Contact Sitemap Search
|Board Present:||Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Allen B. Jennings, David B. Morgan, Eric F. Purcell, and Jack T. Wright|
|Others Present:||C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; and Mary Jackson, Deputy Clerk|
CALL TO ORDERChairman Barnes called the January 17, 2006 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Gentry led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
Mr. Wright commented that Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, is beginning his seventh year of service with the County.
Rudy Butler, Goochland County Official, Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) President, informed the Board that he was born and raised in Bells Crossroads, Louisa. Mr. Butler explained to the Board that he is visiting localities throughout the state to find out what they do, how they conduct their Board meetings, and if there is anything that VACo can do for them. Mr. Butler said that on behalf of VACo, they would be lobbying the General Assembly on the items that were voted on as priorities. Mr. Butler identified other members of VACo, saying that they have a diverse group to lobby. Mr. Butler said that they are trying to get more funding to help with the secondary roads, state transportation, education, and eminent domain. Mr. Butler said that the Legislative Day will be held in February this year and urged the Board to attend. Mr. Butler said that Senator Houck is going to be bringing the issue of the “vicious dog” forward. Mr. Butler said that they are hoping that in 2007, when they have the celebration in Jamestown that the National Association of Counties (NACO) will be there. Mr. Butler said that they are looking for volunteers to help with the Jamestown 2007 celebration. Mr. Butler summarized the services that are offered through VACo that helps localities save money. In closing, Mr. Butler said that if there are any other issues that they would like to have them lobby for to forward their request to them.
CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD
Ron Skaife, Patrick Henry District, informed the Board that he was here this evening to speak with them about the increase in taxes. Mr. Skaife stated that he does not see results with goods and services from the County that indicates that this money is absolutely necessary. Mr. Skaife said that he was told from the individuals in the Real Estate Assessment Department that the assessments have to be 100% of the assessed value since this is what the legislature puts it at. Mr. Skaife suggested that the Board lower the value to allow individuals to be able to afford their taxes.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Harper said that he would like to add potential litigation in the Mineral area and personnel under the County Administrator as topics for discussion during closed session.
Mr. Gentry said that he would like to add the Public Meeting Room as a topic for discussion.
Mr. Wright said that he would like to add Erin Way as a topic for discussion to have it considered as a Rural Addition.
Mr. Lintecum said that he would like to add consultation with legal counsel as a topic for discussion during closed session.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the January 17, 2006 agenda was adopted as amended.
Louisa Library Update - Joann Tetrault
Joann Tetrault, Louisa County Branch Librarian, provided a handout to the Board that reflected the amount of users at the library, activity levels for Sundays and computers, circulation in Louisa, collection statistics, registration statistics, the 2005 summer statistics, and the most popular services offered at the Louisa County Public Library and explained all of the details.
Amendment and Approval of the Boards Bylaws
Chairman Barnes reminded the Board that at their last meeting, he had asked them to review their Bylaws to see if there was a need for any additional changes. Chairman Barnes said that he had received some comments from other members, with one expressing concerns about the process of the minutes. Chairman Barnes said that there are a lot of times that minutes are used in court proceedings and asked Pat Morgan, County Attorney, if there were any issues from a legal standpoint that would require them to have the minutes verbatim.
Mr. Morgan replied that most localities use an edited form of the minutes and do not have them verbatim. Mr. Morgan said that he does not foresee any problems the Board would have using the current minutes to get them to stand up in court. Mr. Morgan said that the official minutes are what the Board adopts at each of their meetings and they are required to hold onto the tapes for a period of five years. Mr. Morgan said that the tapes would be made available should they need them for further clarification in a court proceeding.
The Board discussed this topic in further detail with Mr. Wright asking if the tape recording themselves were still considered the official minutes. Mr. Purcell said that he had raised this point in an email that he had sent because he was looking through the minutes from their prior meeting, which some of the comments that were made by some of the citizens as well as himself were abbreviated to the point that he felt the context had been lost. Mr. Purcell stated that knowing that the tapes could be reviewed for a five-year period in the event that something ever happens satisfies his concerns. Mr. Gentry said that he has noticed at times that the comments are rather brief, but these can be edited to reflect the necessary changes so their comments arent taken out of context. Chairman Barnes explained that they held a recent Board meeting during a snowstorm; therefore, he had asked for the Bylaws to be amended to allow the Chairman the flexibility to postpone a meeting in the event of inclement weather. Mr. Gentry pointed out that the Bylaws talk about the applicant speaking during public hearings and states that the applicant would do so once the public hearing had been opened. Mr. Gentry said that they have been allowing the applicant to speak prior to opening the hearing and after the public hearing. Mr. Gentry said that they should modify the Bylaws to reflect this change or follow them with the applicant speaking once the public hearing has been opened and rebut anything that was said prior to the hearing being closed.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the bylaws for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to include the modification for inclement weather.
Appointment of Board Members to Commission, Committees, and Boards
Chairman Barnes said that he has received emails from the Board members regarding the committees and commissions in which they serve. Chairman Barnes said that the only change that he is going to recommend is to have Allen Jennings take Willie Harpers placed on the Water and Sewer Rates Committee.
I. BOARD INTERAGENCY APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES:
see Board Committees
Discussion - Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review Hopeful Church Estates
Darren Coffey, Community Development Director, explained to the Board that his department had received a preliminary subdivision plat for the Hopeful Church Subdivision, which would consist of twenty-eight lots in Louisa County. Mr. Coffey said that this subdivision is comprised of two parent parcels (Tax Map Parcels 93-152 and 03-153) to be served by a new internal state road with one access onto Route 664 (Hopeful Church Road). Mr. Coffey said that after review, it appears that the proposal is in compliance with all existing Agricultural (A-2) zoning regulations. In closing, Mr. Coffey said that the ordinance requires this to be brought before the Board for their review and asked if they had any questions.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that the location of these parcels on Hopeful Church Road goes from Route 33 over to Route 610 in his District. Mr. Wright said that it appears as though the configuration of the subdivision has a good layout; therefore, he would recommend that they send this back to the Community Development Department and allow them to handle it administratively.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to allow the Community Development Director to handle the Hopeful Church Estates Subdivision administratively.
Condition of the Public Meeting Room
Mr. Gentry explained to the Board that he has been attending a lot of meetings in the Public Meeting Room and has found that there are problems that still exist with the temperature of the room and the sound system. Mr. Gentry said that the public is not able to hear what is going on during these meetings and he would like to have it corrected.
The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Chairman Barnes asking Bob Hardy, Information Technology Director, if he was working with the sound system.
Mr. Hardy responded by saying the problem is that it is a small meeting room and once you have microphones and speakers in the same meeting room, you run into the situation of having feedback. Mr. Hardy said that they have installed devices to prevent the feedback, but they need to orient the speakers in a way that will allow them to have more volume in the back of the meeting room. Mr. Lintecum said that he would work with Public Works to have them look at the venting system.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Hardy and Mr. Lintecum to address their issues with the Public Meeting Room and bring back their recommendations to the Board within thirty days.
Rural Addition List
Mr. Wright said that he would like to have Erin Way added to the Roadviewers list to have it considered as a Rural Addition. Mr. Wright explained that this road is just right off of Route 522 just south of Route 601. Mr. Wright said there is a subdivision here that currently has four houses built and occupied.
Dr. Morgan informed the Board that the Dry Cask Committee had met earlier this month where they confirmed that they are on track with the number of casks that the Board had certified previous to their last C. U. P. Dr. Morgan said that they will have completed filling the current pad this year and in 2007 they will being filling the new pad that was approved a year ago. Mr. Lintecum stated that he would include the official minutes from the Dry Cask Committee meeting in their next Board Packet.
Mr. Wright informed the Board that the Piedmont Workforce Council, which includes nine counties and the city of Charlottesville, oversees the Workforce Investment Act and the Workforce Investment Board. He explained that they are trying to get the counties more involved since they typically only have four or five jurisdictions involved with their meetings. Mr. Wright said that they want to get the other jurisdictions involved more. Mr. Wright said that they are putting more emphasis on the Workforce Investment to make it more responsive to economic development. He explained that they want to make sure that there are training programs in place in all of the localities to allow them to give a trained workforce to economic development prospects that want to come into one of these localities.
Dr. Morgan said that there was an email that was sent to all of the Board members from Bill Martin, Chairman of the Clean Community Commission, recommending that Nancy Lear be appointed as an at large member; therefore as the liaison to this commission, he would like to make this appointment.
Mr. Wright said that he would like to create an at large position for the Commission on Aging to appoint Bill Martin. Mr. Wright said that Mr. Martin also works with JABA; therefore, he feels that this would be a good fit for him. Mr. Wright said that he would also like to reappoint Shelly Blevins-Stanley to the Library Advisory Board. Mr. Wright said that Patricia Hicks has asked not to be reappointed to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee; therefore, he would like to appoint Diane Montgomery to this committee.
Mr. Gentry said that he would like to appoint Claudia Chisholm to the Clean Community Commission.
Mr. Harper said that he would like to reappoint Albert Gutekenst to the Clean Community Commission.
Mr. Jennings said that he would like to reappoint Stuart Cooke to the Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Agency.
Chairman Barnes said that he would like to reappoint Roy Hopkins, Ashland Fortune, James Glass, and Kenny Forrest to the Transportation Safety Commission.
Mr. Wright informed that Board that he might have an individual that is interested in being appointed to the TJPDC Workforce Investment Act Board, but he would not have an answer for a couple of weeks.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Nancy Lear as a member at large to the Clean Community Commission, Bill Martin as a member at large to the Commission on Aging, Diane Montgomery to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, Claudia Chisholm to the Clean Community Commission, and reappointed Shelly Blevins-Stanley to the Library Advisory Board, Albert Gutekenst to the Clean Community Commission, Stuart Cooke to the Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Agency, and Roy Hopkins, Ashland Fortune, James Glass, and Kenny Forrest to the Transportation Safety Commission.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Mr. Lintecum presented his report highlighting the following items:
Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has enclosed a copy of Mr. Coffeys report to the Board reflecting the activities of the Community Development Department.
The Board briefly discussed this topic with Chairman Barnes saying that he noticed where they had received a little over 800 plans and reviewed a little over 600 plans, which reflects that at least 200 of these plans have lag time. Chairman Barnes asked if he were to submit a plan in December, when could he expect to see a turn around. Mr. Jennings asked Mr. Coffey to confirm the current turn around time. Mr. Gentry said that if the Board agrees, he would like to have Mr. Coffey provide more details under the Code Enforcement Officers report to reflect how many calls are based on complaints and how many are proactive because as growth continues to take place and the Board continues to make changes, then this data could be very useful.
In response to the Board, Mr. Coffey said that the current turn around time is two weeks or less. Mr. Coffey said that it had been getting to about eight weeks, then the Board authorized hiring another Building Inspector, which they then reassigned an inspector “in house” to start working on plan reviews; therefore, they have knocked it down quite a bit. Mr. Coffey said that he is referring to residential permits for the turn around time and for commercial, they try to keep it under a month during this whole period if it were possible.
Mr. Lintecum said that he would like to know if any of the Board members intend on attending the NACO Conference this year.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to adopt the Consent Agenda for the following three resolutions:
Resolution - Appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for Fund Donated for the K-9 Unit
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for funds donated to their K-9 Unit in the amount of $75.00.
Resolution - Appropriation to the Commonwealth Attorneys Office for the V-Stop Grant
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the supplemental appropriation of the V-Stop Grant received by the Commonwealths Attorneys Office for the prosecution of violent crimes against women in the amount of $24,744 of federal funds and $8,682 in local funds or in-kind matching funds for the total amount of $33,426.
Resolution - Appropriation to the Parks and Recreation Department for Donated Funds
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the supplemental appropriation to the Parks and Recreation Department for funds donated in the amount of $1,025 to have their bus painted and appreciation to Ernest Spaur for his fund raising efforts.
Mr. Harper pointed out that the School Board is trying to name the appointee to the Construction Committee for the new elementary school. Chairman Barnes stated that the School Board has appointed the Chairman, Robin Horne, as one of the members of the design committee. Chairman Barnes said that he is going to appoint Mr. Purcell to this committee. Chairman Barnes assured the Board that they would still have the opportunity to have their questions answered and be able to have input into this phase.
Mr. Morgan did not discuss any legal correspondence with the Board.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Mr. Gentry, Mr. Jennings, and Mr. Wright said that they would like to abstain from a reimbursement checks pertaining to themselves.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Messrs Gentry, Jennings, and Wright abstaining from reimbursement checks pertaining to them, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the first half of January 2006 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $561,692.59.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of January 3, 2006 as amended.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 5:55 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:
1. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel for discussion of potential litigation in the Mineral District.
2. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel matters under the direction of the County Administrator.
3. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 6:58 p.m.
RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this the 17th day of January 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 17th day of January 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of March 17, 2005 as presented.
REZ11-05, Martin Marietta Materials
Mr. Coffey summarized the request to be for the rezoning of approximately 94.65 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Industrial (IND). Mr. Coffey said that the property is located on the east side of Route 700 (Johnson Road), north of Route 618 (Fredericks Hall Road) and is in the Cuckoo Magisterial and Voting Districts. Mr. Coffey said that the proposed zoning is industrial with proffers. He said that the proposed land for phase one would be for storage and distribution of gravel and rock products and future phases would have cement storage, concrete ready mix plant, and an asphalt plant. Mr. Coffey said that the 2001 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural just north of the Mineral Growth Area. The requested rezoning is a change to the established land use pattern in the immediate area. He said that the change is requested in part due to the railroad infrastructure adjacent to the project site, the central location of the site in the County, and the sites proximity to a designated growth area. Mr. Coffey said that this project could be viewed as a logical extension of the growth area. The change is not in strict conformance with the Comprehensive Plans future land use map detailing the Town of Mineral Designated Growth Area, however, the project is very close to an industrial service area within the Mineral Growth Area. Mr. Coffey said that other areas in the Comprehensive Plan to be considered include, but are not limited to, goals to preserve the rural character of the County, maintain a healthy, diverse economy, and to preserve and protect the natural resources in the County. Mr. Coffey pointed out that the change would not create an isolated district unrelated to the industrial service growth area just south of the project site. He said that further change is closely tied to the projects proximity to the railroad infrastructure. Mr. Coffey said that there were eight individuals that attend the Neighborhood Meeting on November 9, 2005 that raised a number of issues that are outlined in the staffs report. Mr. Coffey said that the Development Review Committee considered the application at their November 22, 2005 meeting, where they determined that the project was in a good site particularly due to the double track infrastructure adjacent to the site, and the projects central location proximity to a growth area and recommended forwarding approval to the Planning Commission with a 6-0 vote. Mr. Coffey said that at the December 8, 2005 Planning Commission hearing, there were seventeen individuals present. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission discussed at length the concerns that were raised and voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors with inclusion of the hours of operation, keeping the roadway clear of spilled gravel, and the proffers dated December 5, 2005. Mr. Coffey explained to the Board that the applicant submitted revised proffers that are identified in their packet dated January 3, 2006, which incorporates the two items that were noted by the Planning Commission.
Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
Richard Cogan, Martin Marietta Agent, introduced several representatives of Martin Marietta that were in attendance this evening. Mr. Cogan said that he has asked Mr. Coffey to provide the Board with two handouts that identify the water usage and the other illustrates how the truck traffic would be reduced on the road in Louisa County if approved. Mr. Cogan provided a brief history of Martin Marietta for the Board saying that they operate about 325 quarries and distribution centers in the continental United States. Mr. Cogan stated that their net sales in 2003 was $1.5 billion dollars and $1.6 billion in 2004 and they are the second largest producer of aggregated and related materials in the U. S. Mr. Cogan said that Martin Marietta selected this site due to its central location, the existing rail infrastructure, and because the size, shape, and topography of the land would allow the facility to operate with minimal impact on neighboring properties. He said that these features combined with a ready-mix plant and an asphalt plant would be located at least 300 east of the railroad tracks and keep the structure out of sight from the road and neighboring properties. Mr. Cogan said that the preliminary site plan is currently on file in the Community Development Department. Mr. Cogan said that they have sixteen proffers in all for the 92.15 acres and 1 proffer for the 2.5-acre site that fronts on the road. Mr. Cogan said that the only industrial usage would be the road providing ingress/egress from Route 700. Mr. Cogan said that the stone and aggregate would be shipped to this site from Martin Mariettas quarry located in Doswell, Virginia, which would help relieve truck traffic within Louisa County. Mr. Cogan said that there wouldnt be any manufacturing of cement at this location, but cement would be shipped in and stored in sealed silos. Mr. Cogan said that they would be connecting to the existing power line that is currently located on Route 700 running their own lines and shielding them from view by trees that are already there. Mr. Cogan stated that based on their study for water, they found that there wouldnt be any adverse impacts on the existing wells in the area. Mr. Cogan pointed out that federal, state, and local regulations require strict compliance pertaining to air pollution, storm water pollution, and erosion and sediment control. In closing, Mr. Cogan summarized the benefits and proffers of the proposed request saying that there wouldnt be any blasting or rock crushing on site, reduced truck traffic on the roads in Louisa County, vegetative protective buffers, road frontage improvements with an enhanced landscaped entrance, employment opportunities, dark sky lighting, availability of construction products, and additional tax revenue for the County.
Scott Dixon, Cuckoo District, Concerned Citizens Group (CCG) Representative, explained to the Board that he is representing himself as well as many surrounding neighbors that have formed the CCG. Mr. Dixon said that he had addressed a lot of their environmental issues during the public hearing that was held by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dixon said that as Mr. Coffey stated earlier, the property appears to be in an area that is targeted for industrial growth, but people occupy all of the area surrounding this parcel. Mr. Dixon said that this area is growing in a residential and agricultural setting. Mr. Dixon said that the thing that stands out in all of their minds is that everyone has been pushing for this location due to the rail system being in place, but there are many other parts of the County that has rail available and might be zoned industrial. Mr. Dixon pointed out that the Commonwealth of Virginia has programs in place to stimulate and grow the rail system in the state of Virginia. Mr. Dixon said that Mr. and Mrs. Blue have expressed their concerns about the buses and how the trucks would impact them, Mrs. Roy is concerned about the additional truck traffic and pollution, Mr. and Mrs. Foster are concerned about zoning, Mr. and Mrs. Lockwood are concerned about the health and hazards of their livestock as well as themselves, and Mr. and Mrs. Campbell are concerned about their property value and the increase traffic.
Todd Chisholm, Patrick Henry District, said that it is a shame that there has to be two sides to this issue. Mr. Chisholm said that as a local contractor, he has always had issues with getting stone to Louisa County, which if they were to approve this, it would help alleviate the issue.
Dr. G. W. McLaughlin, Louisa District, said that after listening to the presentation, he feels that there are some positive attributes by bringing in this project. Dr. McLaughlin pointed out that this provides a central location for the people who would most likely be utilizing the facility. Dr. McLaughlin pointed out that this portion of Route 700 could use a little beautification, which is something they have proposed doing. Dr. McLaughlin said that this proposal, if approved, would provide job opportunities for residents and additional revenue for the County. Dr. McLaughlin said that this facility would help reduce the overall truck traffic in Louisa County.
Howard Loudin, Mineral District, informed the Board that he is a general contractor in the County. Mr. Loudin said that if this were approved, it would cut his truck traffic in half by not having to send them out to surrounding localities to pick products up. Mr. Loudin said that he feels that this is a good location considering everything that is going on in the County; therefore, he supports the request.
Robert Wells, Mineral District, informed the Board that he is opposed to this plant. Mr. Wells said that after purchasing his home, he was informed about the proposed plant and that it was outside of the growth plan area according to Map 17 for the Town of Mineral Growth Area. Mr. Wells said that he is aware that this might be considered as “spot zoning.” Mr. Wells said that he doesnt believe that this qualifies fro eminent domain. In closing, Mr. Wells said that he and his family are concerned about the proposed use of the water and how it might affect their well, the noise, and the additional traffic. Mr. Wells said that the asphalt portion of this proposal was just mentioned to them. In closing, Mr. Wells stated that he and his family are opposed to this request and they feel that there would be another area within Louisa County that would be better suited.
Randy Tingler, Louisa District, informed the Board that he is the owner of the property that is being proposed. Mr. Tingler said that when they were negotiating the sale of this property to Martin Marietta, they addressed the issue of buffers due to the rental homes that he owns in that area and is satisfied with the outcome. In closing, Mr. Tingler pointed out that having a rock quarry located in Louisa County would help reduce their costs; therefore, he supports the project.
Gale Seddon, Mineral District, informed the Board that she lives within a mile of this property as the crow flies. Ms. Seddon said that she has livestock, concerns, and questions that she is going to pose this evening. Ms. Seddon said that according to Louisa Countys own Comprehensive Plan; the designated area for this project is outside of the Mineral Growth Area. Ms. Seddon said that the existing uses of this land are predominantly single family residential. Ms. Seddon stated that she feels that a project of this magnitude and of this type simply does not fit this site. Ms. Seddon said that she is concerned about what this will do to their property values and the Agricultural and Forestal land that is disappearing in the County. In closing, Ms. Seddon questioned if a project of this magnitude is justified by only offering a possible total of fourteen positions.
Elizabeth Reed, Cuckoo District, informed the Board that she is opposed to this rezoning request. Ms. Reed said that she has concerns about the noise level of the trucks and the dangers of their children getting on the school buses, saying that she does not feel that this is a proper location.
Robert Foster, Cuckoo District, stated that he owns property that abuts the parcel in question this evening on the north side of it. Mr. Foster said that he would like to offer a couple of points for their consideration as they deliberate on this tonight. Mr. Foster said that a lot has been said about the validity of the Comprehensive Plan and isnt worth the paper it was written on, which is something that he doesnt agree with. Mr. Foster said that he believes that they have a good plan in place. He said that the citizens in the County use this plan to figure out where they want to live and how they want to live. Mr. Foster said that they are trying to get away from the old term of “spot zoning,” but everything is in proximity to another. Mr. Foster stated that once they start arbitrarily and capriciously changing the zoning, it is hard to stop. Mr. Foster pointed out that he had attended a meeting that was held by the Planning Commission last week where they voted to send a proposal to the Board to rezone another plat of land in the County for a rail industrial yard, which is something that could be considered as a location for Martin Marietta.
Jamie Daniel, Sr., Cuckoo District, said that he has a couple of points that he would like to make concerning Martin Marietta. Mr. Daniel said that by having this business in Louisa County, it would provide less expensive stone, reduce the truck traffic, and that it wouldnt be a true rock quarry since the stone would be brought in by rail. Mr. Daniel expressed the need for more businesses in the County to help offset the higher taxes. Mr. Daniel read a statement from his son, Sammoto Dabney, saying that he supports the proposed site for Martin Marietta.
David Roy, Cuckoo District, informed the Board that he is in favor of the proposed plant. Mr. Roy stressed the need to have concrete available for his work, as he is a contractor in the area. Mr. Roy said that the point that has been made this evening about the reduction of truck traffic due to the rail being used does not make any sense to him because even if it were to come in by rail, it would be leaving their facility by truck.
James Church, Cuckoo District, informed the Board that he is in favor of the proposed plant. Mr. Church said that he feels that the necessity of this plant has been established. Mr. Church stated that the environmental regulations address the concerns that have been raised. Mr. Church said that the increase of truck traffic is not going to be as bad as people are making it out to be.
Witt Freeman, Industrial Development Authority Vice-Chairman, Louisa District, said that he has listened to this debate this evening and he feels empathetic with the individuals who have lived in this area a long time. Mr. Freeman said that he has also listened to Mr. Loudin on how this would help improve his profitability a great deal, which he is a local, well-respected contractor in this County. Mr. Freeman said that he admits that the number of jobs is small, but a job is a job and it creates a position for someone who would not have to commute out of Louisa County. Mr. Freeman said that on balance, he tends to support economic development; therefore, he supports this request.
Joyce Nelson, Powhatan, Virginia Resident, stated that her property on Route 700 is directly across from their entrance, which is her primary concern. Ms. Nelson said that they are going to have problems if they open Pandoras box. Ms. Nelson said that she enjoys the rural area and hopes that the Board will take this into consideration.
Darin Miller, Chesterfield, Virginia Resident, informed the Board that he is in favor having Martin Marietta locate in the County, but he is in total opposition to them to build this site at this particular location. Mr. Miller stated that the Comprehensive Plan shows that this site does not fit the current and future zoning. Mr. Miller said that there has to be an existing industrial site that has a spur from the rail.
Brenda Miller, Chesterfield, Virginia Resident, informed the Board that she is planning on purchasing property that is directly across from the red marked area of the entrance to the plant. Mrs. Miller said that in the Comprehensive Plan on page V18, objective 1A, it states, “that the primary policy for areas of the County that are designated as rural areas, is to preserve and maintain Agricultural and Forestal activities to protect ground and surface water supply and to conserve natural, historic, and scenic resources. When non-agricultural uses extend into agricultural areas, conflicts, and creeks; land uses which conflict with this policy objective should be discouraged.” Mrs. Miller said that this proposed request conflicts with their Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Miller said that she has concerns about the truck traffic and the safety issues that it will create. In closing, Mrs. Miller said that she believes that this is an example of “spot zoning” and urged the Board not to approve it.
Mildred Foster Souther, Midlothian, Virginia Resident and Landowner in Louisa County, informed the Board that she owns eighty acres directly across from the proposed plant. Ms. Souther said that if Martin Marietta comes in, they would destroy the road frontage on Route 700. Ms. Souther stated that she believes this is an issue of “spot zoning.” Ms. Souther stated that she believes that another site should be sought for the construction of this business. Ms. Souther said that she is unaware of their proposed hours of operation and what impact this would have on the residents in this area.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that their third proffer identifies their hours of operation as being 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. during the summer months and from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. during the wintertime. Mr. Cogan said that aside from these standard hours, they have reserved sixty days out of the year to operate outside of these hours to cover special exceptions. Mr. Cogan said that Comprehensive Plans are general in nature and the areas designated in these plans are broad and do allow some flexibility and latitude. Mr. Cogan said that the turning lanes or acceleration lanes for their trucks would follow VDOTs standards. Mr. Cogan said that property values have been mentioned both tonight and at the Planning Commission meeting, so they did research at other sites they have to determine if their plant has had any impact on these property values, which they did not find any decreases. Mr. Cogan said that there would be additional trucks on Route 700 from this business, but at the same time, there will definitely be less truck traffic throughout the County. Mr. Cogan said that he doesnt believe that this plant is going to create any safety issues.
Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.
The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Mr. Purcell saying that he had the County Attorney bring him a copy of the Comprehensive Plan that is dated September 4, 2001 since a lot of individuals mentioned it this evening. Mr. Purcell stated that the 2001 Comprehensive Plan is a guide and states that it is not parcel specific. Mr. Purcell explained that this is a guide simply because it has to be updated every five years and it provides the governing body latitude to make these types of decisions and why the public should be mindful during the electoral process of who they select. Mr. Purcell stated that individuals who are considering moving to the County have to be made aware of this fact. Mr. Purcell pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan is general in nature to allow them to work on it and make improvements. Mr. Purcell said that what he has heard this evening has been a 50/50 proposition with some supporting the request and others that are against it. Mr. Purcell said that he sympathizes with both sides; therefore, the question to him would be whether Martin Marietta would be a good corporate neighbor. Mr. Purcell said that he believes Martin Marietta would be a good corporate neighbor and that there is a need for this business in the County, which is what his vote will reflect. Dr. Morgan said that the proffers that have been offered by the applicant with the buffers, landscaping, open space preservation, wetlands preservation, mitigation of noise and dust, and limitations on truck traffic by use of rail are all positive aspects in his mind. Dr. Morgan said that he has heard several comments on the residential construction in the area and comments about these residential homes, which will require the products that are going to be produced by this facility. Dr. Morgan said that these products are currently being shipped in from more distant locations and he feels that by having something more centrally located would be beneficial; therefore, his view is that it would be a benefit for the County and he intends on supporting it. Mr. Wright said that he appreciates the fact that both sides of the issue have been very nice and have not cut each other down or used scare tactics, which is something they should be commended for. Mr. Wright said that if they were to look at this from an overall standpoint, you have talked about going to other locations, but his experience is that if you were to move it to another location, you would still run into the same conversations. Mr. Wright said that he understands both sides of the issue, but he truly thinks this would be good for Louisa County. Mr. Harper stated that this is a product that is indeed needed across the County and a product that they now have the opportunity to get without having to mine it. Mr. Harper said that this has merit to it along with the overall reduction of truck traffic in the County. Mr. Jennings extended his appreciation to everyone in attendance. Mr. Jennings stated that there is a need in the County for a route to be more local, but he has issues with this. Mr. Jennings said that they are dealing with rezoning as well as a site plan. Mr. Jennings said that most of the concerns this evening deal with the site plan itself, but his concern is with the rezoning. Mr. Jennings said that the Comprehensives Plan is a guide and a road map that they should follow, which they have not been doing. Mr. Jennings stated that at some point and time the Board is going to have to step up and follow their own guide. Mr. Jennings said that this is “spot zoning” and it is not recommended. Mr. Jennings said that this would create some of the tax base, but this isnt their only concern. Mr. Jennings stated that this request is not ideal for their community by having industrialization in this area since what they actually need is revitalization. Mr. Jennings questioned why this plant could not be located in an industrial zoned area. Mr. Jennings said that he is not against Martin Marietta, but the location itself. Chairman Barnes said that he would like to piggyback on what Mr. Wright was saying about the individuals that spoke this evening. Chairman Barnes said that he does take exception when people look at the number of jobs. Chairman Barnes said that for anyone who has ever been out of work or living paycheck to paycheck, any kind of job is a good one. Chairman Barnes said that any amount of jobs that are made available in Louisa County are welcome. Chairman Barnes said that the Comprehensives Plan reflects that the Board of Supervisors reserves the right pursuant to the procedures of requirements set forth by state law, to change any portion of this plan. Chairman Barnes said that he had recently visited the Martin Marietta Plant in Doswell, Virginia to investigate the area where he found a neighborhood located right behind the plant. Chairman Barnes said that not one individual that he spoke with surrounding this business had anything bad to say about this group. Chairman Barnes pointed out that with the tax relief that the Board provided to the elderly and disabled amounted to over $100,000 in new relief. Chairman Barnes said that if they continue to provide this relief to the elderly and disabled they are going to have to make up the gap somewhere. Chairman Barnes said that he believes that this plan would be good for Louisa County; therefore, he is going to support it. Mr. Gentry said that he firmly believes that there are two sides to the story. He said that he noticed that most of the people that opposed the project most had their own issues, but from the ones that were in favor of the project, he heard that they were supporting it because there was a need for stone in the County, but this doesnt necessarily mean that the stone has to come from this particular location. Mr. Gentry said that he is concerned about the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gentry said that in the staffs report, it reflects that this project “could” be viewed as a logical extension of the growth area, but he doesnt agree with this. Mr. Gentry said that it also reflects that other areas of the Comprehensive Plan to be considered include, but not limited to, those that preserve the rural character of the County. Mr. Gentry identified the layout of this area and said that the proposed plant would be located in the center of a rural area, which this Board has said many times that they want to preserve the rural nature of the County. Mr. Gentry said he believes that the Comprehensive Plan and the statements in this document regarding the plan is something that the Board should listen to very carefully. Mr. Gentry said that he feels that there are other locations in this County that Martin Marietta could build. Mr. Gentry said that he had proposed other locations to them, which he was told that one site was too close to the school, one did not have a rail siding area that happened to be located next to the Landfill where industrial growth is taking place, and they never mentioned that the rail spur that they are on with Dominion that further down by Route 652 it is already zoned industrial and is situated on industrial land with an industrial built access road, which means that they dont have to locate where they are proposing. Mr. Gentry stated that this area should remain rural and not industrial; therefore, he would like to see Martin Marietta located in another area that is already zoned industrial. Mr. Gentry said that for them to say that this project would not produce additional truck traffic is inaccurate since it would be located in a central spot and the trucks would have to haul the products to other areas in the County. Mr. Gentry said that bringing the gravel in by rail would only save twenty to thirty miles as far as trucks coming into Louisa County, but it is not going to help the truck traffic in the County. Mr. Gentry said that there was a proffer made to change the hours of operation for the citizens that live in this area, but the period of sixty days could span throughout a three month period during the summer months when most of the construction would be taking place. Mr. Gentry said that he is concerned about the railroad crossing on Route 618 where they are planning on putting up a couple of signs and flashing lights saying that this is a dangerous crossing. Mr. Gentry said that Route 618 is a very busy through road for the County and the only way to make this correct is to work with VDOT and have them put flashing lights with arms there, otherwise it is going to cost the County additional money from their secondary road funds to do so. Mr. Gentry said that as far as the site for the proposed plant, it is good that they will be located further off of the main road nor should there be any utility problems. Mr. Gentry said that he feels that there will be problems with the trucks pulling in and out of the entrances and it will be very noisy. Mr. Gentry stated that the Route 618/700 intersection is dangerous. Mr. Gentry stated that there isnt any argument about the need for this type of business in the County and a need for jobs, but he feels that they could find a better location within the County to locate. Mr. Gentry pointed out that the first step in a rezoning is that the County notifies all adjoining property owners; therefore, he feels that they should have more of a say in the process. Mr. Gentry said that he would like to make the motion to deny this request. Mr. Jennings seconded the motion.
Chairman Barnes requested a roll call to verify those that are in favor of the motion and those that are not in favor.
|Fitzgerald A. Barnes||No|
|Willie L. Gentry, Jr.||Yes|
|Willie L. Harper||No|
|Allen B. Jennings||Yes|
|David B. Morgan, M.D.||No|
|Eric F. Purcell||No|
|Jack T. Wright||No|
With the votes reflecting 2-5, the motion failed.
Mr. Purcell said that he would like to make the motion to approve the rezoning request as it was submitted. Dr. Morgan seconded the motion.
Chairman Barnes requested a roll call to verify those that are in favor of the motion and those that are not in favor.
|Willie L. Gentry, Jr.||No|
|Willie L. Harper||Yes|
|Allen B. Jennings||No|
|David B. Morgan, M.D.||Yes|
|Eric F. Purcell||Yes|
|Jack T. Wright||Yes|
|Fitzgerald A. Barnes||Yes|
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Dr. Morgan, which carried by a vote of 5-2, with Messrs Gentry and Jennings voting against, a resolution was adopted approving the rezoning request of approximately 94.65 acres identified as Tax Map Parcels 44-(11)-B, 44-(11)-C, and 44-(11)-A1 (Portion of) from Agricultural (A-2) to Industrial (IND) for the purpose of storage and distribution of gravel and rock products with acceptance of the proffers submitted by the applicant dated January 3, 2006, which includes the Layout Plan dated August 22, 2005.
REZ09-05 - Historic Green Springs, Inc.
Mr. Coffey summarized the request to be for the rezoning of approximately 289.73 acres from Industrial (IND) to Agricultural (A-1). Mr. Coffey said that this property is located on the north side of Route 22, east of the intersection of Route 15 and is in the Green Springs Magisterial and Voting Districts. Mr. Coffey said that the proposed land use is for Agricultural/Single-Family Residential with farming and or equestrian activities. He said that the surrounding zoning and land uses include industrial to the north and east and A-1 to the south and west. Mr. Coffey said that the subject property is designated in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural. Mr. Coffey said at the Neighborhood Meeting that was held on November 9, 2005, there were no official comments for or against the application as submitted. As the applicant was not present, the Development Review Committee voted 5-1 to defer action on the request. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission took action on the request at their December 8, 2005 meeting and voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board.
The Board discussed this request with Mr. Purcell asking why the applicant was seeking A-1 Zoning instead of A-2.
Mr. Coffey replied that the application was received by his department requesting A-1 Zoning and not A-2.
Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. and allowed the applicant to speak first.
Rae Ely, Historic Green Springs, Inc. (HGSI) President, informed the Board that the HGSI owns the subject property. Ms. Ely said that HGSI is a 501(c) 3 corporation that is chartered in the Commonwealth of Virginia and has been in continuous operation for more than thirty-five years. She said that their charter provides that they are in the business of conserving and preserving historic resources, natural resources, and scenic resources. Ms. Ely said that the land that they hold both in fee simple and in less than fee, is and always has been dedicated to this purpose. Ms. Ely said that the land in question lays along Route 22 for the distance of approximately one mile and is consistent with their charter that this land be down zoned from Industrial to Agricultural (A-1). Ms. Ely said that they have requested A-1 zoning to remain consistent with all of their holdings. Ms. Ely said that this represents a sacrifice financially for any organization or entity to give up what amounts to a large industrial holding to down zone it to A-1. Ms. Ely said that this zoning would be appropriate for not only Historic Green Springs, but for the community as well. Ms. Ely said that she would like to address the issues that the Board has to be concerned with as far as the standard of rezoning. Ms. Ely said that having land zoned as A-1 is certainly in the best interest and health of the County in that it would be used as open space and not industrial industry. Ms. Ely pointed out that by having A-1 zoning, there would not be any traffic implications, as they would have with industrial use. Ms. Ely said that this would be in the best interest of the order of the County and would further the prosperity of the County. Ms. Ely informed the Board that even though this land was rezoned to Industrial in 1973, the County has never taxed it as anything other than Agricultural. Ms. Ely said that she has received two letters from individuals that she would like to introduce during the public hearing. In closing, Ms. Ely said that the HGSI owns all of the land that borders this land to the north and to the east and they have the support from the landowners to the west and south.
Peter Primiani, Green Springs District, informed the Board that he fully supports this rezoning request. Mr. Primiani said that he owns the farm directly to the south of this parcel. Mr. Primiani said that the land in this area is rural; therefore, this would conform to the other rural properties that are surrounding this parcel.
Angelo Lomascolo, Green Springs District, informed the Board that he lives south of this parcel. He said that he had attended both the Community Review Committee meeting and the Planning Commission meeting where no objections were raised. Mr. Lomascolo stated that he is in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Lomascolo said that this parcel has always been used for agriculture and has never been used for industrial purposes. Mr. Lomascolo pointed out that the subject parcel backs to the South Anna River; therefore any industrial use on this parcel could be very problematic in terms of pollution and the affects that it could have on the river.
Ms. Ely said that she had two letters from citizens in the Green Springs District that she wanted to reference for the record. Ms. Ely said that her first letter is from the Alberts family at Belmonte Farm, which owns the farm just west of the subject property. Ms. Ely said that the Alberts addressed their letter to the Board of Supervisors saying that they support the rezoning request of HGSI. Ms. Ely said that the second letter is from Donald and Mary Gazaille and addressed to the Board supporting the request saying that it would be an asset to the area.
Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.
The Board further discussed this topic with Mr. Gentry asking if there were any industrial uses for this parcel saying that he understood that the property could be mined for vermiculite. Mr. Gentry questioned why the property could not be mined if the vermiculite was in fact present.
Ms. Ely replied that there is vermiculite that has been identified on the property, but there wasnt any potential of mining it. Ms. Ely said that mining would not occur on this parcel due to the restrictions on mining.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Gentry questioned how mining would be restricted. Mr. Gentry pointed out that in the application where it asks about any existing use permits or special exceptions, it states that there arent any existing use permits, special exceptions, conditional use permits, or variances acknowledged to this date; therefore, he does not see any information that provides a reason as to why the land could not be mined.
Ms. Ely replied that she does not feel that the mining issue is an appropriate question for the Board to inquire in to. Ms. Ely stated that she could assure them that the property would never be mined. Ms. Ely said that this is not something that the County would not be involved in due to the legal restrictions for mining.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Chairman Barnes said that he has a couple of concerns regarding this request with the first one being rezoning a parcel from Industrial to Agricultural. Chairman Barnes said that he knows that mining can be done in A-1 zoning. Chairman Barnes asked how the down zoning of this parcel would affect industry that already exists there and how this could affect an existing business if someone chose to sell them a piece of property that they wanted to expand in the future for going from Industrial back to A-1. Chairman Barnes said that his other concern would be how this could affect downstream water. Mr. Purcell said that he is a supporter of property rights, but he has unanswered questions that cannot be addressed this evening; therefore, he would like to have more time before he votes on this. Mr. Purcell recommended that the Board table this request to allow time for their concerns to be addressed. Mr. Wright stated that no one would be able to mine this property without the consent of the owners. Dr. Morgan said that he agrees that this is an unusual circumstance to go from Industrial to A-1, but he believes it to be a good thing. Dr. Morgan said that the impact on current mining operations would be zero. Dr. Morgan said the he does not see any impact at all for rezoning this parcel due to the surrounding parcels being zoned A-1. Dr. Morgan stated that the mining rights are the ownership of the HGSI; therefore, even if the parcels were sold for residential purposes, they would reserve the mineral rights on these properties making it a mute point in his mind. Dr. Morgan said that he is not clear on what the concern is in regard to the water issues. Dr. Morgan said that he is satisfied that the application submitted meets the criteria for rezoning although a desire has been expressed to table the decision until further information could be obtained. Dr. Morgan said that if the applicant prefers to have this tabled, he would consider the motion to do so; therefore, he would like to ask the applicant if they would be amenable to tabling this topic.
Ms. Ely stated that she is extremely troubled by the comments that have been made given the appropriateness of their application and the fact that no one from the public has raised any concerns. Ms. Ely said that she doesnt believe that these comments are connected with anything that has been raised here this evening. Ms. Ely said that there hasnt been any indication regarding the sale of this property; therefore, she does not understand the concerns that have been expressed. Ms. Ely said that she objects to any delays with this request, as it would be considered a denial of their rights without having any further justification by a member of the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Ely stated that she is highly concerned about the motives that might be underlying for certain comments that have been made by a few Board members. Ms. Ely said that if there is going to be any delay tonight, she would like to have the Board state tonight exactly what the questions are so they can be prepared to meet them and when the meeting would be scheduled for them to vote on the matter.
Dr. Morgan made the motion to approve the rezoning request.
With no one seconding the motion, the motion failed. Upon further discussion by the Board, Chairman Barnes said that he would like to know how this would affect the adjacent property owners if they chose to expand in the future since this is an industrial piece of land. Chairman Barnes said that he would like to have further clarification on the point that Mr. Gentry raised since the application states that there isnt any restrictions on the property. Mr. Purcell said that he was not going to make the motion to deny the application because he believes that it would be unfair to the applicant. Mr. Purcell stated that this is a public hearing allowing for public comment, but there isnt anything binding on the Board to support or deny the request tonight; therefore, he would like to make the motion to table this request until he is able to get the answers that he needs from the sources that he wants to allow him the ability to make a proper decision. Dr. Morgan said that he feels that this is a dangerous precedent to set. Dr. Morgan said that he feels that the questions that have been presented for wanting answers could have been researched prior to this meeting. Dr. Morgan said that the question of the impact of rezoning a piece of property to A-1, when a number of parcels surrounding the current mining operation are all zoned A-1 would not have an impact on this property. Dr. Morgan said that he does not understand how these bits of information are necessarily related. Mr. Harper said that he does not have a problem with supporting this motion, but he would like to know when they are going to bring it back to the Board for their final decision. Mr. Purcell stated that he would amend his motion to state that this topic would be tabled until their February 21, 2006 regular meeting. Mr. Gentry said that he has not heard any opposition to this project; therefore, he doesnt want the applicant or the citizens to leave here with the notion that the application has been denied.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Dr. Morgan voting against, the Board agreed to table rezoning request REZ09-05 until their regular meeting scheduled for February 21, 2006.
REZ10-05 - Michael K. Payne
Mr. Coffey summarized the request to be for the rezoning of approximately 34 acres from Agricultural (A-1) to Agricultural (A-2). Mr. Coffey said that the property is located in the northeast side corner of the intersection of Route 615 (Columbia Road) and Route 617 (W. Green Springs Road) and is in the Green Springs Magisterial and Voting Districts. Mr. Coffey said that the 2001 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural. Mr. Coffey said that at the Neighborhood Meeting that was held on November 9, 2005, there were no official comments for or against the application. Mr. Coffey said that the Development Review Committee voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission held their public hearing on December 8, 2005 where they voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors on the requested rezoning.
Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Michael Payne, Green Springs District, stated that this is an old family tract of land, which he is trying to have rezoned to be consistent with the surrounding parcels. Mr. Payne said that he does not have any immediate plans to do anything else with this property. b
Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.
The Board discussed this topic with Dr. Morgan saying that he believes that this is a good location that has good road access. Dr. Morgan said that the traffic from this would be using Columbia Road; therefore, he does not see any problems with rezoning this parcel to keep it consistent with the surrounding parcels.
On motion of Dr. Morgan, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the rezoning request of approximately 34 acres identified as Tax Map Parcel 35-46 from Agricultural (A-1) to Agricultural (A-2).
REZ12-05 - Teresa Swan and Ryan Brown
Mr. Coffey summarized the request to be for the rezoning of approximately 3 acres from Residential General (R-2) to Agricultural (A-2). Mr. Coffey said that the property is located on the east side of Route 615 (Columbia Road), north of the intersection with Route 640 (W. Jack Jouett Road) and is in the Green Springs Magisterial and Voting Districts. He said that at the Neighborhood Meeting that was held on November 9, 2005 there were no official comments for or against the application. Mr. Coffey said that the Development Review Committee voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 8, 2005 where they voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.
The Board briefly discussed this topic with Dr. Morgan asking for clarification if this rezoning was to allow for placement of a manufactured home.
Mr. Coffey confirmed that this request was to allow for the placement of a manufactured home.
Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 9:14 p.m.
Teresa Swan, Green Springs District, informed the Board that she was trying to have her property rezoned to place the home that she purchased on the property. Ms. Swan stated that she had purchased a home for her and her family to live in and found that she would have to rezone the property in order to have a manufactured home.
Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Wright pointed out to the applicant that even if the Board approves this request this evening, they are still subject to getting approval from the Health Department for their well and septic.
Ms. Swan said that she has already had the land perked and it has been approved.
On motion of Dr. Morgan, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the rezoning request of approximately three (3) acres identified as a portion of Tax Map Parcel 20-(4)-A from Residential General (R-2) to Agricultural (A-2) for the purpose of allowing placement of a manufactured home.
Amendment to the Louisa County Code, Chapter 4 to Adopt an Inoperable Vehicle Ordinance
Mr. Morgan stated that this proposed ordinance has been drafted under the provisions of Section 15.2-904 of the Code of Virginia. Mr. Morgan explained that this is not a zoning ordinance; therefore, it did not go through the Planning Commission prior to the Board considering it this evening. Mr. Morgan said that the Board had asked for certain provisions for an inoperative motor vehicle ordinance to be passed. He said that this ordinance puts things into place that might be a little tighter than what the current ordinances are, but it would make it easier on the property owner. Mr. Morgan said that the way the zoning ordinance is currently written, if there were more than five inoperable vehicles on a property, it is considered to be a junk yard and in violation of the ordinance if it is not zoned properly. Mr. Morgan said that this ordinance would allow only three inoperable vehicles on a parcel at one time. Mr. Morgan said that he had received an email from Mr. Wright pertaining to information that he had received as to the vehicle recovery program that was discussed at the Boards Retreat. Mr. Morgan said that it was his understanding that this was not going to be considered this evening, just strictly the inoperable vehicle ordinance. Mr. Morgan said that one of the comments was made that this ordinance would allow the County to go onto peoples property and take their vehicles, which this ordinance does not allow for that. Mr. Morgan said that this ordinance requires that the property owner be given a written notice of a violation and that the property owner would have as much as fifteen days to cure the problem. Mr. Morgan said that when they enforce the current zoning ordinance, they enforce it as a criminal violation and a criminal warrant is sworn out. Mr. Morgan said that the proposed ordinance would make the violation civil in nature, so they would be looking for a civil penalty rather than a criminal conviction. Mr. Morgan stated that the possible penalty drops from about $1,000 per violation to $100 for the first violation and up to $250 if the violations continue. Mr. Morgan said that this does not mean that the County can go in and remove the pieces of property, but it does mean that they would ask that the violation be eradicated either by screening or removal of the inoperable vehicles. Mr. Morgan said that there were several concerns expressed by the public the last time this issue was considered; therefore, he would like to point out specifically excluded from the definition of an inoperable vehicle would be an antique motor vehicle as defined under Section 46.2-100 of the Code of Virginia along with Agricultural or Horticultural use vehicles as provided for under Section 46.2-665 of the Code of Virginia. Mr. Wright said that another question that was raised in Mr. Wrights email as to certain businesses that have been in the County prior to them even having a zoning ordinance, which he felt might be covered under this ordinance. Mr. Morgan said that this is not the intention of this ordinance, but he also noticed that it wasnt exactly clear that those businesses that were lawfully formed prior to zoning, were not protected; therefore, he recommends that they add a sentence to Section 74-86 concerning inoperative vehicles to read as, “provisions of this section shall not apply to any vehicle repair or recycling business lawfully established before or after the adoption of this ordinance. Mr. Morgan said that this ordinance does eventually call for a Class 3 Misdemeanor, but that is only if there have been three civil penalties previously imposed during a twenty-four month period.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Purcell asking if the addition to Section 74-86 would be a grandfather clause.
In response to the Boards questions, Mr. Morgan confirmed that this could be considered as a grandfather clause for those businesses that were lawfully created before the zoning ordinances were adopted.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Harper asked Mr. Morgan to confirm what he meant by a business being lawfully created. Mr. Harper asked Mr. Morgan to confirm if an individual would be allowed to have three inoperable vehicles on their property and whether those vehicles had to be shielded. Mr. Harper said that in looking at the definition of Inoperable Vehicles, it states that it would be totally disassembled by removal of parts essential for the operation of the vehicle and asked what constitutes operation of the vehicle. Mr. Gentry asked if the vehicle was required to have a state license and a County tag. Mr. Gentry asked what would happen after someone received three notices and was then charged with a Class 3 Misdemeanor. Mr. Gentry asked if these vehicles in question would remain on the owners property. Chairman Barnes questioned if there was a provision in the ordinance for individuals who like to restore vehicles. Mr. Wright stated that anyone who has a state license on their vehicle is obligated to carry liability insurance or pay the uninsured motorists vehicle fee at the DMV. Mr. Jennings asked if a vehicle could be shielded within fifteen days from the time a person receives their first notice. Mr. Jennings asked who would be responsible for issuing the summons.
Mr. Morgan said that those businesses that existed prior to any zoning ordinances, would be lawful even after the zoning ordinance was permitted that considered non-conforming uses. Mr. Morgan said that these are businesses that were established in the sixties. Mr. Morgan said that from the County viewpoint there are certain zoning provisions that if it has started before the zoning ordinance, then they wouldnt have to comply with. Mr. Morgan said that the licensing issue would be from the state and not the County. Mr. Morgan confirmed that there would be three vehicles allowed on a parcel and those would have to be shielded from the highway. Mr. Morgan said that if you were able to start the vehicle and move it, then it would be considered as operable. Mr. Morgan said that having a state license and a County tag is only one of the considerations to show that a vehicle is not operable. Mr. Morgan said that he would not go forward with the prosecution of a case where someone could start the vehicle and demonstrates that it is operable. Mr. Morgan said that they would have to look at other procedures if someone did not comply with the violation, which could possibly be an injunction once they have proven that they have tried everything else and there simply was not an adequate remedy to the law. Mr. Morgan confirmed that the vehicles would remain on the property since they would not go onto someones property to remove a vehicle. Mr. Morgan said that the way the ordinance is written with the amount of time that the vehicle could be completely or partially disassembled, which is a sixty-day period, then the owner would fine if they were to finish within this time frame or have a cover over the vehicle shielding it. Mr. Morgan said that a fifteen-day period would conceivably be enough time for someone to shield their vehicle. Mr. Morgan said that the Code Enforcement Officer would be the one to issue a summons and the violations would be enforced through the Community Development Department.
Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 9:31 p.m.
Steve Winfree, Jackson District, informed the Board that he is opposed to this ordinance due to the fact that he races cars, which he has found that parts are often hard to find; therefore, he moved to this locality so he would be able to have these vehicles.
Dan Byers, Jackson District, stated that he agrees with the spirit of an audience that helps to make the County esthetically more beautiful. Mr. Byers said that he feels that there are a couple of issues in this ordinance that are far reaching, which he would like to address. Mr. Byers said that he agrees with the comments of Mr. Morgan to add something that would provide some opportunity for people who have been in business for some length of time since these individuals have been productive in the community. Mr. Byers said that one of the areas that are a concern for him is Section 74-86 where it talks about visible from the private right-of-way because he feels that this is far reaching. Mr. Byers said that this ordinance talks about property owners and asked whether the individual who owns the vehicle has any responsibilities that would bring them into the process. Mr. Byers said that on the third page in 74-89, it states that the Department of Finance or the Treasurer of the locality is something that should probably reference Louisa opposed to those two. In closing, Mr. Byers suggested that they move more toward civil activity opposed to criminal activity.
Bobby Seaberry, Patrick Henry District, informed the Board that he is opposed to the proposed ordinance because he is a collector. Mr. Seaberry said that he buys cars at times that have no motor or transmission so he can fix them. Mr. Seaberry stated that he would like to see a person that can fix a car within sixty days. Mr. Seaberry said that what someone might perceive as being a piece of junk, he perceives it as being a piece of gold. Mr. Seaberry said that he does not agree with the limited amount of vehicles they are recommending.
William Shiflett, Jr., Louisa District, informed the Board that he is opposed to this ordinance. Mr. Shiflett said that he is speaking on behalf of the individuals that live next door to his parcel saying that if this were passed they would not have enough covers to shield the vehicles. Mr. Shiflett stated that the people that vote on this matter just might come up short during the next election.
Scott Morency, Cuckoo District, informed the Board that he has worked on cars all of his life and is opposed to this ordinance. Mr. Morency said that there isnt any provision in the ordinance that was posted on the Louisa County Website that reflects the Grandfather Clause. Mr. Morency said that antique vehicles should be exempt all together along with other late model vehicles. Mr. Morency said that he does not agree with someone being allowed to come onto an individuals private property to look around. Mr. Morency said that the state law reflects vehicles that are seen from a public road.
Robert Huckstep, Jackson District, informed the Board that he runs a junkyard with his Father, which is something they have been doing for years. Mr. Huckstep stated that he feels there should be certain provisions that would allow them to continue with their business. Mr. Huckstep said that he has concerns about the verbiage in the ordinance.
Leland Kemp, Jackson District, informed the Board that he has lived in the County for fifty-three years. Mr. Kemp said that he has around one hundred cars, which he would be unable to get rid of. Mr. Kemp explained to the Board that his business supplements his retirement income. In closing, Mr. Kemp said that he had helped the County out many years ago, which he has ten school buses on his property that he uses for storage.
Bill Martin, Jackson District, Clean Community Commission Chairman, informed the Board that their interest is in beautifying Louisa County. Mr. Martin said that he has heard several comments this evening about individuals wanting to keep and possibly restore antique vehicles. Mr. Martin said that it was never their intention to do away with these types of vehicles, but to clean up “junkyards” that have vehicles with grass growing up through them and havent been touched in over five years.
Fred Winfree, Henrico County Resident, informed the Board that he has purchased property in the County and intends on moving to Louisa County and bringing his business here. Mr. Winfree said that he believes that Louisa County already has some provisions and laws against yard art, public nuisances, and public hazards. Mr. Winfree explained to the Board that Henrico adopted a similar ordinance a couple of years ago, which initiated individuals going on to private property and look around for any issues that they might spot. Mr. Winfree said that citizens have also been using this to pick with certain neighbors that they might have issues with. In closing, Mr. Winfree stated that this ordinance could create a bad set of laws; therefore, he is against the proposed ordinance.
James Church, Cuckoo District, informed the Board that he is opposed to this ordinance due to the fact that it violates individuals property rights. Mr. Church said that whether his car is operable or not, isnt anyones business other than his. Mr. Church stated that you couldnt judge operability by appearance. Mr. Church said that there isnt any legitimate reason for the County or anyone to have an ordinance against what someones vehicle might look like.
Gerald Harlow, Green Springs District, informed the Board that he refers to the proposed ordinance as the “pink flamingo ordinance”, which means that someone might not like what is in their neighbors yard. Mr. Harlow said that he believes that this is an issue for those who have and those who dont. Mr. Harlow said that some of these vehicles are hard for individuals to find today and he doesnt believe that the Board has any business dealing with this issue. Mr. Harlow stated that the Board has bigger problems in the County to deal with and they should not make criminals out of individuals who have inoperable vehicles.
Frank Drumheller, Louisa District, stated that he does not oppose everything that is in this proposed ordinance, but he does object to some of the verbiage with the way that it is worded. Mr. Drumheller said that he feels that this opens up the issue of abuse. Mr. Drumheller said that he is thankful for the state code that protects his vehicles. Mr. Drumheller said that there are many cars in the County that are collectible and he believes that a provision should be made for these owners. Mr. Drumheller said that this ordinance would only penalize a certain segment of the County and that there are other issues they could deal with to beautify the community.
Charles Taylor informed the Board that he has been on the other side of this ordinance where they have come onto his property. Mr. Taylor said that he has several antique vehicles that he has been told by the Code Enforcement Officers that he is in violation. Mr. Taylor said that they have told him that these vehicles would count towards his number of inoperable vehicles. Mr. Taylor said that when he initially moved to Louisa County, these vehicles were considered antiques, but now you have the County staff telling you that you are in violation. Mr. Taylor said that if they are going to enforce such an ordinance, then they have to be specific as to what it addresses. In closing, Mr. Taylor stated that he is opposed to this ordinance.
Larry Kingrea, Green Springs District, informed the Board the he opposed this ordinance due to the fact that he just finished building a 47 Ford Coupe that he spent a total of five years building. Mr. Kingrea said that he respects vehicles that you can see from the roads and continues to keep his property clean. Mr. Kingrea stated that he believes this is a bad ordinance.
Randy Michael, Cuckoo District, informed the Board that he is opposed to this ordinance. Mr. Michael said that individuals just cant take care of these vehicles in sixty to ninety days and that he shares the same concerns that have been voiced by others this evening. In closing, Mr. Michael stated that this is a violation of peoples rights.
Owen Tate, Mountain Road District, said that a lot of individuals that are here this evening are in the same position that he is, which he feels that his side has been voiced extremely well. Mr. Tate said that he has vehicles that he drives to work every day and the most dependable one that he has, happens to be the one that looks the worst. Mr. Tate said that once this vehicle comes to the end of its life, he would park it in his yard to use for spare parts to work on his next vehicle. Mr. Tate said that he does not feel that this law has any practicality to it. Mr. Tate said that he would rather see the Board take the manpower, expense, time, and effort that it would be put into this project and placed in a better project such as fighting crime in the area.
Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 10:04 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Gentry said that he had sent an email to the other Board members on September 28, 2004 voicing the concerns of the Cuckoo District perspective, which he feels has been well expressed this evening. Mr. Gentry said that he believes that this is a “rights” issue as well as health and safety. Mr. Gentry said that his summary statement was, “this issue would affect many people in the County and furthermore, it would be detrimental to the rural cultured element. He said that whether it is for spare parts, hobby, a collectible, or just that it is my car and it is on my property have been some of the concerns. Mr. Gentry said that junk has many definitions, which are dependent upon the owners desires.” Mr. Gentry said that he happened to come across an article from The Central Virginian that was dated May 25, 1972 that talked about junk vehicles. Mr. Gentry said that Earl Ogg, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors at this time, was quoted as saying, “he has noticed a reinforcement need for citizens to remove their junk cars from their property or face prosecution.” Mr. Gentry pointed out that this article was thirty-three years ago and nothing has been done to this date. Mr. Gentry said that he feels that the Board should take the proposed ordinance and study the areas of concern and tweak it to get it right. Mr. Gentry said that he would like to propose that the Board look at what they can do to clean up some of the stuff that is really spare parts scattered around a yard that no one is using and identify those vehicles. Mr. Gentry said that he believes that the County should invest in creating a program to truly identify what they are going to get rid of or what concerns them. Mr. Gentry said that they just appointed two ladies to the Clean Community Commission this evening, which he would like to see this Board put forth working with this particular Commission to come up with a program that would be funded by County monies to bring in the crushers and try to get the majority of the vehicles taken care of, then approach it in additional steps as necessary. Mr. Purcell extended his appreciation to the citizens for staying so late and for speaking so well while driving their points home. Mr. Purcell said that he believes that people have made this a lot more complicated than what it has to be. He said there were a number of good points that were made this evening, but it boils down to blight. Mr. Purcell questioned what one might consider blight to be; adding that one mans trash is another mans treasure. Mr. Purcell said that this does come down to property rights, but this is being made out to be more complicated than what it really is. Mr. Purcell said that he had told the Board at their past Retreat that this whole issue could be resolved by having setback requirements. Mr. Purcell said that he would agree with recommending something along the lines of what Mr. Gentry has recommended. Dr. Morgan stated that he feels that he has heard both ends of the spectrum, saying that most of the individuals that are in attendance tonight are against this ordinance and vocalized their reasons extremely well. Dr. Morgan said that he does believe that this could be considered a health, safety, and welfare issue, but on the other hand, it could be considered a property rights issue. Dr. Morgan said that one of the goals was to try to minimize the eyesore potential by trying to shield the vehicles in some way. Dr. Morgan said that he feels that this has been somewhat confusing with the way that it has been presented in terms of how they would enforce this, the grandfather clause issue, and the economic impact from both the car owners point of view and potentially from the adjoining landowners point of view are all issues that need to be looked at. Dr. Morgan said that he was not ready to make a decision on this tonight; therefore, he would rather hold off on to look at more details and possibly develop a committee that consists of representatives from the community and businesses to work together towards a compromised solution. Mr. Jennings extended his appreciation to the individuals who attended this meeting. Mr. Jennings said that it is apparent that they are not quite ready to make a decision on this ordinance tonight due to the many issues that they need to address. Mr. Jennings recommended that the Board table this topic to allow time to address the concerns that have been raised. Mr. Wright said that he would like to echo what Dr. Morgan had said about putting together a committee that involves a cross section of the public. Mr. Wright pointed out that the suggestion that Mr. Morgan had to add the additional sentence would protect individuals like Mr. Kemp and Mr. Huckstep who have both been in business since the fifties. Mr. Wright stated that they have to come to a unanimous agreement. Mr. Wright said that he feels that junk cars are a completely separate issue that does contribute to health issues. Mr. Wright suggested that the Clean Community Commission work with the citizens to put together a voluntary clean up program that would help with the situation. Mr. Harper stated that it has been said, “not to act, is to act”; therefore, he is hearing tonight that the Board is not going to take action once again. Mr. Harper said that this is truly an emotional ride that they are taking and that this is not about the “haves” and “have nots.” Mr. Harper said that most of the concerns that have been raised this evening are addressed within the ordinance. Mr. Harper said that if the Board continues to do this every time they have a public hearing, it is going to be another twenty years before the issue is addressed. Mr. Harper stated that this is an issue that is proliferating every day in the County. Chairman Barnes said that he has received a couple of emails from individuals supporting this ordinance that were unable to attend this evening that he wanted to note for public record. Chairman Barnes said that he is one of the biggest property rights people that you could be, but this is something that the Board is going to have to step up to the plate and address. Chairman Barnes said that his position on this is that if you live off of the road at least 500 where no one can see you, then he doesnt care if a person had five-hundred cars, but if you live on the road, then you need to put a fence up to shield the vehicles. Chairman Barnes said that he agrees with Mr. Harper that the Board has been passing the buck on this issue and it is an issue that is not going to go away. Chairman Barnes stated that he is not trying to take away anyones hobbies or their loves and joy, but there are some cases that is an eyesore and a hazard. Chairman Barnes said that the Board truly has to do something about this issue. Mr. Purcell said that he believes that they have received a lot of good ideas tonight for the staff to look at. Mr. Purcell said that he would like to make the motion for the Board not to take action on this ordinance this evening. Mr. Jennings seconded the motion. Mr. Wright asked Mr. Purcell if he had a specific time frame in which he wanted to bring this back to the Board for a decision. Mr. Harper said the he feels that they have to start somewhere. He said that that this is a good starting point and that it addressed most of the issues that were raised this evening; therefore, he would not support the motion. Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Morgan to send the Board a copy of the issues that he brought up with private roads, the setback issue that Mr. Purcell mentioned, the shielding of a vehicle with anything other than a tarp, and having more of a civil penalty opposed to a criminal. Mr. Wright asked if it would be possible to separate the definition of junk cars and inoperable vehicles. Chairman Barnes said that he would like to have Mr. Morgan look at the issues that have been raised and to have Clean Community Commission meet as a committee along with a couple of citizen representatives to share their perspectives on this and bring their recommendations back to the Board in ninety days. Mr. Harper said that he believes this a good idea, but there isnt any association in which these individuals come together. Mr. Purcell agreed to amend his motion for the Board not to take action on this ordinance this evening and to wait until they hear back from the commission in ninety days.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Harper voting against, the Board agreed to table this topic for a period of ninety days to allow the County Attorney and the proposed commission time to address the issues that have been raised.
Board Member Announcement
Dr. Morgan read a statement for all to hear informing the Board, staff, and the citizenry that due to personal reasons, which he prefers not to disclose, it is with his deepest regret that he has decided to resign from the Louisa County Board of Supervisors effective February 1, 2006. Dr. Morgan extended his apologies to the citizens of the Green Springs District that he would be unable to complete his term of office to which he was recently reelected. In closing, Dr. Morgan said that he would ask the Board to accept applications to fill his position until a special election could be held to select a new Supervisor.
Upon hearing Dr. Morgans news, all of the Board members extended their appreciation to Dr. Morgan for all of his hard work and dedication to his position on the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Dr. Morgan, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to advertise the Green Springs District Board Representative position to accept applications until February 3, 2006 to fill the vacancy until an election could be held in November.
On motion of Dr. Morgan, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the January 17, 2006 regular meeting at 10:37 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
FITZGERALD A. BARNES, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA