Contact Sitemap Search
|
|
|
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; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; and April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk |
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wright called the January 16, 2007 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Havasy led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD
Justin Boynton, Caroline County, VA, stated that he would like the Board to consider postponing the public hearing for the rezoning of 18-06, Woodview Properties.
Bruce Martin, Mineral District, stated that he was concerned with the fact that the building and development policy of Louisa County were going through changes to the zoning code. Mr. Martin said that citizens have no idea on what to expect. Mr. Martin asked the Board for a build out map designated to the public and to the leaders of the County on exactly where the County stands. Mr. Martin stated that this would be a map that would take in consideration all recorded lots, applied building permits, and generally all information for future development. Mr. Martin stated that the public is expected to give comments and input on what is the best future policy for the County and with that said, Mr. Martin is requesting a developmental map for a clear view of where Louisa County stands at this time.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Harper stated that he would like to postpone the public hearing for the rezoning of 18-06, Woodview Properties. Mr. Morgan asked to add consultation with legal counsel to closed session.
On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the January 16, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.
PRESENTATIONS
Resolution - Recognizing Fitzgerald A. Barnes
Mr. Wright stated that he would like to express his thanks to Mr. Barnes for all of his personal involvement with the Board.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Barnes abstaining, the Board adopted a resolution to recognize Fitzgerald A. Barnes for serving as Chairman from January 2004 to December 2006.
Resolution Recognizing Willie L. Gentry, Jr.
Mr. Wright stated that he would like to extend his thanks to Mr. Gentry for what he has done for the County and what he will continue to do.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Gentry abstaining, the Board adopted a resolution to recognize Willie L. Gentry, Jr. for serving as Vice-Chairman from January 2004 to December 2006.
OLD BUSINESS
Resolution Approving the bylaws for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Purcell stated he would like the Board to discuss a possibility of having verbatim minutes of Board meetings. Mr. Purcell stated he would like to have a recording of exactly what people say. Mr. Purcell further noted that having summary minutes of meetings is not helpful if a complete, detailed record of what is said at each meeting is required for future clarification.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, for the Board to maintain verbatim minutes.
Mr. Harper stated the County Administrators office is responsible of maintaining the storage of Board recordings. Mr. Lintecum stated his office does maintain the Board recordings, and that if a Board member wishes for a particular portion of a meeting to be written in a verbatim fashion, that section will be written in that format. Mr. Lintecum further clarified that the request for verbatim minutes and the production of those minutes has been done administratively. Mr. Harper stated that policy would be appropriate.
Mr. Havasy asked if Board recordings were being recorded on audiotapes or CDs and what the life expectancy was for those formats. Mr. McLeod stated the recordings were being done digitally. Mr. McLeod added the Bylaws require for recordings to be kept for a five-year period. Mr. Havasy asked if the Board was safe with only saving Board recordings for five years. Mr. Lintecum stated there are time limits for individuals or organization to file court actions against the Board for an action taken by that Board or a past Board. Mr. Morgan said the State has set guidelines for maintaining pubic records and that the Administration department is following those regulations.
Mr. Wright stated minutes were done in a verbatim format in the past and those minutes were so voluminous and overwhelming, that it was difficult to follow and read them. Mr. Wright asked what the staff time involvement would be if each meeting required verbatim minutes. Mr. McLeod stated if only parts of the meeting were verbatim, then it would not be a substantial time requirement, however, if the whole meeting were written verbatim, then it would be very time consuming. Mr. Purcell stated he wanted to make sure that the records were being maintained clearly and that these recording were being held for the appropriate amount of time in case they were needed. Mr. Purcell removed his motion with Mr. Jennings removing his second. The Board came to a consensus that the minutes would be maintained in summation format, with Board audio recording being retained for five years.
Mr. Wright stated he would like to remind the Board that one of the purposes of the Bylaws is for members to preserve a spirit of cooperation and respect.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to preserve a spirit of cooperation and respect.
Mr. Wright reminded the Board that no additional items could be discussed at special meeting unless all members are present at that special meeting and majority of members concur with the addition of any particular item.
Mr. Wright stated public hearings on rezoning issues are more controversial and most vulnerable to question on who voted and who didnt. Mr. Wright said he would like concurrence to vote by roll call for all rezoning issues so that it is clear on who voted each way.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, for the Board to adopt the Bylaws for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
Update Water Case/McGuire Woods
Mr. Stewart Leeth with McGuire Woods, said he was pleased to present information about the water case and to report that the suit is over. Mr. Leeth stated that in 2004, landowners brought suit against the County challenging the transfer of water to wells in the Green Springs area. Mr. Leeth explained the first suit involved eight different counts against the County and another case was filed in 2005. Mr. Leeth added both cases were consolidated and involved fourteen different counts, all stating that the transfer of water was illegal and alleged that use of the wells was not in code. Mr. Leeth stated the Court had a six-day trial and heard evidence from both sides. Mr. Leeth said the Court rejected all claims and dismissed the case. Mr. Leeth added the Court stated that the rule in Virginia for the issue of water transfer is a rule for reasonable use. Mr. Leeth said this was a very good case and a well-reasoned decision by the court. Mr. Barnes stated he kept hearing different outcome and wanted clarification on the outcome of the litigation. Mr. Leeth stated that the case was dismissed. Mr. Leeth further explained the plaintiffs had not proven their case and it is over at this point. Mr. Purcell asked how long the County worked on this case. Mr. Leeth said the entire process took about two and a half years. . Mr. Wright thanked Mr. Leeth for the good work.
Discussion Enforcement of Inoperable Vehicle Ordinance
Mr. Harper stated that code enforcement in the County has always started with a complaint. Mr. Harper stated the County would respond to complaints but should also address obvious issues at the same time. Mr. Gentry and Mr. Havasy commented that they agreed with Mr. Harper. Mr. Lintecum stated the staff knows the direction the Board wants to go in regards to code enforcement.
NEW BUSINESS
Resolution Supplemental appropriation to the Louisa County School Board
Mr. Purcell stated he has been on the Board for three years and money has been returned to the school system every year. Mr. Purcell asked Mr. Green if this would continue to happen and from where the money is coming. Mr. Green explained that one portion is from the Federal government and school systems dont receive those funds until this time of year because the Federal governments fiscal year starts is October and the School Board doesnt know grants will be coming in until that time. Mr. Green stated that one major difference this year is that the General Assembly made an error in the sales tax estimates, which the State uses for education. Mr. Green explained the General Assembly over estimated sales tax revenue and when the budget was brought to Governor Kane, the error was found and the budget was amended, which gave some relief to schools.
Mr. Green stated sales tax estimates have always been off because the estimate is based on state patterns and the County doesnt follow those patterns. Mr. Green explained that because of the issues with the estimates, he keeps his own spreadsheet to track collections rates. Mr. Purcell asked if it was possible to guess the rate of return. Mr. Green stated yes, he would make a very good guess because it would be based on the economy oven an eighteen-month period.
Mr. Gentry said the money receive this year was additional money and asked if it would be spent during this fiscal year. Mr. Green stated the plan is to spend the fund during this fiscal year to help offset some needs for next year. Mr. Harper asked if receiving these funds and spending them this year would save the taxpayers for next year. Mr. Barnes questioned if this money was for one time or would it be reoccurring funds. Mr. Wright stated Mr. Melton has already decreased his budget request for next year by $500,000 because of these funds.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for supplemental appropriation to the Louisa County School Board.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Wright explained he wanted to report that the meeting with the School Board went pleasantly well. Mr. Gentry stated he would like to report that the Shoreline Committee had met and the Committee has not yet received a summarization back where everything could be checked off on but that should happening the near future. Mr. Jennings stated the Water Authority met last week and that the County now has 299 customers with two customers being the Town of Louisa and the Town of Mineral. Mr. Jennings stated the Water Authority is in need of another building.
BOARD APPOINTMENT
Mr. Wright stated he would like to give the appointments for the following Board members to the 2007 Committees:
BOARD INTERAGENCY APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES A. Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Commission Richard A. Havasy B. Clean Community Commission Richard A. Havasy C. Commission on Aging Jackson T. Wright D. County Medical Insurance Comm. Liaison Fitzgerald Barnes
Jackson T. WrightE. CPMT Jackson T. Wright F. Dry Cask Committee Richard A. Havasy G. Fire Association & Communications Equip. Willie L. Harper H. Industrial Development Authority Fitzgerald A. Barnes I. Lake Anna Advisory Commission Willie L. Harper
C. Lee Lintecum, Ex-OfficioJ. Library Advisory Board Eric F. Purcell K. Linkages Willie L. Gentry L. Louisa County Planning Commission Liaison Willie L. Gentry, Jr. M. Parks & Rec. Advisory Committee Liaison Fitzgerald A. Barnes N. Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Board Allen B. Jennings O. Rescue Squad (EMSAL) Liaisons Richard A. Havasy P. School Construction & Planning Liaisons Fitzgerald A. Barnes
Allen B. JenningsQ. Sheriff’s Department Interface Willie L. Harper R. Social Services Board Jackson T. Wright S. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Comm. Richard A. Havasy
Fitzgerald A BarnesT. Towns (Louisa & Mineral) Eric Purcell (Both) U. Transportation Safety Commission Liaison Willie L. Gentry, Jr. V. Trevilians Battlefield Foundation Liaison Richard A. Havasy W. VA Power Spent Fuel Richard A. Havasy X. Volunteers of Louisa Liaison Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Y. Water & Sewer Rates Committee Allen B. Jennings Z. Water Authority Allen B. Jennings
Board Internal Committees A. Buildings & Grounds Allen B. Jennings B. Economic Development Fitzgerald A. Barnes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr.C. Management & Budget Jackson T. Wright
Willie L. HarperD. Parliamentarian Patrick Morgan E. Personnel Jackson T. Wright
Willie L. HarperF. Public Works Fitzgerald A. Barnes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed the above-mentioned Board members to the 2007 Committees.
Mr. Havasy said he would like to reappoint Robert Clarke, Jr. to the Industrial Development Authority.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Mr. Robert Clarke, Jr. to the Industrial Development Authority.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Mr. Lintecum reminded the Board of the upcoming Board meetings. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Wright if the Board would vote on the changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance at the public hearing next Monday or wait to discuss the issue and then bring it up at another meeting. Mr. Gentry stated some issues probably could be voted on, however, others require more time involvement. Mr. Wright said he thinks what the Board may consider will depend on the additional information received from the public, but he likes the time to discuss the information before making a decision. Mr. Wright stated he would like to postpone the final decisions at the public hearing on January 22, 2007.
CONSENT ITEMS
Resolution Supplemental appropriation to the Social Services Department for additional State and Federal funds for September 1, 2006 through November 30, 2006 (2nd Quarter)
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for supplemental appropriation to the Social Services Department for additional State and Federal funds for September 1, 2006 through November 30, 2006 (2nd Quarter).
Resolution For the use of the former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors signature stamp until a signature stamp for the new Chairman can be made
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for the use of the former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors signature stamp until a signature stamp for the new Chairman can be made.
Resolution Supplemental appropriation of the V-stop grant received by the Commonwealths Attorneys Office
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for supplemental appropriation of the V-stop grant received by the Commonwealths Attorneys Office.
Resolution Supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Office for the Criminal Justice Systems Improvement Grant
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Office for the Criminal Justice Systems Improvement Grant.
Resolution For a speed limit sign to be placed on Carter Road (route 792)
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a speed limit sign to be placed on Carter Road (route 792).
Resolution For a No Trash Dumping sign to be placed on Carter Road (route 792)
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a No Trash Dumping sign to be placed on Carter Road (route 792).
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Lintecum mentioned to Mr. Wright that the Virginia County Board Chairpersons Institute would be held from February 1, 2007 through February 3, 2007 and asked if he and Mr. Harper would like to attend. Mr. Wright stated he wanted to go but Mr. Harper said he is undecided. Mr. Wright asked the Board to look at the invitation for the Charity Spaghetti Dinner for the Nicholas Williams Foundation on January 27, 2007 and decide if any of the Board members would like to attend.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Messrs Wright, Harper, Havasy, Gentry and Jennings abstaining on bills pertaining to them, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the first half of January 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $740,595.82.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the December 18, 2006 meeting.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the December 19, 2006 meeting.
Mr. Purcell stated he would like to make a correction for clarification to the January 3, 2007 minutes. Mr. Purcell noted on page 10, he would like to delete half of the second sentence under the section for correspondence and have the sentence read, “Mr. Purcell would like the Board to continue to address issues on the basis of the issues themselves and what is involved.”
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the corrected minutes of the January 3, 2007 meeting.
CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:03 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:
1. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel.
REGULAR SESSION
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.
RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, 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 16th day of January 2007, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, §2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this the 16th day of January 2007, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZ17-06; Rosa L. Winston, et als, (Louisa County Circuit Court Chancery Case), Applicants; Rosa L. Winston, et als (John H., Mary S. and Eppie Waller, Heirs), Owners; Harold H. Purcell and James L. Lillie, III, Esquires (Special Commissioners), Agents; request rezoning of approximately 42.32 acres from Agricultural (A-1) to Agricultural (A-2). The property is located on the west side of Route 635 (West Chapel Road), south of Route 661 (Crewsville Road). The property is further identified as tax map parcels 98-9, 98-11, 98-12, 98-13 and 98-14, in the Jackson Magisterial District and Mountain Road Voting District.
No persons, other than one of the Special Commissioners, were present to discuss this application in the Neighborhood Meeting held on October 11, 2006.
The Development Review Committee met on October 25, 2006 to review this application. The Committee briefly discussed the request and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission on the requested rezoning.
The Planning Commission held their public hearing on November 9, 2006 at which there was no one present to speak for or against the request. The Planning Commission did not state any concerns and voted, 6-0-1, with Mr. Winston abstaining, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Havasy questioned if all of the lines would become vacated and make this one piece of property or would this still remain as five lots. Mr. Coffey stated that the parcels would remain as they are.
Mr. James Lilly, Applicant, stated the parcels will remain intact with individual parcels and the plan is to sell the lots that way. Mr. Lilly stated when the lots were advertised to sell, several lots were zoned A-1 and because there was a difference from the tax maps and the land records, it was chosen to include all parcels in the rezoning application. Mr. Lilly asked the Board that they approve these parcels to be rezoned to A-2. Mr. Lilly stated the purpose to rezone this area would be to demand a higher price and to receive a greater return from the sell.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to approve the applicants request to rezone approximately 42.32 acres from Agricultural (A-1) to Agricultural (A-2).
REZ19-06; Huntington Way, LLC and Purcell Land & Timber, LC c/o Charles F. Purcell, Agent; Purcell Land & Timber, LC and Purcell Land & Lumber Corporation, Owners; request conditional rezoning of approximately 85 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The property is located on the south side of Route 22 (Davis Highway), approximately 2.0 miles west of Mineral along Shortmans Road. The property is further identified as tax map parcels 42-(14)-4, 42-(14)-5, 42-(14)-12, 42-(14)-14, 42-(14)-18 and a portion of 42-93 in the Mineral Magisterial District and Mineral Voting District. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Mixed Use within the Town of Mineral Designated Growth Area.
There were two people, other than the applicant and their representatives, present to discuss this application in the Neighborhood Meeting held on November 8, 2006. Concerns were expressed over the ability of Rt. 22/208 to accommodate the additional number of vehicles generated by the proposed residential development. There were suggestions of ways that may help to alleviate some of the concerns such as getting VDOT to reduce the speed limit and eliminating the passing zone in this location. One citizen asked if the trees along Route 22/208 were going to be removed. The applicant indicated that the plan was to leave as much as possible and only clean out the underbrush to beautify the road frontage.
The Development Review Committee met on November 21, 2006 to review the requested proposal. After the applicants presentation, Committee members asked questions about access, ownership of the open space, buffers, wetlands and cost of housing units.
After more discussion, it was the consensus of the Development Review Committee that a lot of thought and planning had gone into the proposal and the Committee voted (7-0) to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission with the proffers submitted by the applicant.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 14, 2006 at which there were twelve people present who supported the rezoning request. There were some concerns with the traffic along Route 22 and suggestions of lowering the speed limit or adding a traffic light were presented.
After much discussion and consideration, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Louisa County Board of Supervisors on the requested conditional rezoning request.
Mr. Wright asked for a brief discussion about the Plan Unit Development to understand about the mix of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Coffey stated the Plan Unit Development is to allow for more flexibility and creativity and for a higher density in and near growth areas. Mr. Coffey explained commercial and residential properties could be combined and also a variety of houses could be used. Mr. Coffey stated the growth areas concept could be taken and also be implemented. Mr. Wright opened the public hearing and Mr. Purcell stated he would be abstaining from this vote.
Mary Johnson, Bell Surveys, Inc, stated the County has a workforce-housing crisis and she is excited to present a project that actually promotes workforce housing. Ms. Johnson stated she was here to present what the County can do for people to be able to afford housing. Ms. Johnson stated this proposed project not only meets the goals of the County but also exceeds them. Ms. Johnson explained Huntington has been designed with a density ration of 3.33 units per acre and had been proffered that eighty percent of the units will be dedicated for workforce housing. Ms. Johnson noted this application provides for more workforce housing with less density and also provides for a mixture of housing types. Ms. Johnson stated this project is located in designated growth area and by the Board approving this application; this property will be in compliance with the Countys comprehensive plan. Ms. Johnson stated a year has been spent on the plans of this project and careful consideration has been given for everything that the County has asked for. Ms. Johnson said Huntington is a wonderful development and worthy of the Boards approval. Ms. Johnson added Huntington is a planned workforce project that offers young people an opportunity to purchase a first starter home and also provides excellent opportunities for retirement. Ms. Johnson stated she respectfully requests the Boards approval on this project.
Mr. Charles Purcell, Applicant, stated there is a tremendous need for workforce housing in the community. Mr. Charles Purcell stated this project is specifically designed to hold prices down, which means that less money has to be taken for both the property and the homes. Mr. Charles Purcell stated the consultants have done a great job on planning and designing this project. Mr. Charles Purcell noted some key points of the plan such as, the tree-lined main entrance, the buffer areas around the project, thirty-three acres dedicated to open space, walking trails and picnic areas, and also nice homes with different styles. Mr. Charles Purcell stated he has met with VDOT and that a left and a right turn lane would be added for less traffic. Mr. Charles Purcell explained this would be about a ten-year project. Mr. Charles Purcell said this project has had a tremendous response from the public and it has great neighborhood support. Mr. Charles Purcell stated he has taken public input as the project has been planned and that many people have supported this. Mr. Charles Purcell explained there have been thirteen (13) proffers to be considered as a part of the rezoning application. These proffers address the following items:
| 1. Work Force Housing |
| 2. Public Water and Sewer |
| 3. $50,000 to the Mineral Fire Department |
| 4. 30% Open Space |
| 5. Maximum of 8 acres for cross country course |
| 6. Curb and gutter sidewalks in each housing section |
| 7. Limit of sales to 40 units per year for the first two years – 50 units per year thereafter |
| 8. State specification roads |
| 9. Tree line buffers |
| 10. Walking trails |
| 11. Playgrounds |
| 12. Picnic areas |
| 13. Entrance design and turn lanes consistent with VDOT requirements |
Amend Section 86-464 Districts described to add Taylors Creek (#2) Agricultural and Forestal District. Claire and Leslie Newman, Stephen and Tara Dean, Sharon Lynn Ramsey and Donald Gresham, Tiffany Varney, Karen Swank, Nick and Kathy Levay, Erin and Doug Wood, Theresa and Stanley Gonyo, Beverly Rainey, Barbara Babin, Richard Pardue, Patrick and Julia Godek, David and Monika Fenner, Cindy Kuster, Robert and Suzanne Bowman, Cheryl Klaty, Joshua Brooks, Jr. and Hazel T. Thacker (ODell), request that the following properties create and be included in the Taylors Creek Agricultural and Forestal District: Tax Map Parcels 92-(5)-4, 92-(15)-9, 92-(5)-11, 92-(14)-C1, 92-(5)-13, 92-(5)-12, 92-(5)-15, 92-(15)-10, 92-(5)-10, 92-(15)-13, 92-(15)-5, 92-(15)-7A, 92-(15)-14, 92-(5)-8, 92-(15)-4, 92-(33)-1, 92-(5)-14B, 92-(5)-5, 92-(5)-6 and 92(5)-7. The proposed district is located on the east and west sides of Route 602 (Copperline Road), north of the intersection of Route 661 (Crewsville Road). It is proposed as 232.814 acres; with 210.80 acres in the district core; which is over the required 200-acre minimum.
The Louisa County Comprehensive Plan supports the formation and continuation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts in the County. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential, which is intended to promote the open character of Louisa and to protect active agricultural uses.
A ten-year term has been requested.
The Agricultural and Forestal District Review Committee met on November 9, 2006 and voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission also held their public hearing on November 9, 2006 at which there were two people present that spoke in favor of forming the district. After consideration of the application, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors on the creation of the Taylors Creek (#2) Agricultural/Forestal District for a ten-year term.
Claire Newman, Mountain Road District, Applicant, stated she sees this rezoning as one-way to protect the rights to continue doing agricultural activities, such as raising livestock. Ms. Newman said in this County there is an effort to protect the rural agricultural character and historical culture and she hopes that the Board will support to rezone this area.
Mr. Barnes stated the Board has supported agricultural districts and he would like to see agricultural forestal signs around the community. Mr. Gentry thanked Ms. Newman in requesting to rezone this area because there needs to be more agricultural areas in the County. Mr. Jennings stated he was glad that this issue was brought back to the Board and that he is in favor of this request to rezone and thinks this is a great effort to encourage this type of growth. Mr. Wright said he encourages continual efforts and to get the participation to revise the agricultural district and thinks that this is important to the County.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to approve the applicants request of the creation of the Taylors Creek (#2) Agricultural/Forestal District for a ten-year term.
Review and consideration of the 2006-07 Louisa County Capital Improvements Program, based on the 2006 Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with Section 15.2-2239 of the State Code of Virginia.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Countys Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on November 9, 2006.
After the Planning Commissions review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on November 9, 2006, they unanimously recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Barnes stated he couldnt recall the Board formally adopting $16 million for the renovation of Thomas Jefferson Elementary School. Mr. McLeod stated the request started with $8.8 million and a recommendation was received from the school for $22 million during one of the work sessions. Mr. Jennings said he had done a calculation on what he thought the renovation should cost and came up with $16 million. Mr. McLeod indicated no formal adoption of monies was approved for the renovations; the only approval was for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mr. Gentry asked what year was showing in the CIP. Mr. McLeod stated it was FY 08-09 split. Mr. Wright stated the CIP has to go through the Planning Commission for approval for the cash proffers. Mr. Barnes stated he does not want to send a false message to the public on legitimate cost or have confusion and he would like the Board to be upfront as they go along. Mr. McLeod stated a five-year plan is talked about but the Board only appropriates money for the current year. Mr. Coffey added the Planning Commission likes the opportunity to review and look at the mechanics of the CIP.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Mr. Barnes voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board agreed to approve the 2006-07 Louisa County Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
Review and consideration of a cash proffer policy in the amount of $4,362.00, based on the approved 2006-07 Louisa County Capital Improvements Program and in accordance with Section 15.2-2298 of the State Code of Virginia.
The purpose of the cash donation is to help the locality fund public infrastructure improvements such as schools, roads, etc. The Code of Virginia (§15.2-2298) allows for such donations in high growth areas of the Commonwealth (growth over 10%) such as Louisa County (as reported by the 2000 U.S. Census). By statute, such cash proffers must be voluntary.
The recommended maximum cash proffer amount is directly tied to those capital improvements included in the adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and specifically identified in the cash proffer methodology. As capital improvements are included in the CIP in the future, the Board may wish to consider reexamining the maximum cash proffer methodology to include additional improvements in the cash proffer policy.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider this cash proffer policy on November 9, 2006. The Commission unanimously recommended a maximum cash proffer of $4,362 per lot as part of subdivision development as a result of a rezoning process. Cash proffers would be voluntary, as part of the rezoning process, but the policy would set the maximum amount that could be accepted by the County. Cash proffers are also proposed to be accepted at the time of building permit application.
Mr. Havasy questioned the recommended maximum cash proffer. Mr. Coffey explained if the application for the project was worth more than the cash proffer, a separate proffer would be allowed under the code. Mr. Havasy asked if the maximum could not be exceeded. Mr. Coffey stated this would be a cash proffer versus other proffers. Mr. Coffey explained cash proffers are not a requirement and that the benefits and the cost of the project would be weighed to determine this. Mr. Coffey indicated one benefit for setting the maximum cash proffer is that it is logically tied to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mr. Morgan said the state code has certain protections for the developer such as if the cash proffers were not used to the CIP, the money would have to be refunded to the applicant. Mr. Barnes questioned if the cash proffers were supposed to be attributed to growth. Mr. Coffey stated the proffers are tied to adverse impacts of growth. Mr. Purcell stated as far as a cash proffer is concerned this number is very reasonable and is tied to methodology. Mr. Purcell said there seems like that is some subjectivity to the proffers in the past. Mr. Purcell questioned if there are specific categories that the money has to be in or is it subjective. Mr. Coffey stated a good reason is needed and has to be defensible. Mr. Coffey said the methodology that is set up is intended to be linear so that the Board could choose and have the maximum amount of control. Mr. Purcell asked if this cash proffer was done on a year-to-year bases. Mr. Coffey said the money has to be spent within a certain time frame. Mr. Gentry questioned if the lots that qualify for affordable housing were exempt. Mr. Coffey explained there is not a policy in writing necessarily saying that affordable housing is exempt but he would recommend to the Board that there not be a proffer for those and that these would be based on a case by case basis. Mr. Wright questioned if new construction of schools was considered growth. Mr. Lintecum stated operations do not count against proffers. Mr. Morgan stated this CIP is just an idea of how much money will be spent in the future and the future is what is being looked at when a proffer is accepted. Mr. Barnes questioned if proffers would only be affected by rezoning.
Mr. Bruce Martin, Mineral District, stated he is against the proffer system and that he doesnt see a difference between a proffer and a bribe. Mr. Martin explained the Board has a prospective on this issue, the Community Development Department has a prospective, developers themselves have a prospective, and also citizens have a prospective. Mr. Martin stated proffers should be based solely on merits. Mr. Martin feels the County needs a proffer free and an uncorrupted system. Mr. Martin stated he is not in favor of the cash proffer.
Mr. Tyler Craddock, Home Building Association of Richmond, VA, stated the cash proffer tax is based on a faulty perception that residential development does not “pay its own way” to local governments who are charged with the responsibility to provide and maintain public infrastructure. Mr. Craddock stated the truth is that new residential development increases property values, which will lead to higher assessments and increased revenues for the County. Mr. Craddock said a cash proffer is nothing more than a tax on new homes and higher cash proffers not only place a special tax on new home buyers; they also drive up the cost of all housing. Mr. Craddock indicated enacting cash proffer taxes in Louisa County would result in decreased housing affordability for current and future citizens. Mr. Craddock stated for these reasons, the Home Building Association of Richmond urge the Board to vote against the imposition of cash proffer taxes.
Mr. Purcell stated the proffer system is tied to the CIP and he thinks that eventually the County will have a proffer system. Mr. Purcell stated he opposes this proffer but he understands the reasons on why this will probably pass. Mr. Havasy stated people are not moving north, everyone is moving here so he is in favor of the cash proffers because of future development. Mr. Barnes stated he is not for proffers because he is a believer for impact fees and these fees would help collect money to balance out tax revenue with growth. Mr. Barnes stated rezoning does not have to be done to collect impact fees and if affordable housing isnt exempt from the proffers then the County will fail a lot of citizens with that concept. Mr. Harper stated he prefers impact fees but they are not available. Mr. Gentry stated he wouldnt let a cash proffer bribe him and that a case-by-case basis would make affordable housing exempt. Mr. Gentry said he would support the proffers. Mr. Jennings stated he is not in favor of cash proffers but if the County doesnt have proffers then people that rezone would be getting away without paying anything. Mr. Wright said he does not think that cash proffers are perfect but they are valid and he will support the proffers. Mr. Barnes stated after one year he would like to have a break out of collection of cash proffers versus the amount of money derived from Zion Crossroads. Mr. Barnes stated the relationship between the two is good economic development and cash proffers. Mr. Wright explained he does not see the connection between the two because the County needs both proffers and development.
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 5-2, with Mr. Barnes and Mr. Jennings voting against, the Board approved a cash proffer policy in the amount of $4,362.00.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the January 16, 2007 meeting at 9:20 p.m. until January 19, 2007 at 1:00 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
________________________________
JACKSON T. WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA