Contact Sitemap Search
|Board Present:||Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell, and Jack T. Wright|
|Others Present:||C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager and Michele Doty, Deputy Clerk|
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Barnes called the December 18, 2006 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Barnes led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD
William Blount, Jackson District, stated that he was here to speak in regards to the Shoreline Management policy. Mr. Blount stated that he had worked with the Shoreline Management Committee to develop the policy and the same problems being addressed now were voiced while he was on the committee. Mr. Blount indicated that it was impossible to make rules or guidelines that fit all shorelines. Mr. Blount stated that a 50-foot fairway couldnt be used because some coves are only 50 or 60 feet wide. Mr. Blount said that the 1/3 rule has been a part of shoreline management practices for years and has worked well. Mr. Blount said that the Committee agreed to set the 80% rule, however, this was a guideline and was to be looked at by the Planning Commission. Mr. Blount indicated that he felt that the problem is that the Planning Commission is holding too tight to these guidelines and that if the Planning Commission is going to hold so tightly to the guidelines and not consider exceptions to the guidelines, then this issue needs to go back into committee and the guidelines need to be reviewed and clarified.
Kathy Brodie Lambert, Jackson District, stated that she was also here to talk about Shoreline Management and informed the Board that she was the real estate agent for Mr. and Mrs. Koontz. Ms. Brodie Lambert said the Koontzs had put in the contract for a fourteen-day study period to insure that they could be able to build the dock they wanted to build. Ms. Brodie Lambert indicated that the Koontzs followed all the requirements to build their dock but because of so many extenuating circumstances, including the implementation of the Shoreline Management Policy, have not been able to build the dock they have desired to build. Ms. Brodie Lambert stated that the frequency of change caused problems as sometimes it took months to complete a transaction. Ms. Brodie Lambert requested the Board to work more closely with real estate agents to enable better representation of clients who wish to purchase property in Louisa County and want to build on the Lake.
Dick Dickens, Jackson District, noted that he designs homes, docks, and boat sheds, and in his experience most docks and boat sheds are in coves. Mr. Dickens pointed out that each construction job in these coves is unique and that there are different issues to take into consideration not just the width of a cove but the water depth and view issues as well as neighbors interests. Mr. Dickens stated that he felt that shoreline regulations are putting hardships on people. He indicated that the County does not have anyone that will go out to these properties and see what the situation is and this is something the County needs.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, asked to add a speed reduction study on Rt. 208. Mr. Purcell asked that discussion on the time lag between the Planning Commission approval and scheduling the public hearing be discussed. Mr. Lintecum asked the revised consent calendar be added. Mr. Jennings added closed session personnel in administration. Mr. Purcell noted that he will have to abstain from the consent agenda vote.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the December 18, 2006 agenda was adopted as amended.
Robert “Skip” Notte, asked the Board to support a letter that was written to VDOT regarding a speed study. Mr. Harper stated that they have encountered a stone fence obstructing the view. Mr. Wright indicated that he would like this study to be extended beyond the Windwood Coves subdivision.
On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the resolution.
Annual Review Lake Anna Shoreline Use and Design Standards
Will Cockrell, Senior Planner, Community Development, noted that the Shoreline Ordinance was adopted by the Board last year and since the adoption of the ordinance, eighty-eight applications have came into the Community Development Department, with seventy-eight permits issued and forty-two of them have been completed. Mr. Cockrell stated that there have been three special exceptions of the ordinance and there is another one coming. Mr. Cockrell mentioned that some of the challenges this department has had as staff reviewing of everyday planning is that site visits arent done as there is not enough staff or time to do this and that only one or two have been done on special occasions. Mr. Cockrell explained that because of this, site plans and GIS are heavily relied on. Mr. Cockrell said that another challenge is verifying critical distances because it is difficult to read and in some cases it has been required for a surveyor to come out. Mr. Cockrell continued explaining that other challenges are with houses and permanent storm water retention devises and in some instances, it is best if those measures arent in and the ordinance allows other options and is flexible. Mr. Cockrell stated that another challenge is how to make sure that these measures are maintained. Mr. Cockrell explained that in order to uphold these measures, Community Development works with Dominion Power to come up with the agreements that are recorded with the deed and also with inspectors verifying distances across the lake a laser range finder is being invested so that appropriate measurements are taken. The Department also worked with inspectors on the regulations of the ordinance and have heard from applicants that they would like to smooth the process and reduce paperwork. Mr. Cockrell stated that due to the overwhelming paperwork originally in the packet given to applicants, the original packet has been streamlined into three different packets. Mr. Cockrell said that there has been public input that some applicants have gotten caught between closing and when the ordinance was adopted and also comments have been made by the public that they think the lighting and reflector requirements for boating laws should be removed all together or that other colors should be allowed rather than white. Mr. Cockrell states that there has been input about a sign being posted for all boating laws in common areas but the main recommendation is to include site plan standards into the ordinance.
Mr. Purcell asked to define how intense of a site plan is required. Mr. Cockrell stated generally something to scale, such as hand drawings, is required and it does not have to be done by a surveyor. Mr. Purcell asked about the public input section and Mr. Cockrell stated that it was a letter received by a citizen and included for the Boards information and that there were no changes to the ordinance to that effect. Mr. Cockrell stated that a light is required, but some public input was to not have the light outward facing like a spot light but if the light was not outward facing then what would reflectors be reflecting. Mr. Gentry recommended that the three items that should be discussed if they went back to committee would be the lighting concern, the 50-foot fairway requirement, and the site plan. Mr. Gentry indicated that all these items were discussed in length during the committee process and he doesnt know what the magic number would be since they are based on so many variables. Mr. Wright questioned if the possibility of a sliding scale could be possible to use for these narrow coves and he feels if this is done there should be a requirement of a no-wake buoy. Mr. Wright explained that exceptions need to be looked at very closely and be justified. Mr. Havasy stated that the same standards would apply and if a surveyor approves something it doesnt necessarily mean that the Board will. Mr. Havasy indicated that if it were asked then they would get someone out to look at these exceptions. Mr. Havasy stated that the idea of the shoreline management was to keep the lake clean and understand these regulations that may be causing hardships to some landowners and that the County needs to do everything possible to help these landowners. Mr. Havasy indicated that presentation makes a difference with the Planning Committee so think about what to say before hand. Mr. Harper explained these items were not just pulled out of the air and that the lighting was thought about coming from many different sources, not only reflectors or light but even the moon. Mr. Harper stated that changes come up so frequently and he doesnt think they should be changed just because a few issues have come up but rather look at these issues more closely. Mr. Jennings complimented the Community Development Department and indicated he had been out to two locations. Mr. Barnes stated that citizens took the right avenue to voice their concerns and that there is no such thing as a perfect ordinance and we dont know of problems unless they are heard from the citizens. Mr. Barnes noted that a review process of any ordinance is needed and that the appellate process protects the landowners and should be used. Mr. Wright stated he is willing go back and make a further review but not with the expectations of changing things. Mr. Purcell noted he supports the proposed suggestions by Community Development however he needs clarification on the 50 and 1/3 issue. Mr. Gentry suggested trying to bring the committee back together to open up discussion and review the three issues.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Havasy voting against, to have the Shoreline Management Committee brought back together to discuss the Shoreline Management Agreement and review issues that have arisen. Mr. Barnes noted that some of the committee members are no longer in the County and will need to be replaced. Mr. Havasy stated that a tight timeline needs to be set for this. Mr. Barnes stated that this is still on case-by-case basis and the Board agreed this would be reviewed after one year. Mr. Coffey asked that with the holidays would the Board allow more time for this review. The Board agreed that this should be completed by the first meeting in February. Mr. Wright stated that he would like to see the public hearing be at meeting after the Planning Commission.
Update - BluePrince Software
Mr. Coffey indicated that he was asked to put together a presentation on how the software conversion was going. Mr. Coffey stated that this is a project management, building permit and inspection software for land development. Mr. Coffey reviewed the reasons why this software was chosen. Mr. Coffey noted that it kicked off in the middle of last year and launched in December so this software has been on the ground running for about a year. Mr. Coffey stated that it had some glitches but the Builder Radius Company folks have been great along with Bob Hardy and Scott Raettig. Mr. Coffey stated that there are about fifty contractors signed up to use the site and probably half of them use it regularly and love it. Mr. Coffey said that financial reporting has improved because of this program and IT has been able to add a component to enhance inspection scheduling. Mr. Coffey stated that this program has definitely increased inspectors efficiency and staffing customer service has also increased and the Department is now waiting for updates with some new features that can be tailored more to our needs. Mr. Coffey said that the department would like to expand this softwares use in the future. Mr. Coffey thanked the Board for their support and noted that this would not be possible without the support of the IT staffs help. Mr. Coffey also thanked the staff for hard work and the citizens for their input.
Update COTT Systems
Mr. Barnes indicated that they had received a memo from Bob Hardy regarding this system and is glad that it is working well. Mr. Hardy indicated that the plan is to put access to this on the website in the near future. Mr. Barnes noted that the County is ahead of the curve and commends the staff for innovative technologies.
Timeline and scheduling of Public Hearings
Mr. Coffey indicated that there is a lag in time from when the Planning Commission hears and votes on a case and when the Board of Supervisors holds its public hearings and asked that there be something to shorten this timeline. Mr. Barnes stated that the Board is trying to avoid holding too many public hearings at one meeting. Mr. Lintecum indicated that in previous jurisdictions, public hearings were set by the Planning Department and the Administration Department, which enabled staff to be spread out when public hearings are held and expedited the scheduling process. Mr. Wright stated that he would like to let staff schedule the public hearings.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to allow staff the ability to schedule public hearings for next six months on a trial basis.
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Shoreline Special Exemption Permit Request, Mr. Cockrell noted the 02-06 exception to the 50 fairway and said that the property is located at the end of Robbie Road, in the Cuckoos Nest subdivision. Mr. Cockrell said that this cove is 60-95 ft. and gets narrower in the back of the cove and this is also a no-wake zone. Mr. Cockrell noted that there are two other structures in the cove and this is why it is difficult to fit this into the 30.2 ft. in this fairway. Mr. Cockrell explained that this is not a large impact on water quality or public safety and also with the no wake zone, the speed would be lower as well. Mr. Cockrell also said that this would not impact the assumption of the quality of life because there are only two properties on the back of the cove. Mr. Cockrell then noted that the development review committee voted 6-1 that there is no justification to grant special exception and it was the same with the Planning Commission for a 5-2 denial.
Mr. Gentry noted that a main factor was the Planning Commission being unaware of a no wake zone and that the cove is only 90 wide. Mr. Gentry said that the bottom line is that the 1/3 rule works and it leaves over a 30 fairway in the cove and he feels that it should be accepted based on these issues. Mr. Wright stated that this meets what should be an exception but the Board hasnt established any patterns of what will be accepted as an exception. Mr. Barnes states that the appeals process is working and it is good we have this.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to grant the appeal.
Mr. Barnes stated that the County finally has an ad in the Virginia Business Magazine pertaining to Louisa County and would like to applaud Mr. Gibson and the Board for that happening. Mr. Wright wanted to give an update on the Piedmont Workforce Council employment center for still looking at several locations to talk to citizens regarding training and counseling to make it easier to improve status of life.
Mr. Jennings asked that Walter Barrett be appointed to the Affordable Housing Committee.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Mr. Walter Barrett to the Affordable Housing Committee.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Mr. Lintecum indicated that the first item is the resolution to apply for revenues sharing funds from VDOT.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to apply for the revenues funds.
Mr. Lintecum indicated that there are two requests for meetings from the School Board; one is from the Chairman for a meeting in the first two weeks of January and one from the Superintendent for a meeting on January 23 to discuss the bids. Mr. Purcell indicated that he doesnt see the point in meeting prior to the bids being received. Mr. Gentry stated that some of the numbers needed to be justified before a meeting was held. Mr. Havasy noted that not only did the Board qualify for those numbers but also the School Board. Mr. Barnes noted that one meeting would be scheduled on January 23 for the School Board.
Mr. Lintecum stated that a letter was received from VDOT answering some of the questions posed and another email was received that confirms the Louisa maintenance facility. Mr. Gentry asked if anything was received from the delegates and Mr. Lintecum stated nothing has been received. Mr. Gentry stated that citizens are concerned about closing the Louisa office when the County is growing so much. Mr. Purcell asked if there were any options available and Mr. Lintecum indicated that writing to the delegates stating little or no input before the decision was made and the information was ignored. Mr. Barnes stated that he was concerned that the local government input was not requested before deciding on which locations to close. Mr. Gentry asked for specifics on why it was being closed and only received the general information that was received before. Mr. Wright cannot understand or accept how contracting out work to a private industry is done and loading in a profit and doing it cheaper. Mr. Gentry indicated that it is due to cheap labor but it will rise. The Board agreed to follow up on letter and try to meet with Governor.
Resolution Appropriation for funds donated for the creation of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitor Center and for road signage for the visitors center
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Purcell abstaining, the Board adopted a resolution to appropriate funds donated for the creation of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitor Center and for road signage for the visitors center.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, with Mr. Gentry abstaining on bills pertaining to him, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the first half of December 2006 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $116,561.33.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the November 27, 2006 meeting.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the December 4, 2006 meeting.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:
1. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel reporting directly to the Administrator.
2. In accordance with §2.2-3711 (a) (5) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing business not yet announced.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:03 p.m.
RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this the 18th day of December 2006 pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, §2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this the 18th day of December 2006, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
REZ21-06; Lee Hall Plaza, Inc., c/o Daniel L. Hargett, Applicant; Zions Town Center, LLC and 15/64 Joint Venture c/o PBM Products, LLC, Owners request amendments to proffer numbers 3, 4, and 5 and deletion of proffer number 10 approved under REZ10-90 on April 15, 1991. The property is located on the east side of Route 15, north of the I-64 Interchange. The property is further identified as tax map parcels 51-46, 51-47, 51-48, 51-49 and 52-(12)-4, in the Green Springs Magisterial District and Green Springs Voting District. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Regional Service within the Zion Crossroads Designated Growth Area.
The applicant is requesting that certain proffers approved with the 15/64 Joint Venture zoning in 1991 be amended to facilitate development of the subject property as a commercial center.
Proffer #3 The proposed amendment would allow the placement of storm water detention facilities within the setback with the submittal and approval of a professional landscape plan with each site plan or plat.
Proffer #4 This amendment would amend the building restriction line in the original proffer from 120 feet to 85 feet from the edge of the right-of-way line.
This reflects the amendment to Section 86-18.1 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance to a 60-foot setback from the right-of-way line along interstate interchanges where certain improvements have taken place or certain conditions can be met.
Proffer #5 This modifies the access locations onto Route 15 to be consistent with the locations indicated on the concept plan submitted with this application, subject to engineering designs and VDOT approval.
Proffer #10 The dedication of a one-acre site for fire or rescue facilities would be deleted in its entirety for this portion of the 15/64 property. Referenced letter received by Mike Schlemmer.
At the Neighborhood Meeting held on November 8, 2006 no one was present other than several representatives of the applicant.
The Development Review Committee met on November 21, 2006 to review the requested proffer amendments. The Committee had questions concerning the modification of the proffer that related to existing hardwood/softwood stands along Route 15 and the replacement of the existing trees with a landscape plan and the types of plantings proposed for the buffer area. Committee members asked the applicant if they would be using recommended plantings from the Department of Forestry, who indicated that they would be willing to review that information.
The only other concern expressed by the Committee was the deletion of proffer #10, regarding the dedication of one acre of land for fire or rescue facility and the Committee asked for a response from the Emergency Services Department on this issue prior to the Planning Commission meeting. With this being the only condition, the Committee voted (7-0) to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission on the requested proffer amendments.
It appears that the modification of the existing proffers will enhance the visibility and aesthetics of the proposed commercial structures.
Mr. Wright questioned that the Planning Commission voted to change all proffers as presented and Mr. Coffey indicated yes. Mr. Havasy proposed holding ponds and was satisfied that there will be no draining problems. Mr. Coffey indicated that these drain into wetlands and will be wet ponds and will release at a slower rate. Mr. Gentry questioned whether the proffer received in 1991 identified the property of the 1-acre proffer and Mr. Coffey indicated that they were not that specific at the time. Mr. Coffey indicated that in discussion with Mr. Schlemmer it was agreed that if a 5-acre lot could be found it would be better. Mr. Barnes opened the public hearing and asked the applicants if they wished to speak.
Mr. Hargett thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak and Mr. Coffey for the help received by Community Development. Mr. Hargett said that he feels that this location is good for this commercial project and that this would create a great opportunity for the County for new jobs and keep taxes in Louisa County and diversify the tax base. Mr. Hargett stated that two issues would be discussed; first, clarification of the proffer allowing storm water retention in a portion of the setback on interstate 64 and the second is the reduction of setback along Route 15. Mr. Hargett said that this helps enhance visibility and improve access of the overall project. Mr. Kirk Cooper, the civil engineer on the project, stated that the site presents a challenge for storm water and it splits three ways off of the site to attempt to maintain current water drainage. Mr. Cooper asked for an amendment to allow ponds and additional landscaping, basically a buffer reduction for visibility. Mr. Cooper also added that the distance of the edge of pavement and right of way allows additional green space beyond the buffer. Mr. Havasy stated that he promised was brick and stone on the buildings and have not yet seen anything in writing from the developers and would like to see this brick and stone requirement be a to commitment. Mr. Hargett stated that he is thinking along the same lines and that a letter would be submitted in interest to build a destination location to the extent possible in beginning negotiations. Mr. Harper questioned what attempt meant when it was stated that an attempt was going to be made to prevent water from leaving the site other than in the manner they currently are. Mr. Cooper indicated that the same patterns are being used, but will over detain so that the discharge rate is the same. Mr. Cooper stated that the predevelopment conditions would be mimicked as best they can.
Angelo LoMascolo, Green Springs, stated that he knows that Green Springs is going to be developed and that it is the gateway to the County and the Historic District, however, he would like to propose to the Board that he thinks it would be useful if accepted that it be done with the provision of a citizens committee to advise the Board and Planning Department to provide quality control and visual continuity. Mr. LoMascolo stated that he feels this would be a very useful thing and doesnt feel the developer would be opposed.
Edward Wade, Green Springs, stated that he is concerned about getting three acres of water that he is getting now from the development of the Wal-Mart Distribution Center and is concerned about the affects of this new development.
Mr. Cooper indicated that as proposed all the outfalls are away from Rt. 15 and would not be increasing the run-off grate at any location. Mr. Cooper indicated that he would look at this in the reengineering and work this out.
Mr. Barnes closed the public hearing and brought discussion back to the Board. Mr. Gentry questioned the elimination of the one-acre lot. Mr. Coffey read the proffer, which does not give any information, and the current proffer is being deleted for this portion only but doesnt eliminate this proffer from the remainder of the parcel. Mr. Cooper indicated that the proffers only apply to the parcel and the remaining 150 acres would still include the proffer. Mr. Havasy asked if and contact had been made developers on the landscaping and Mr. Coffey indicated that the proffer states to County approval. Mr. Havasy asked if the applicants would preclude having a committee on this issue and Mr. Coffey indicated that he would work with it anyway. Mr. Havasy indicated that as representative of this area he would like to have others added to this equation to get local input. Mr. Purcell indicated that although this is the gateway to Louisa County, he doesnt think the applicants have any intention of making this a bad development and that the County should be very excited about this development and if a committee is created the Board as a whole should have an opinion on who should be on this Board. Mr. Wright stated that the applicant said that they would be willing to work with anyone and he doesnt feel that there needs to be an official committee to get citizen input. Mr. Hargett explained he would like to be proactive to get feedback of the community. Mr. Barnes noted that the Board has stressed their want for this area to be extremely pleasing and the applicant has worked with them.
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Harper, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board to approve this rezoning.
Amendment to the Louisa County Code Appendix A Community Development Department Fee Schedule Conditional Use Permit for Telecommunications Towers/Facilities
Mr. Coffey indicated that in November the Board recommended approval of the telecommunications master plan and application review. Mr. Coffey stated that this amends appendix A of the Louisa County Code and adds the conditional use fee as discussed and that this puts in the current fees of the County and adds this additional fee. Mr. Havasy asked how our fees compare to surrounding counties. Mr. Coffey indicated that currently the County is at the lower end of the fee schedule and he is working on an attachment for the budget review.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, with Mr. Purcell abstaining, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, to approve the adding of this additional fee.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the December 18, 2006, meeting at 7:45 p.m. until December 19, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
FITZGERALD A. BARNES, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA