate tax classification for one vehicle owned by a disabled veteran.  Mr. Morgan added that one vehicle could be exempt from personal property tax.
   
Mr. Wright noted that the vehicle must be owned and regularly used by the disabled veteran.

Mr. Barnes questioned how many localities currently exercised the right to use this ordinance.  Mr. Morgan indicated that he used two or three to find the language for the draft ordinance, but there were probably about six that he looked through.
 

Mr. Gentry questioned if any other counties set a limitation of the value of the vehicle.  Mr. Morgan said not that he was aware of.
 

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. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution amending Chapter 70. Taxation, Article IX. Special Provisions for Personal Property Tax of the Louisa County Code by enacting Sec. 70-239. Exemption for Motor Vehicle Owned by Disabled Veteran.

REZ15-07; Strickland, LLC, Applicant/Owner c/o Caleb Stowe, Manager, requests conditional rezoning of approximately 63 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD).  The property is located north of the C&O Railway and south of Route 231 (Stonewall Avenue) in the northwest corner of Louisa County, south of the Town of Gordonsville.  The property is further identified as tax map parcels 2-4 and 2-5 in the Green Springs Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as part of the Gordonsville Designated Growth Area for Mixed Use development.  Mixed Use developments may be a combination of land uses in a logical, coordinated, well planned project or series of projects.  

The project lies within both Orange and Louisa Counties.  The applicant has discussed this project actively with both jurisdictions as well as the Town of Gordonsville.  

The project would be a mixture of uses including residential (approximately 25 acres) and commercial/office (approximately 26 acres).  There would be 79 total residential units within Louisa County, with 30 of those shown as “Future Residential”.

Proffers have been updated prior to this meeting to include an affordable housing proffer and to make clarification of the cash proffer.  The proffers offered include the following:    

1.        This property will be developed in such a way as to be compatible with the Gordonsville Gates Subdivision, and as far as practical shall follow the preliminary plan for Strickland by Hulcher & Associates, Inc. dated February 27, 2007.

2.        Residential property will be governed by uniform restrictive covenants for mandatory membership in a Home Owners Association.  HOA shall be deeded common areas in each section by Special Warranty Deed, free from liens or monetary encumbrance, within five years of the approval of the final plat for that section.  The roads shall be conveyed at that time to the HOA if not previously dedicated as public roads and accepted by either Louisa County or the Commonwealth of Virginia.

3.        Pursuant to the Louisa County Proffer Guide, at the time each lot is conveyed from applicant, a cash proffer contribution shall be paid to the County of Louisa in the amount of $4,362 to be held and applied to the following components in the sole discretion of the BOS:  schools, fire, rescue, library, parks & recreation, and roads.  This contribution will not be made for the 8 affordable housing lots.

4.        Commercial and office park development is contingent on approval of access satisfying VDOT requirements, so that primary access will not be through Gordonsville Gates.

5.        Water and sewer service shall be provided by the Town of Gordonsville and/or RSA, or by a utility company approved by the Board of Supervisors of Louisa County and regulated by the State of Virginia.

6.        Future residential area will only be developed when alternate access is developed to Route 231, so that primary access will not be through Gordonsville Gates.  Density within the 5.10-acre area will not exceed 6 units per acre.  Setbacks will be determined at the time of site plan in coordination with County staff.

7.        Office park and tree save area will be designed to preserve as many existing large trees as possible.  Only trees to be removed will be those required by actual building or infrastructure placement.  The following shall apply to this area:

a.       Existing historic buildings will be preserved and restored as an individual office building, with modern facilities, if necessary, added to the rear of the structure.

b.       Office buildings will be designated so as to be generally compatible with restored building, and will not exceed 4,000 square feet without conditional use permit.  The total square footage will not exceed 40,000 excluding existing building.

c.       The offices will provide for small businesses which are compatible with residential surrounding, including the following uses and any customarily incidental accessory use, provided no merchandise, materials, tractor trailer, or equipment are stored outdoors.

   i.        Office
ii.        Place of worship
iii.        Public use, such as school, day care center, or library
iv.        Retail store not exceeding 4,000 square feet of gross floor area

d.        Signs will not exceed 16 square feet on each side, and will not include lighted lettering or background and the height shall not exceed one-half of the height of the related building.

e.        Off street parking will be placed to be compatible with existing trees and with walking trails and sidewalks.  The minimum number will be as provided in Division 3 of the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance, Section 86-436 et seq of the Louisa County Code of Ordinances.

f.        No building shall exceed 40 feet in height exclusive of antennas, chimneys, cupolas and bell towers, measured from grade at highest level.

g.        The following uses may be permitted upon issuance of a conditional use permit:

   i.        Bed and Breakfast Inn
ii.        Restaurant
iii.        Recreational use

h.        Setbacks and yards in this area will be as follows:

   i.        From subdivision through streets, 35 feet from the right of way.
ii.        From any street within the area, 35 feet from right of way unless a lesser setback will allow preservation of an existing tree, but not less than 20 feet.
iii.        Minimum side yard width shall be 10 feet.
iv.        Minimum rear yard shall be 35 feet.

8.        Commercial area totaling approximately 23 acres will be designated to be compatible with trail system shown on preliminary plan.  Development shall meet all requirements of C-1 (Light Commercial).

a.        Buildings will not exceed 4,000 square feet without conditional use permit.  Total square footage shall not exceed 184,000 square feet.

9.        The applicant agrees to provide ten percent of the total number of dwelling units (8 of 79) at the affordable housing price level as determined by the area median income (AMI) chart supplied by the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation at the time of each sale.  Two of the lots shall be in phase II, two of the lots shall be in phase III, and four of the lots shall be in the future residential area.  The applicant will sell these homes at their appraised value.  The difference between the appraised value and selling price will be secured by a deed of trust, at 0% interest and payable on sale, transfer, or when the unit is no longer the buyers primary residence.  The note secured by the deed of trust will then be donated and assigned to the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation.  The applicant may sell these affordable lots to Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation or Habitat for Humanity instead of building the homes by mutual agreement as to the price.  

There was one person, other than the applicant and their representatives, present to discuss this application in the Neighborhood Meeting held on October 10, 2007.  This individual stated the following:

-        Their high comfort level with the applicant and the good job done on the adjoining Gordonsville Gates Subdivision.
-        Community concerns had been addressed in conversations with the applicant
-        Traffic concerns for both the residential and commercial areas
-        Possibility of a right-of-way for a second access
-        Keep new housing prices and sizes comparable to existing in Gordonsville Gates

The Development Review Committee met on October 24, 2007 to review this application.  The Committee voted 5-1 to forward no recommendation to the Planning Commission stating that the Planning Commission has some authority with the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and can discuss the impact of this project on the County and the CIP.

The Planning Commission met on November 15, 2007 and held their public hearing on this application.  Some of the Commissioners had concerns about growth in the County and the impact this project would have on the Countys schools and other services.  There were also concerns about the noise generated by the adjacent railroad.  Overall, the Commission believed this was an appropriate proposal, complying with the Comprehensive Plan and meeting the other standards for rezoning requests.  The Planning Commission voted 6-1, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors on the requested rezoning.

Mr. Harper said in Mr. Coffeys presentation, he mentioned the cash contribution; however, he didnt mention that fact that the applicant wasnt proposing to pay the cash proffer on the eight affordable housing lots.  Mr. Coffey said since the cash proffer policy was adopted, staff had explained to rezoning applicants that they werent necessarily looking for cash proffers on affordable units.  Mr. Coffey said he believed when the Board discussed the cash proffer policy, they discussed whether the County should have a policy where they would be exempt or if it would be just an understanding of thats what would be pursued.  Mr. Coffey said he told the Board that it had been recommended to him to not put such a policy in writing because it would weaken the overall cash proffer policy.  Mr. Harper said he didnt think the affordable housing units would be exempt from the items that the cash proffers were intended to offset.  

Mr. Purcell questioned why the Development Review Committee (DRC) gave no recommendation to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Coffey said they expressed several concerns including the submission of extensively revised proffers at the meeting, there were no draw down test on the drilled wells to evaluate water capacity, the question of whether there was a guarantee of who would provide water and sewer services and an overall vagueness of the request in terms of the total number of residential units and office and commercial space.


Mr. Havasy said on page 20 of the Board packet, Mr. Stowe talked about affordable housing prices and questioned what his definition was of affordable housing.  Mr. Coffey said the chart that Mr. Stowe referenced in the proffer was the area median income (AMI) chart supplied by the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation.  Mr. Coffey said listed on the chart were mortgage rates and housing prices, given the interest rate and the percentage of area median income.  Mr. Havasy questioned if $177,000 was considered affordable housing.  Mr. Coffey said absolutely.  Mr. Havasy indicated that he had talked with developers and builders and asked what they could build a 1,200 square foot, three bedroom, decent kitchen, 1.5 baths, basic house for and they said between $100,000 and $135,000.  Mr. Havasy said he thought affordable housing needed to be defined if the County was going to build it.  Mr. Havasy added that it wasnt wise to give away cash proffers on $177,000, even though he agreed on waiving the cash proffer if it was truly for affordable housing.  Mr. Wright agreed and stated he didnt consider $177,000 to be affordable housing.    


Mr. Purcell indicated that the problem wasnt the housing; the problem was the property that it was on.  Mr. Purcell said the property was assessed, based on the Countys assessor, well above $50,000 to $60,000 per lot.  

Mr. Barnes questioned if the Rapidan would provide water and sewer.  Mr. Coffey said yes, the Rapidan Service Authority had the capacity and the water could be served through a number of ways.  


Mr. Richard Wilkinson, Agent, stated their affordable housing component was suggested by County Planning staff and the affordable housing group.  Mr. Wilkinson said they would build the affordable housing units and sell them at the affordable housing price.  Mr. Wilkinson said the difference between the affordable housing price and what the house would be sold for on the market would have a deed of trust, by which the buyer would have to pay to the affordable housing group if they sold the house.  Mr. Wilkinson added through this proffer, the developer, in sense, was contributing to the Countys requirement under the State Code to provide for affordable housing in the Community.  

Mr. Wilkinson stated Gordonsville Gates had been a very successful project and the proposal fit the mixed-use area.  Mr. Wilkinson said by allowing the residential component to be up next to the residences and continue down from that allowed a continuation of the Gordonsville Gates community.  Mr. Wilkinson said by having the restrictions in the office park allowed them to preserve a beautiful standard.

Mr. Wilkinson said in the first phase of the project, there would be approximately 12 lots, which were actually just a continuation of the original Gordonsville Gates property and wouldnt be located in Louisa County.  Mr. Wilkinson added the affordable housing proffer wouldnt count towards any houses being put in phase I.  Mr. Wilkinson said phase II would consist of 19 lots and would provide for two of those lots to be designated for affordable housing.  Mr. Wilkinson said phase III would also provide for two affordable housing lots.  Mr. Wilkinson stated if the 30 lots were developed in the future component, that would be designed to be compatible with the entire structure and four of those lots would be reserved for affordable homes.  Mr. Wilkinson said overall, he thought this would be a very desirable project.

Mr. Wright questioned if a CUP would be required to run water and sewer into the Louisa County portion of this project.  Mr. Coffey said he didnt believe so because if the PUD was approved, anything done per that master plan was by right.  Mr. Morgan said if it were an extension of the water system, that is, if pipes werent already there, it would require a CUP.  Mr. Coffey added that major utilities required a CUP.  

Mr. Purcell said on page 29 of the Board Packet, there was a letter from Mr. Stowe that stated “If this application is denied by the Board, but in the event an appeal is for any reason thereafter remanded to the Board for reconsideration by a court of competent jurisdiction, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn unless the Applicant shall affirmatively readopt all or any portion hereof, in a writing specifically for that purpose.”  Mr. Purcell questioned if Mr. Wilkinson could explain that statement.  Mr. Wilkinson said his interpretation of the statement was that if the Board denied this application and the applicant referred it to the Supreme Court and they reversed the Boards decision and sent it back to the Board for reconsideration, the applicant would have the opportunity to revise the proffers.    

Mr. Havasy questioned if Mr. Wilkinson would read proffer 6 to the Board and explain what it meant because it seemed like housing units and lots could vary quite a bit.  Mr. Wilkinson said the future residential area will only be developed when alternate access is developed to Route 231, so that primary access will not be through Gordonsville Gates.  Density within the 5.10-acre area will not exceed 6 units per acre.  Setbacks will be determined at the time of site plan in coordination with County staff.  Mr. Wilkinson stated that area would not have more than 30 units.  Mr. Havasy questioned how many total housing units they were proposing.  Mr. Wilkinson said 79.  Mr. Havasy questioned what type of housing would be built in the future residential area.  Mr. Wilkinson said at this time, they were considering a combination of cottage lots and townhouses.  


Mr. Wright opened the public hearing.    

Mr. Howard Evergreen, Charlottesville, Virginia, stated he was the director of the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation and he was in support of this particular project.  Mr. Evergreen said affordable housing was a tough item to define.  Mr. Evergreen indicated that HUD defined affordable housing as what someone could afford who earned less than 80 percent of the area median income.  Mr. Evergreen added that was spending about 25 percent of their income towards housing.  Mr. Evergreen said the houses that Mr. Stowe was proposing to build would appraise $30,000 to $50,000 above what he would sell them for.  Mr. Evergreen said the difference between what the affordable homes were sold for and the actual appraised value would be put into a deed of trust and whenever that property was sold, that money would come back into the County fund for down payment assistance, which would be a benefit to County residents.  Mr. Evergreen said if the County couldnt get developers to participate in affordable housing and if the Board and developers couldnt determine a system by which affordable housing could be proffered and accepted, we would not provide affordable housing in this County.  Mr. Evergreen requested that the Board consider this project.    

Mr. John Newell, Orange, Virginia, stated he was a resident of Gordonsville Gates and Mr. Stowe had treated the community well and had been meeting with them on a monthly basis to go above and beyond the call of duty.  Mr. Newell said he truly felt that Mr. Stowe was a sincere person that cared about the people in the community and stood behind his product.  Mr. Newell indicated that the community seemed to be well thought out and would be developed on a schedule.

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

Mr. Wilkinson stated he felt very confident that Gordonsville would be providing the water.    

Mr. Barnes said the County had to have a public/private partnership to have affordable housing.


Mr. Purcell said this Board had been very consistent and supportive of affordable housing and he would like to see that continue.  Mr. Purcell stated he liked to look at the project as a whole and it looked to him that the developer had done everything that had been asked of him.

Mr. Havasy stated the project was located in a growth area, it was supplied with public water and sewer and the density wasnt bad at all.  Mr. Havasy said he liked the commercial aspect of the project, which he thought would more than offset some of the residential costs that the County would have in the future.  

Mr. Gentry said he thought this development met all of the elements the Board would be looking for in a PUD.  

Mr. Harper said he had no issue with this project with the exception of proffer number 3.  Mr. Harper said he wasnt going to agree to waive the cash contribution for the affordable lots.  Mr. Coffey said the only other affordable housing project that he was aware of was Huntington Way and the cash proffer was waived for the affordable units as well.

Mr. Havasy indicated that he was surprised to read that approval of the zoning change also approved the site plan and the site plan wouldnt change.  Mr. Coffey said with PUDs, staff tried to get the concept plan proffered in writing because that was the product the applicant was selling and staff expected the development to be in substantial conformance with that.  

Mr. Harper said obviously he made a mistake with the Huntington project and he would not make the same mistake here.  Mr. Harper said he didnt want to set the policy that the County was going to start waiving cash proffers for affordable housing, particularly when it wasnt decided whether affordable housing was going to be looked at or not.


Mr. Havasy stated he would like to make the motion to approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 63 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD).  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

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

With the votes reflecting 6-1, the Board voted to approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 63 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD).

REZ16-07; William E. Small, Applicant; William E. and Ruth A. Small, Owners; request conditional rezoning of approximately 110.22 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Resort Development (RD).  The property is located on the east side of Route 649 (Byrd Mill Road), across from Route 637 (Brickhouse Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcels 38-111, 38-112, 38-(23)-10, 38-(23)-11, 38-(23)-12 and 38-(23)-13, in the Patrick Henry Voting District.  The subject property is designated in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential and is not located in a designated growth area.

This plan is proposing a minimum of 37.3 acres of permanent open space (34 percent) including vegetative buffers and shoreline protection for Lake Ruth Ann.  The existing uses would not change as a result of this project, however up to 13 new single-family residential lots would be created and developed according to A-2 zoning standards.  

The applicant has submitted a set of nine (9) voluntary proffers as a part of the rezoning request, summarized as follows:

-        Cash proffers of $4,362.00 per single-family lot
-        34 percent open space
-        Natural vegetative buffer 50-feet in width adjoining A-2 parcels not owned by the applicant
-        Natural vegetative buffer 100-feet in width from the VDOT right-of-way line, except at entrance locations and where sight easements are required
-        Entrances constructed to VDOT standards
-        Interior road constructed to VDOT standards
-        The sanitary sewer system will be improved for the campground facility
-        Domestic water system will be upgraded
-        Existing electrical service will be upgraded

There were two people (not including the applicant and representatives) present for the Neighborhood Meeting held on October 10, 2007.  No one spoke in direct opposition to the request and the following items were discussed:

-        New lots would meet A-2 minimum standards
-        How does this project fit into the Comprehensive Plan designation
-        Existing open space
-        Minimum price ranges and dwelling sizes
-        Current owners access to amenities

The Development Review Committee met on October 24, 2007 to review this application.  The Committee questioned the precedent this rezoning may set in terms of allowing RD zoning in a non-growth area.  They recognized that the purpose of the rezoning was to preserve open space and create up to 13 new residential lots.  After discussion with Staff, the Committee voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission on the requested rezoning.

The Planning Commission met on November 15, 2007 and held their public hearing on this application.  The Commission was comfortable with the proffered master plan, stating any substantial changes to that plan would have to go back through the process.  The Planning Commission voted 7-0, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors on the requested rezoning.

Mr. Jennings said he was trying to determine the main goal of the rezoning and questioned what could be done in RD that couldnt be done in A-2.  Mr. Coffey said from his perspective, the main goal was for new single-family residential lots that you couldnt get in A-2 and the proffers submitted were enhancements.  Mr. Jennings questioned if this rezoning was for more resort development or if it was for residential development.  Mr. Coffey said a major benefit of the creation of this was new single-family residential lots.  Mr. Coffey said basically, its a way of taking existing resort development in the County and being able to classify as such and get some more single-family residential lots out of it.  

Mr. Jennings questioned how far the nearest resort zoning was from this property.  Mr. Coffey said Shenandoah Crossings.  Mr. Jennings questioned if this rezoning would be considered spot zoning.  Mr. Coffey said in his opinion, it didnt create a spot zoning, however, there was no other zoning like it in the area.  Mr. Coffey said the conclusion that he had drawn was that the Comprehensive Plan was largely silent on the issue.  


Ms. Mary Johnson, Agent, stated to address the question of whether or not the resort development was spot zoning; she thought that by definition, it was.  Ms. Johnson said she didnt think you could have an entire zoning area designated as a resort development with multiple developments connected together.  Ms. Johnson said when you find a unique development that fits the designation and the uses as we have in the Code then it does become resort development.    

Ms. Johnson said Small Country Campground was currently zoned A-2 and was operating under a CUP.  Ms. Johnson added the CUP was obtained in 1975 and was mostly surrounded by single-family residential.  Ms. Johnson said on the site, there were currently nine lots in existing, two that were constructed, one that was currently under construction and one that was owner-occupied.  

Ms. Johnson said Small Country Campground was widely known as a destination for Louisa County.  Ms. Johnson said the Campground had an existing lake and plenty of amenities including, family camping, a swimming pool, a recreational facility and a convenience store.  Ms. Johnson added Small Country had the mixed use that was typically seen in Resort Development.  Ms. Johnson indicated that the owners had spent a lot of money in advertising to promote tourism to Louisa County and they also advertised local businesses in their brochures.  Ms. Johnson said the Campground gave Louisa County their sales taxes, real estate taxes, and two percent of every dollar of transient taxes.  

Ms. Johnson indicated that Small Country operated on private water and sewer from an existing water treatment facility under DEQ regulations and septic tanks and drain fields under VDH regulations.  

Ms. Johnson said the requested rezoning was Resort Development, which was to permit open area recreation facilities for private and public use or for profit, to permit commercial uses related to such recreation facilities, and to permit a variety of residential accommodations on a contiguous site under common ownership or control.  Ms. Johnson said she thought Small Country Campground truly defined that.  Ms. Johnson added that the RD zone required that 25 percent of the land mass be put in open space and this plan that was being proffered actually had about 34 percent.    

Ms. Johnson stated in exchange for the lots being requested, which would be built to A-2 standards to be similar and consistent with the surrounding development, the County would get almost half million dollars worth of improvements on the water and sewer to a destination that was popular for Louisa County.  Ms. Johnson said the road would be built to state specifications, which would be about $150,000 worth of improvements.  Ms. Johnson said permanent vegetative buffers would be along the roadway to preserve the Countys rural character, buffers would exist around Lake Ruth Ann and there were buffers where the lots touched neighboring properties on A-2.  Ms. Johnson added 1.7 acres had been set aside for commercial development enhancements.

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

Mr. Barnes stated he would like to make the motion to approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 110.22 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Resort Development (RD).  Mr. Purcell seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

PRESENTVOTE
Allen B. Jennings Yes
Eric F. Purcell Yes
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper Yes
Richad A. Havasy Yes

With the votes reflecting 7-0, the Board voted to approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 110.22 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Resort Development (RD).

Amendments to sections of the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance, which will recodify and clarify existing regulations in the Industrial (IND) zoning district.  

Originally, all industrially zoned properties were to be rezoned to the proposed I-1 or I-2 district, with others rezoned to more appropriate zoning classifications (such as A-2, R-2, C-2, etc.).  The Board held a work session for discussion on the Industrial (IND) zoning district in August 2007 and had concerns about rezoning properties when the Community Development Department hadnt communicated with all of the property owners that had Industrial properties.  The Board decided to allow property owners the option of retaining their IND zoning, if the owner wished to keep this classification or if staff received no further input from the owner; however, no new properties could be zoned IND.  Since the County would keep the IND zoning, staff believed the existing district should be amended, to meet the Boards comments and create greater consistency with the rest of the Countys Zoning Ordinance.    

While updating the uses and definitions of the Zoning Ordinance, the County created definitions for light, medium, and heavy industrial uses.  At that time, the County amended its zoning districts to allow for a clearer and more modern ordinance.  

The I-1 and I-2 districts are intended to simplify and clarify the Countys industrial regulations.  The I-1 district would allow for light industry by right, and could permit medium industrial uses by a conditional use permit (CUP).  This district would be compatible with many areas of the County by limiting uses that have negative impacts on the environment and neighboring properties.  The I-2 district would permit light and medium industrial uses by right, and could permit heavy industrial uses by CUP.  This district would only apply to certain areas of the County that are less sensitive to pollution, noise and other external impacts.  The current IND district fails to make a distinction, between different types of industry and where those uses may be appropriate.  At this time, all industrial properties are treated equally, whereas the Countys commercial, residential, and agricultural zoning districts make distinctions between higher and lower intensity uses, i.e. Light (C-1) versus General (C-2) Commercial.

Staff proposes to list out the permitted uses under this district, referencing the uses established in the definitions section of the ordinance.  This creates a clearer understanding of what the district allows, whereas the current IND district is frequently confusing for citizens, potential businesses and staff.  The proposed changes include amendments to the purpose section.  First, this change would create greater consistency between the intended and allowed uses.  Second, the purpose section would prohibit any other properties from being rezoned to Industrial IND.  Staff also proposed the addition of height restrictions, to be consistent with every other district.

Mr. Purcell said in the Comprehensive Plan, there were areas that were marked for industrial use and questioned how areas that were marked for mixed use factored into the equation. Mr. Cockrell said industrial properties were located around the entire County and they didnt perfectly follow the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, there could certainly be an industrial property in a mixed-use area. Mr. Cockrell added the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was to encourage PUDs and districts alike in mixed-use areas.

Mr. Harper questioned how many properties were going to be left zoned IND.  Mr. Cockrell said about 150 properties would remain IND.  Mr. Harper said IND zoning had such an array of uses where by right, a daycare center could be located next to a dance hall.  Mr. Harper said he thought the County was behind in addressing some of those issues and he hoped, more importantly, that the Board would support the Community Development Department in coming back with something to try to make the district have more comparable uses. Mr. Coffey said that was precisely the reason the County initiated this portion of the project.  

Mr. Wright said on page 82 of the Board Packet, it stated the intent of the IND district was to discourage residential use and questioned what residential use was allowed in IND.  Mr. Cockrell said the current IND zoning district allowed residential use with a CUP.

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.  

Mr. Barnes stated he would like to make the motion to adopt a resolution amending Chapter 86 of the Louisa County Code, to amend the Industrial (IND) Zoning District and adopt the Industrial Limited (I-1) and Industrial General (I-2) Zoning Districts.  Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

PRESENTVOTE
Eric F. Purcell Yes
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper Yes
Richad A. Havasy Yes
Allen B. Jennings Yes

With the votes reflecting 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution amending Chapter 86 of the Louisa County Code, to amend the Industrial (IND) Zoning District and adopt the Industrial Limited (I-1) and Industrial General (I-2) Zoning Districts.

REZ18-07; Rezoning of properties, from Industrial (IND), and in one case General Commercial (C-2).

Staff talked with 50 property owners who agreed to the new I-1 or I-2 districts, with others agreeing to other appropriate zoning classifications (such as A-2, R-2, C-2, etc.).  

Many of the current IND properties have uses that are inconsistent with the current industrial zoning.  For example, there are several IND properties that have single-family homes, making these legally non-conforming uses.  In other cases, there may be commercial or other uses that would fit better in the Countys other zoning districts.  There are also several properties with split zones, where part of the property is IND and another piece is zoned as another district.
 This rezoning action would bring many uses into conformance with the County ordinance.  It would eliminate some split zoning and would help focus potential uses into appropriate areas.

The Community Development Department received a letter after the Planning Commission meeting from the following properties requesting that they remain as Industrial (IND).

TMP 41 199: DES Properties, LLC
TMP 59 112A: Walton, H. Hidmore Jr.
TMP 59 115A: Walton, Herman Jr.
TMP 59 2-1: Walton, HH Jr.
TMP 59 2-2: Walton, HH Jr.

The following owners had originally requested that their properties be rezoned from Industrial (IND) to Agricultural (A-2); however, the Community Development Department received an email prior to the Board meeting from the owners requesting that their properties be rezoned from Industrial (IND) to Commercial General (C-2) instead.
TMP 40 22A: Johnson, Tena K.
TMP 40 22C: Johnson, Thomas Kelvin and Mary E.

Mr. Wright opened the public hearing.

Mr. Don Stadtler, Louisa District, stated his property was DES Properties, LLC located in the Industrial Park.  Mr. Stadtler said he bought the property about three years ago to run a manufacturing plant to make parts for the U.S. Army.  Mr. Stadtler said he thought there were eight properties in the Industrial Park that were being proposed to have changes and the rest were remaining in the IND classification.  Mr. Stadtler said it didnt make sense to him why there should be a mixture within the Industrial Park.  Mr. Stadtler added the park was there for industrial growth and development and by putting his property in the I-1 category would limit their future growth potential.  Mr. Stadtler requested that his property remain as IND.  

Mr. Steve Warwer, Louisa District,
stated he was grateful that the Community Development Department contacted him about rezoning his industrial property.

Mr. David Stone, Louisa District, stated his property was split zoned to A-2 and IND.  Mr. Stone said he wanted his entire property zoned A-2 and he appreciated the opportunity to get his area zoned the way it should be.  

Ms. Tena Johnson and Mr. Thomas Johnson, Patrick Henry,
stated the Community Development Department contacted them about the IND rezoning and they originally wanted their property zoned from IND to A-2; however, since then, they changed their minds and decided that they wanted both properties to be considered C-2.  

Mr. Morgan stated C-2 was a more intensive use than A-2 and by statute, the Board couldnt rezone property to a more intensive use once it had been advertised for a particular zoning classification; therefore, the Board couldnt legally take any action on their application at the time.  Mr. Morgan indicated that the Board could initiate the rezoning of the property from IND to C-2 and it could be advertised and the public hearing could be held at another time.    

Mr. Havasy questioned if the rezoning of those two parcels would be submitted at no cost.  Mr. Morgan said that was correct because the Board would initiate the rezoning.

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

Mr. Barnes said he wanted to make sure the Board realized that although he did not have any conflict, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors owned one of the parcels listed.  Mr. Purcell disclosed that he had a relation with H H Walton and Dickie Purcell.

Mr. Purcell stated he would like to make the motion to approve the rezoning of the properties referenced by the Board resolution from Industrial (IND) to the stated zoning districts, as amended to exclude the following properties, which will retain their Industrial (IND) zoning based on the owners request.
TMP 41 199: DES Properties
TMP 59 112A: Walton, H. Hidmore Jr.
TMP 59 115A: Walton, Herman Jr.
TMP 59 2-1: Walton, HH Jr.
TMP 59 2-2: Walton, HH Jr.
TMP 40 22A: Johnson, Tena K.
TMP 40 22C: Johnson, Thomas Kelvin and Mary E.

Mr. Purcell said this motion also includes the approval of the Commercial General (C-2) property to Industrial General (I-2).  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

PRESENTVOTE
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
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 7-0, the Board voted to approvethe rezoningof the properties referenced by the Board resolution from Industrial (IND) to the stated zoning districts, as amended to exclude the following properties, which will retain their Industrial (IND) zoning based on the owners request.
TMP 41 199: DES Properties
TMP 59 112A: Walton, H. Hidmore Jr.
TMP 59 115A: Walton, Herman Jr.
TMP 59 2-1: Walton, HH Jr.
TMP 59 2-2: Walton, HH Jr.
TMP 40 22A: Johnson, Tena K.
TMP 40 22C: Johnson, Thomas Kelvin and Mary E.

This motion also includes the approval of the Commercial General (C-2) property to Industrial General (I-2).

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to initiate the rezoning of TMP 40 22A and TMP 40 22C from Industrial (IND) to Commercial General (C-2).

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the December 12, 2007 meeting at 9:04 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


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