Contact Sitemap Search
*Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell, and Jack T. Wright
*Fitzgerald Barnes arrived at 6:09 p.m.
|Others Present:||C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager and April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk|
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wright called the January 22, 2007 meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Gentry led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the January 22, 2007 agenda was adopted.
Amendments to or the creation of the following sections of the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances which will recodify and clarify existing regulations in the Agricultural (A-1) and Agricultural (A-2) zoning districts
Mr. Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development, indicated that the Board requested the Planning Commission and Staff to look at the A-1/A-2 zoning ordinance. Mr. Coffey said that while looking at these ordinances, the Planning Commission came up with several changes to the code, in addition to what the Board had requested. Mr. Coffey indicated that the definitions of Parent Parcel and Family Subdivision were changed, with Parent Parcel changed to apply to all zoning districts rather than just A-2 and Family Subdivisions being limited to parcels zoned A-1 and A-2 and parcels not in subdivisions in the R-1 and R-2 district. Mr. Coffey further explained that the Planning Commission revised the right-of-way requirement to be, “not less than ten feet or more than 50 feet” (rather than 20 feet, as the current code reflects), and family divisions would not count towards the total division rights allowed outside of the family division. Mr. Coffey referred to the design standards in the Comprehensive Plan and stated that these support the new zoning districts. Mr. Coffey referred to an open space concept map that would be useful in the Comprehensive Plan to help show the areas of permanent open space currently in the County.
Mr. Barnes arrived at 6:09 p.m.
Mr. Coffey stated that the purpose of the proposed screening regulations is to screen subdivisions from the existing state roads and to preserve the rural character of the County. Mr. Coffey also mentioned that the size of the buffer would be 125 feet in total width and that 65 feet of that buffer would be for screening vegetation. Mr. Coffey stated that the reason for this would be to encourage preservation of existing screening and also to diversify vegetative screening. Mr. Coffey referenced a graphic on the requirement and clarified where the houses would begin and where the buffer could be placed.
Mr. Coffey indicated that the minimum lot width would require a 300-foot minimum lot frontage on existing state roads, rather than allowing two lots with a 200-foot frontage. Mr. Coffey said this requirement would be consistent with the requirements in A-2. Mr. Coffey stated that lot widths would have a twenty percent ratio of depth at the set back line to match what is currently done in A-2.
Mr. Coffey indicated that there have been concerns and comments from citizens about agricultural uses in the A-2 district and whether or not having livestock should be allowed in subdivisions. Mr. Coffey explained that the Department has proposed that the minimum lot size that would allow livestock within subdivisions should be 5 acres. Mr. Coffey indicated that if you were on an existing lot, this restriction would not apply and that this is for new lots in subdivisions only.
Mr. Coffey indicated that the Planning Commission proposed that in the A-2 district, there should be a 300-foot lot width requirement on lots adjacent to existing state roads to prevent builders from placing houses too close to areas where vegetative buffers have been built. Mr. Coffey stated that the 21-acre residue provision would be eliminated and the maximum division be returned to seven lots by-right, as opposed to the current 18 lots by-right.
Mr. Coffey explained to the Board that the Rural Estate District is intended to be rural residential and would have one residential unit per 10 acres set density. Mr. Coffey explained that the Rural Estate district would have a six-acre minimum lot size with a possibility of a three-acre minimum lot size, if 50% of the original parent parcel were dedicated as open space. Mr. Coffey stated that the agricultural uses available would be limited to forestry and private stables with a 10-acre minimum lot area size, and specifically for the horse, only one animal per three acres being allowed. Mr. Coffey emphasized that these districts would not exist without being rezoned.
Mr. Coffey again pointed out that the proposed Transitional Residential district is meant to be a very low-density residential district and not an agricultural district. Mr. Coffey stated that there would be no minimum lot size requirement, and again there would be very limited agricultural uses allowed, a 10-acre minimum lot size for horses with one animal per three acres and forestry would be permitted. Mr. Coffey described that for density, there would be a possibility of 20 lots, with a baseline of 10 lots. Mr. Coffey explained that if a developer dedicated 50 percent to open space, the developer would get a 30 percent density bonus and if a developer dedicated 75 percent to open space, the developer would get a 50 percent density bonus. Mr. Coffey added that in addition to density bonuses, if a developer dedicates three lots for affordable housing, the developer would get a 20 percent density bonus. Mr. Coffey indicated that these bonuses are intended to encourage open space and is similar to the number of lots that can currently be developed under the current Zoning regulations. Mr. Coffey pointed out to the Board that if a developer wished to create a subdivision in the TR district, it would be a rezoning and would be up to the Board for approval.
Mr. Coffey stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 9, 2006 and voted 5-2, to forward a recommendation for approval of this package to the Board consideration. Mr. Coffey recommended that if this package is approved, that the Board also set a policy for a deadline for completing application submittal be December 31, 2007. Mr. Coffey stated that typically it takes six to eight months to plan and record a subdivision plat if the developer is pursuing it diligently.
Mr. Purcell asked who would hold the bond on the 125 ft screening buffer. Mr. Coffey stated that the County would hold the bond and decide when it would be released and it would be treated the same as road bonds and E & S bonds. Mr. Purcell asked what happens if the planting dies. Mr. Coffey stated that the plant would be pulled and replaced.
Mr. Barnes asked where the six to eight month time frame came from for the subdivision plats. Mr. Coffey stated that he has talked with local consultants about this issue and he would strongly recommend a cutoff time. Mr. Barnes stated that VDOT or the Health Department could hold someone up. Mr. Coffey explained that VDOT reviews are typically two weeks to a month and the Health Department could take a month or two months and this is why the staff will not hold anyone accountable if they have done everything that they could and are just waiting on an outside agency review. Mr. Harper asked if any plan turned in before December 31, 2007 applies to the 18 by-rights. Mr. Coffey stated that only the concept plans that have been submitted prior to the date of approval of the proposed changes in the A-2 district will apply to the cutoff of the December 31, 2007 deadline, otherwise, any other applications that are submitted, if this package is approved, will apply to the new A-2 regulations. Mr. Wright voiced his concern about the deadline for the current application because this is the first time that he has heard about this proposal. Mr. Coffey stated this has been a staff and administrative concern and something the Department doesnt want to leave open ended.
Mr. Purcell stated that there is legislation pending for the State to get out of the secondary road maintenance business, which means that the State wont take in subdivision roads in the State system so the County will be responsible for this. Mr. Coffey stated that if this were to occur, the County could have state specification roads that are privately maintained. Mr. Wright stated that this isnt something that the Board can make a decision on tonight, when it is unpredictable on what the General Assembly will do.
Ms. Selene Deike, Patrick Henry District, stated that various counties have tried similar actions with similar goals to try to save the rural character of the communities so the County should have some data from those experiments on the outcomes. Ms. Deike said she would like to know what data the County has to suggest that the specific zonings will move us closer to preserving the rural entirety of the County and will these changes be effective if the particular tools in the Comprehensive Plan are all optional. Ms. Deike questioned would this plan work if the County doesnt have anything that says clustering and preserving open space is mandatory, rather than optional. Ms. Deike also asked the Board if there is anything in the works that is aimed at enhancing or encouraging rural activities to make the County economically viable rather than trying to preserve and save the community.
Mr. Mack Houston, Patrick Henry District, stated that he is opposed to these amendments because seven lots is something that the County previously had. Mr. Houston indicated that the County needs to find out if the land use notes that are applied to the plats are able to be used once they are pulled from the records.
Mr. Doug Whitlock, Mineral District, stated that he would like the Board to consider a few items on the buffer. Mr. Whitlock said he would like the buffer to be counted towards open space and for alternative drain fields to be allowed in the buffer. Mr. Whitlock stated that alternative drain fields can be placed within the buffer without disturbing trees. Mr. Whitlock stated that he would also like to see the buffer extended to timber harvest practices. Mr. Whitlock stated that it is redundant to have a piece of land clear cut and then have a developer recreate the buffer. Mr. Whitlock noted if buffer is in place, it needs to stay there. Mr. Whitlock said that citizens are looking at new assessments and it is fair to say that the A-2 parcels reflect an eighteen lot right division and has brought the assessments up, however, if the Board lowers that number, assessments wont go down but the prices of a lot will cost more to equal the over inflated value of the A-2 Parcels.
Mr. Bruce Martin, Mineral District, stated that he was here to speak as a citizen of this County about the rights of a property owner. Mr. Martin said there needs to be a fair development policy that works for a developer and for a citizen. Mr. Martin stated that from a builders prospective, there isnt a better policy than what the County has now, but for a citizens stand point, this policy couldnt get any worse. Mr. Martin stated that with the by-right policy that this County currently has, the community could be destroyed within a few years because the entire county will be a designated growth area. Mr. Martin explained that the tax rates will run the citizens out of the County, so this County needs to have a fair and objective approval process for the developers and the citizens. Mr. Martin stated that he supports the need to go back to seven or less division rights but asked the Board to wait approving the two new divisions until a build out analysis is completed. Mr. Martin stated the County needs as many participants in the agricultural community to preserve the agricultural character. Mr. Martin said that the participants are an asset to the community and the County should not create a subdivision law in the A-2 district that restricts agricultural use. Mr. Martin stated he believed the only policy that will work in the future for this County is for all subdivisions to be under a rezoning review and for a property owner to have only a few division rights.
Mr. Steven E. Summerville, Jackson District, stated he encourages the Board to approve the changes in the A-2 district, as proposed. Mr. Summerville said that he came to this County to enjoy the beauty and green space that this County offers. Mr. Summerville explained he has seen rapid growth throughout the community and new restrictions are appropriate for citizens to be able to enjoy the County, the open space, and a less traffic ridden lifestyle. Mr. Summerville stated that when citizens chose to develop their property into eighteen lot villages, they fail to take into consideration the damage it does to the quality of life of their neighbors and the surrounding green space. Mr. Summerville stated that growth is unstoppable, but it should and can be slowed down considerably. Mr. Summerville said to keep Louisa County a quiet, beautiful and decent place to live and raise children.
Mr. John D. Williams, Hanover County, VA, stated that he owns land in Louisa County and is opposed to the seven lot division that is proposed because it takes away from what the County used to have like private roads and the twenty-one acres lots. Mr. Williams explained he understands the two new zoning districts that are being proposed, but he is concerned about the existing neighborhoods that have twenty-one acre lots on private roads, where the roads are governed by the people who live there. Mr. Williams stated that a lot of these neighborhoods have a stamp on the recorded plat that says “no further subdivision allowed.” Mr. Williams questioned if this proposal would void that stamp and what would be a process to convince neighbors that the roads could become up to standards.
Mr. Randy Tingler, Louisa District, stated that he supports the basic concept of the changes and he thinks this is a positive proposal. Mr. Tingler said that it would be positive and helpful to add three affordable housing units to the seven division rights. Mr. Tingler agreed with Mr. Whitlocks comments about the buffer. Mr. Tingler explained that 125 feet for screening may be too much and the density bonuses are too high. Mr. Tingler stated that he would like the Board to consider thirty percent open space for a thirty percent increase in lots or fifty percent open space for a fifty percent increase in lots. Mr. Tingler explained he thought open space would be used more if the numbers were more reasonable. Mr. Tingler stated he thought it was a good idea to allow the twenty-one acres lots to be rezoned to TR so there could be a subdivision within a subdivision and this would be a positive idea for developers. Mr. Tingler said he thinks it is important to have a reasonable grace period for the cutoff date for subdivision applications, such as twelve to eighteen months. Mr. Tingler stated that he hoped the Board will vote on this proposal as a whole package and not take out pieces and vote on each change separately.
Ms. Hanah M. Price, Mountain Road District, stated that all citizens cannot afford to have a minimum lot size of five acres. Ms. Price stated that she felt it was inappropriate for the Board to require a five acre minimum to build a house because many people in the County work minimum wage jobs and can not afford to buy such a large piece of land and then try to build a house on it.
Mr. Tommy J. Barlow, Mountain Road District, stated he had one primary concern which is the time frame that is proposed for final submission of subdivision plats. Mr. Barlow said with all of the approvals that are required by the agencies, sometimes it is impossible to get these jobs completed in a one year time period. Mr. Barlow stated that the time period will force developers to take jobs from a small firm and give them to larger firms so that the cut-off date can be met. Mr. Barlow asked that the Board consider a two year term period which will allow time to get these jobs done. Mr. Barlow stated another concern he had was the open space concept map, which the Planning Commission had removed for the reason being that there was no mechanism as to how the map would be used or implemented and for the fear that there would be a requirement for open space for areas shown on the map with no means of determining, other than scaling, where these areas would be. Mr. Barlow noted that he approved the proposal but would like consideration given to the time period be set at two years.
Mr. Doug Wood, Jackson District, stated that it is encouraging to see these proposals made, but he was concerned about the intent to preserve rural nature and encourage agricultural. Mr. Wood stated that this proposal is limiting livestock and putting in an exclusive standard for Louisa County, unless five acres can be afforded. Mr. Wood explained he is not against the TR or RE districts and he thinks it is a good idea in concept, but they are targeted towards A-2 property and A-2 seems to be the struggle that this County is dealing with. Mr. Wood stated that agricultural is being taken out of the A-2 district because appropriate livestock and farming is being defined. Mr. Wood stated development is about business and business is about profit. Mr. Wood stated that the way these laws can be interpreted is key to what is being done so make sure they are defined correctly.
Mr. Ethan Call, Mountain Road District, stated he appreciates the work that has been done on this project. Mr. Call explained he doesnt agree with this whole plan as a developer, but thinks this would be a good way for developers to have what they want as well as citizens to have what they want, if assumed, this would be passed in one package. Mr. Call stated that if this isnt all passed as one package, it changes everything. Mr. Call indicated that the whole plan needs to be looked at as a comprehensive package and if it is done that way, it could be good for the County. Mr. Call suggested to not pass only part, but to pass the whole package and it will be something that the County can work with.
Mr. Archie Gordon, Mountain Road District, stated he is concerned about the time factor given for submitting final applications. Mr. Gordon explained that one year is not enough time to complete jobs because unexpected issues with development always come up. Mr. Gordon stated that a two year time frame would be enough time. Mr. Gordon said that he agrees that this needs to be passed as a comprehensive package and not be torn apart.
Ms. Tara Dean, Jackson District, stated she applauds the Community Development Department in designing this plan and she supports the idea of requiring the proffers and rezoning. Ms. Dean explained she wants the by-right to be lowered back to seven lots because there is too much traffic on the road and parcels are being stacked. Ms. Dean said she likes the new zoning ordinances because it gives the community an opportunity to have affordable housing in the area. Ms. Dean stated that there doesnt need to be a requirement for having three acres per horse because one horse can be kept on two acres and an additional acre per horse is enough. Ms. Dean explained many people move to the County to have their children involved in 4-H programs and if livestock are kept properly, there shouldnt be a minimum of the number of animals that is allowed. Ms. Dean stated that if people are irresponsible, they will be irresponsible on any amount of acreage. Ms. Dean said low density areas need to have a minimum lot size other than an acre and a half because this causes conflict. Ms. Dean stated she supports the proposal overall and she is happy to see that Louisa County is moving forward.
Rev. Bernie Newcomb, Mountain Road District, stated that the County should not restrict what people can do with their own land and that some people cannot afford five acres. Rev. Newcomb said people have a right to their own home and if they want to come into this County then they should be able to. Rev. Newcomb explained that if the County reverts back to seven lots then we will go back to the problem that already existed. Rev. Newcomb stated he bought property with the intention of developing it and he thinks that the County should have a grace period for citizens that couldnt get the land developed before todays date. Rev. Newcomb stated he would like the Board to consider a time frame for people to still be able to submit applications under the eighteen by-right divisions.
Ms. Julie Houston, Patrick Henry District, stated she is opposed to the A-2 district changes for reducing the number of by-right divisions back to seven and she is opposed to the buffer and believes it is overkill. Ms. Houston stated she doesnt understand how the Board can justify reducing the rights back to seven because that isnt fair to the landowners. Ms. Houston said because of this ordinance change , local builders and developers will basically be shut out. Ms. Houston indicated that one year to complete a subdivision in this County is unrealistic and unreasonable.
Mr. Scott Dixon, Mountain Road District, stated he is concerned about the restriction of livestock to smaller lots. Mr. Dixon said the County needs to be careful on restrictions if we want to stay a rural community. Mr. Dixon stated he knows people with farmland that are trying to be creative and develop farming communities and some of these restrictions could get in the way.
Mr. Nick Levay, Jackson District, stated the work that the Departments staff has done needs to be considered and these proposals need to be looked at as a comprehensive package.
Mr. Nathan Newcomb, Patrick Henry District, stated he thinks the County will be going in the wrong direction if the same ordinance is employed that was previously used. Mr. Newcomb explained the ordinances didnt work then and probably wont work now. Mr. Newcomb indicated that growth cannot be stopped, but it can be harnessed. Mr. Newcomb stated he is concerned with having a deadline for the submittal for subdivision applications when the Board hasnt even voted yet and he would like a longer term than just a year.
Ms. Mary Johnson, Cuckoo District, stated realistically it takes at least twelve months to get to the submittal process and it takes more than one year for the whole process. Ms. Johnson said the submittal for the application should be twelve months but the final approval needs to be longer because the applicant has no control on how long it takes for outside agencies to approve the plans. Ms. Johnson stated overall, the ordinances being proposed are good.
Ms. Tiffany Varney, Jackson District, stated that scattered growth is a problem and these changes will protect the rural nature of the County. Ms. Varney said she doesnt think there should be a minimum five acre lot size for agricultural uses. Ms. Varney stated she is concerned that the restrictions for livestock on agricultural land will discourage small family farmers from moving to this County. Ms. Varney stated she is more concerned about people who want to live in Louisa rather than people who want to develop the land. Ms. Varney stated that encouraging small farms will do a lot to preserve the nature of the County.
Mr. Jason F. Biddle, Patrick Henry District, stated he moved to the County to start a farm and this takes a lot of time and money. Mr. Biddle said it is interesting to see all of the development within the community but is takes a lot of land to produce food for farm animals.
Mr. Roy Hopkins, Patrick Henry District, stated the Community Development Department has done an excellent job overall in presenting these proposals but he sees some opportunities for abuse in the TR district because it is open ended. Mr. Hopkins complimented the Department on this presentation.
Mr. Coffey stated that the intent of the proposed five acre minimum for agricultural uses, was for future subdivisions which are located in an A-2 district, and that agricultural activities cannot be done unless the lot was five acres or larger. Mr. Coffey stated that the County needs to be careful with the Right to Farm Act because in an agricultural district the proposal tries to make that distinction. Mr. Coffey indicated that the intent of this proposal is to solve conflicts between residents who move in the County because its the country and residents who move in for the serenity of the country.
Mr. Coffey stated the reason for the grace period is because staff are concerned about having the door opened for subdivisions that have been submitted before the change in the ordinance so they can be developed years down the road. Mr. Coffey said that if the board took action tonight, then it would become effective immediately, unless otherwise specified.
Mr. Gentry stated there was a concern of a cutoff date for the submittal of subdivision applications. Mr. Coffey stated that if a final submittal has been received and the applicant is waiting on an outside agency for review, then the deadline would be flexible, but the staff doesnt want to leave this to be open ended.
Mr. Gentry asked for Mr. Coffeys opinion on the disadvantages of not approving this as a package. Mr. Coffey stated that he put this together as a package and the intent is to incorporate as much as possible, but if the Board is not comfortable with this, then the approval could be delayed for another time. Mr. Coffey further noted that primary points of concern could be deleted, addressed or amended.
Mr. Barnes stated he is concerned about citizens who own land and want to sell two lots and questioned if this proposal takes away that opportunity. Mr. Coffey said the seven lots by-right that is proposed for A-2 gives people that opportunity. Mr. Coffey noted that only selling two lots would be considered a division, not a subdivision and divisions are less restrictive. Mr. Purcell questioned if the number of cuts that citizens could potentially make would affect family divisions. Mr. Coffey stated not as the ordinance is currently proposed and the Board made it clear that family divisions are not to count against the propertys division rights. Mr. Gentry asked if family division parcels are limited to just A-1 and A-2 or is R-2 also included. Mr. Coffey stated the way that it is currently proposed, family divisions are limited to parcels in A-1 and A-2 and R-1 and R-2, as long as those parcels are not part of subdivisions. Mr. Gentry said that commercial property would have to be rezone to one of those districts to do a family division.
Mr. Wright asked what action from a developer starts the application process. Mr. Coffey stated that as soon as a first concept plan is received, thats when the process starts. Mr. Wright questioned when notice of the amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance was first announced. Mr. Coffey stated that formal notices went out in October for the preparation of the Planning Commissions public hearing in November.
Mr. Gentry questioned if the elimination for the twenty-one acre residue was reasonable if the two new districts being proposed were not approved. Mr. Coffey said it is most restrictive to eliminate those and reduce the lots from eighteen to seven. Mr. Coffey added to adopt the package without the parcels is less restrictive and is basically what the County had prior to March 2005. Mr. Coffey stated over half of the residues that have been created in the past arent being used and he has proposed to not allow them anymore but for the ones that exist, they can be divided if they are rezoned to TR. Mr. Wright said the Board asked for that section to be removed from the proposal, but instead it was transferred to another place in the plan.
Mr. Purcell stated the eighteen lots wasnt decided upon arbitrarily, there was a formula that the Board thought was necessary to get the development off of the road. Mr. Purcell said that regardless of the flaws of the policy, it achieved the goal of off road development and the people need to understand that. Mr. Purcell explained he is concerned with the agricultural restrictions in A-2 and the open space concept map. Mr. Purcell disagreed with the deadline and stated the deadline should be a year from the time that the project is submitted until the project comes back to the County. Mr. Purcell stated that the buffers need modifications and he understand the intent, but there will be a code enforcement problem. Mr. Purcell stated he has a problem with voting on this as a package because the intent of this plan is to say these rights are being taken away but alternatives are provided if rezoning is done and just taking away the rights and not providing the alternatives is only half of the equation.
Mr. Havasy stated he would like to see this approved as a package with some exceptions such as the buffers being altered and the provision of the twenty-one acre residual parcels be removed.
Mr. Barnes said this package gives different options for people, however, the density bonus is too high. Mr. Barnes mentioned the best growth tool in place is that there isnt water and sewer throughout the County. Mr. Barnes added that some concepts about clustering cannot be done properly without water and sewer throughout the County. Mr. Barnes said that the buffer is too much and needs to be cut back, but his main concern is the affordability of a home. Mr. Barnes stated he would like to see three additional lots for affordable housing added to the seven lots in A-2, for a total of ten division rights.
Mr. Harper stated the A-2 district in particular applies to animals, but with rights go responsibilities and responsibilities arent always exercised very well. Mr. Harper said there is nothing agricultural about A-2 today, the way it is set up. Mr. Harper stated that A-2 is used as a catch all for some things that arent allowed in other zonings districts, but the fact of the matter is 66,000 square feet is not agricultural.
Mr. Gentry stated he is pleased with strong intent of this proposal. Mr. Gentry said he likes the fact that the family subdivision criteria was adjusted from what the Planning Commission had sent to the Board. Mr. Gentry stated he is concerned about changing the minimum road frontage to 300-feet. Mr. Gentry stated he likes the proposal for adding three additional divisions to the seven lots for affordable housing. Mr. Gentry said that he doesnt like the restriction of the minimum five acre lot area for agricultural uses in the A-2 district. . Mr. Gentry stated he thinks the twenty-one acre residue provision can be deleted only if the two new zoning districts are approved, but he feels like he hasnt heard enough about the two districts.
Mr. Jennings stated there is a need to bring the number of by-right divisions back down to seven from eighteen. Mr. Jennings said a package should be treated as a package, but there are several issues with the provisions included, such as the TR zone. Mr. Jennings said that what is proposed with family divisions is wonderful, however, he doesnt like the 300-feet road frontage. Mr. Jennings said that the A-1 district is ok as proposed, but he has some concerns on the A-2 district. Mr. Jennings said that seven lots is appropriate and that an additional three lots should not be added as affordable housing because they wont get used. Mr. Jennings stated that another issue he has it deadline for the applications that have already been submitted. Mr. Jennings said developers should not be rushed because all of the plans will come in at one time and the County will have a huge amount of development and an explosion of population at once. Mr. Jennings stated affordable housing will be hurt if it is required to have a minimum of five acres in the A-2 districts. Mr. Jennings questioned why the County should rush to add the two new districts when it has not been thought about well enough and the Board can come back to that.
Mr. Wright stated that A-2 practices are not the right designation to format. Mr. Wright said that this County is not a rural residential area, that it is an A-2 area. Mr. Wright stated family subdivisions are to keep the children in the County and to offer affordable homes. Mr. Wright said an addition of a new road is less expensive with less divisions. Mr. Wright indicated he felt there should be a time limit for the completion of submissions of the applications for the subdivisions.
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve amendments to sections of the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance which will recodify and clarify existing regulations in the Agricultural (A-1) and Agricultural (A-2) zoning districts and approve the creation of two new zoning districts, Rural Estate (RE) and Transitional Residential (TR) with the following exceptions; the removal of the twenty-one acre residue provision in the TR district, the vegetative buffer will be 100 feet in width, instead of the proposed 125 feet, no change to the road frontage requirement the elimination of the minimum five acre provision for agricultural uses in the A-2 district, and to require final subdivision plats submitted to the Community Development Department within one year from the date of this action, January 22, 2008.
The Board agreed to review these provisions in 18 months.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Harper opposing, the Board agreed the addition of the three affordable housing lots to the seven by-right lots needs to go back to the Planning Commission for approval.
Mr. Purcell stated that real estate value is calculated by utility, which means that what a person can do with a property determines the real estate value. Mr. Purcell further explained that if a person were to go to a public auction for a piece of land, and if that property has 18 by-right division, that property has a different value than if the property has seven by-right divisions. Mr. Purcell stated that what the Board has effectively done by approving the changes to the Agricultural (A-2) district is decrease the utility of a property, and therefore decrease the value of Agricultural (A-2) zoned property. Mr. Purcell stated that he understands that the Board has no control over Constitutional Officers, but he would like to make the motion for the Board to instruct Mr. Lintecum to send a letter to the County Assessor to go back and look at every piece of A-2 property in the agricultural zone because he thought that people will be paying to much money because the County Assessor is basing property assessment on values that no longer exist.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for Mr. Lintecum to send a letter to the County Assessor.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Harper , which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the January 22, 2007 meeting at 8:36 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
JACKSON T. WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA