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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
MARCH 17, 2008
6:00 P.M.



Board Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr. and Jack T. Wright
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, Interim County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Jason Pauley, County Engineer;Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager, Administration; April Jacobs, Revenue Recovery Administrator; and Zuwana Morgan, Deputy Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the March 17, 2008 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m.  Mr. Havasy led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD

Mr. Eric Purcell, Louisa District, stated he was surprised that the remaining roads in the Forest View Subdivision had not been added to the State System of Highways because of actions taken by the Board. Mr. Purcell said the roads had been built to State specification and inspected by appropriate VDOT personnel.  Mr. Purcell said VDOT was satisfied that all criteria has been met to accept these roads.  

Mr. Purcell stated he had no knowledge of any past request by VDOT to accept County roads into the State system being held up by the Board.  Mr. Purcell said it was unprecedented and not something he had seen happen with the Board in the past.

Mr. Purcell said the County should want the State to accept the roads into their system.  Mr. Purcell stated the Countys land use policy has been geared for the State to accept the County roads.  Mr. Purcell said people were going to a substantial expense to build State roads and dealing with an increasingly difficult VDOT to get them approved.  Mr. Purcell said once the roads were approved into the system, the Board of Supervisors should not hold them up.  

Mr. Purcell stated he heard there was an issue of guarantees and utility easements.  Mr. Purcell said it was not relevant to discuss because the covenants allowed the County the perpetual right to grant easements, move easements, etc. to comply with County or State recommendations.  

Mr. Purcell stated he would assume this line of questioning and hold-up would occur with all roads coming before the Board with a resolution request from VDOT and not just his.  Mr. Purcell noted he thought some education was in order.  Mr. Purcell said if the Board planned on delaying VDOT requests, they should let the citizens know what their concerns were so the delays could be held to the minimum.  Mr. Purcell said he believed people would be upset to find out the County required them to build State roads and to comply with VDOT, only to find out that there would be a hold up.  Mr. Purcell stated monies and bonds had been posted and letters of credit had been issued from financial institutions for these projects on which interest has accrued.  

Mr. Purcell said the County should not be delaying any request from VDOT to take over the roads.  Mr. Purcell stated in todays climate, the County should be thrilled when VDOT takes over the roads. Mr. Purcell said with all respect, these were good roads, built by quality road builders.  Mr. Purcell indicated that the roads had met VDOT requirements.  Mr. Purcell said VDOT has been on site several times for inspections, which he has been there for.   Mr. Purcell asked the Board to please allow VDOT to take these roads into the State system.

Ms. Julia Bloome, Albemarle County, stated she was representing the Central Virginia Association for the Education of Young Children.  Ms. Bloome asked the Board to proclaim April as the month of “The Young Child”.  Ms. Bloome said their theme was “To bring communities together for young children and children bring communities together.”  Ms. Bloome stated one of their activities would be to present the book “The Crayon Box That Talked” to each preschool and kindergarten teacher.  Ms. Bloome thanked the Board for their consideration of designating April as the month of “The Young Child in Louisa County.”  

Mr. Matt Quatrara, Green Springs District, encouraged the Board to take the roads in the Forest View Subdivision into the State system.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper stated he would like to add a discussion of Government Finance Officer Association Recognition and a discussion of commercial set backs to New Business.  

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the March 17, 2008 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

Annual Report - Piedmont Virginia Community College - Dr. Frank Friedman

Dr. Friedman stated Virginia Bickley, the current Louisa representative, had served the maximum number of years on the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board and a new member would need to appointed by July 1, 2008.  Dr. Friedman thanked Ms. Bickley for doing a great job.  Dr. Friedman said PVCC had 4,675 students enroll this past fall and 300 of those students were from Louisa County, which was about six percent of PVCCs total enrollment.  Dr. Friedman stated the 300 students included 91 high students taking dual enrollment courses and 74 students taking internet courses.  Dr. Friedman noted 31 of the Louisa County graduates from 2007 went to PVCC in the Fall.  

Dr. Friedman said PVCC has done renovations to their main academic building to add more lecture rooms.  Dr. Friedman added the library was also renovated with private funds.  Dr. Friedman stated PVCC would be going to bid in a month for a $9 million science building.  Dr. Friedman said after the science building was built, hopefully the next building would be a Workforce Development Center.  Dr. Friedman said the Governor included almost $7 million in his bond proposal for this.  Dr. Friedman said PVCC would like to have the visitor center that is closing in Albemarle County to use as the workforce center.  Dr. Friedman noted that the building belonged to PVCC 25 years ago.

Dr. Friedman stated PVCC has been very active with increased security.  Dr. Friedman said PVCC has put in place text messaging alerts, email alerts, alarms on campus and they installed 36 new security cameras.  Dr. Friedman said PVCC has also formed a Crisis Response Team to deal with students who might be harmful to themselves or others.  

Dr. Friedman said PVCC had some new workforce development programs which included a construction academy with 130 students enrolled, a paramedic program where students could receive an associates degree and a medical coding program which started this semester and currently had 13 students enrolled.  Dr. Friedman said PVCC has put in place some short term training programs, such as Phlebotomy, Pharmacy Technology and Home Care Aide.  Dr. Friedman stated the short term programs were less than a semester long and there were jobs waiting for this type of training.    

Dr. Friedman said graduation was May 9, 2008 and Governor Kaine was going to be the commencement speaker.  Dr. Friedman said for the second year in a row PVCC has had a student chosen to be Academic All American for Community Colleges.  Dr. Friedman said there were six million community college students in the Country and USA Today chooses only twenty students as Academic All American.  

Mr. Gentry said he wanted to thank Dr. Friedman for all PVCC was doing and the Board looked forward to the workforce programs.  Mr. Gentry thanked Ms. Bickley for her service to Louisa County.

Mr. Byers said he would also like to thank Dr. Friedman and thought PVCC was a great asset to Louisa.  Mr. Byers questioned if a student would be equivalent to a journeyman when they completed the construction academy.  Dr. Friedman said the program was sixteen weeks and the student would be at a helper lever when it was completed.  Dr. Friedman stated the program prepares students to go into an apprenticeship program, which were offered at CA-Tech.   Dr. Friedman said they were also starting a Construction Management Program.  

Mr. Havasy congratulated Dr. Friedman for the All American Academic Students.  Mr. Havasy stated educational systems should be proud of their academic achievements.  

Mr. Spencer thanked Dr. Friedman and Ms. Bickley.  Mr. Spencer requested that Dr. Friedman recommend someone to replace Ms. Bickley.  

Mr. Barnes stated the Board appointed Ms. Ava Pippin, an educator in the County, to replace Ms. Bickley.

Dr. Friedman requested an official letter with Ms. Pippins information, so she could be contacted for orientation information.

OLD BUSINESS

Resolution - To take three (3) streets in the Forest View Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia

Mr. Spencer said he wanted to make it clear that the Board had asked the County Attorney about the wording and if it would make the County liable if something were to come up.  Mr. Spencer stated the County Attorney informed the Board the County would have to pay because of the guarantee.  Mr. Spencer explained he was now comfortable with it since Mr. Pauley had completed the onsite research.    

Mr. Gentry stated the question came up if the County had the unrestricted right-of-way.  Mr. Gentry said staff was unable to answer the question at that time, so the Board postponed the decision to be on the safe side until the information was given.  

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to take three (3) streets in the Forest View Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - Setting service fees for emergency medical transports

Ms. Jacobs stated Emergency Medical Transport fees needed to be established before the County could start billing for ambulance services.  Ms. Jacobs said the resolution, which was included in the Board Packet, presented a fee schedule recommended by the Revenue Recovery Committee.  

Mr. Byers questioned if he was reading the fee schedule correctly that an ALS transport level 2 would cost $550 and if it was 100 miles to the hospital, that an extra $750 would be added to the charge. Ms. Jacobs said yes and explained that the mileage was determined based on a straight line from the center of the 911 grid of which the location of the incident scene was located, to a hospital.

Mr. Byers questioned what consideration was given to the fee the County was charging if there was a deductible from the insurance company.  Ms. Jacobs said the County would be offering an annual subscribing plan for $65 per household.  Ms. Jacobs stated the subscription plan would cover what the insurance didnt.   Ms. Jacobs said the County would also have compassionate billing, which would assist anyone that had a financial hardship.  

Mr. Byers stated he thought the Program name should be changed to “ Cost Recovery” as opposed to “Revenue Recovery.”

Mr. Barnes said his biggest concern was to make sure the public was educated, especially the seniors.  Mr. Barnes said the public needed to know to call 911 if they needed help, even if they could not pay for the transport.  Mr. Barnes said the Committee must get the word out and suggested going through local churches.  Ms. Jacobs said the Committee would definitely be educating the public and stressing not to be afraid to call for help.

Mr. Wright said the Board stressed that there must be a strong educational  program for the seniors before the program went into effect.  Mr. Wright said the reason the program was called “Revenue Recovery” was because that was what the State legislation used to enable the County to have the program.


Mr. Gentry said he couldnt support something that would cost the citizens money for rescue services.  

Mr. Wright stated he would like to make a motion to adopt a resolution setting service fees for emergency medical transports.  Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.  Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote.

PRESENTVOTE
P.T. Spencer, Jr. Yes
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Dan W. Byers No
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. No
Willie L. Harper No
Richad A. Havasy Yes

With the votes reflecting 4-3, the motion passed to adopt a resolution setting service fees for emergency medical transports.

Discussion - Awarding a contract to DAB (Diversified Ambulance Billing) for revenue recovery billing services

Ms. Jacobs stated the Revenue Recovery Committee decided to piggyback on Fairfax Countys RFP instead of going out for a formal bid and determined that DAB was best suited to perform billing services for Louisa County.  Ms. Jacobs said in December 2007, the Board voted to follow the Committees recommendation and DAB was, therefore, selected as the Countys billing agent.  Ms. Jacobs said at that point in time, the Board requested for the contract to come back before them for approval.

Ms. Jacobs explained the Committee had to work out some specific details, such as selecting what software would be used for the program, before the contract could be completed.  Ms. Jacobs said after selecting a software package, she had worked with DAB to determine what percentage they would be paid based on the amount of funds collected, not billed.

Ms. Jacobs said on Page 22 and 32 of the Board Packet, it stated that there would be a 1.5 percent discount applied on the following invoice if payment was received within 12 business days after the receipt.  Ms. Jacobs said there were some concerns about how DAB knew when the County received the invoice.  Ms. Jacobs asked DAB and they said they either preferred to overnight the invoice or email it so they had the tracking information.  

Ms. Jacobs said she also wanted to clarify that if there was ever an issue between the County and DAB, the County wouldnt have to go through Fairfax County to resolve that.  Ms. Jacobs stated the County only piggybacked on their contract to circumvent having to go through the RFP process because they had already underwent a formal bid process.  Ms. Jacobs said Louisa County and DAB would have their own contract, which had been written based on the needs of Louisa County.

Ms. Jacobs requested the Boards approval for the piggyback contract from Fairfax County and also the contract between the County of Louisa and DAB, which was written based on the needs for Louisa County.  Ms. Jacobs indicated that both contracts were included in the Board Packet for the Boards review

Mr. Barnes said it was becoming more common for localities to piggyback on other localities.  

Mr. Wright questioned if all the agreements were in writing within the contract.  Ms. Jacobs said yes, all agreements were in writing and included in the contract.  

Mr. Wright questioned who would approved the changes, the Board or the Administration staff and what percentage the County would pay DAB.  Ms. Jacobs said because everything would be going to DAB electronically, the County would only have to pay the 6.5 percent.  

Mr. Wright stated he would like to see the certificate of insurance when it came in.

Mr. Harper questioned again who the County Officials were that would approve the changes.  Ms. Jacobs said that everything would come before the Board.  Mr. Harper requested that the contract be modified to clarify that.  

Mr. Havasy said a study showed only about nine percent of the population used the ambulance services.  Mr. Havasy said currently, 100 percent of the County was paying for these services.  Mr. Havasy stated the Revenue Recovery Program was changing that where instead of everyone paying, just those that used the services would pay.  Mr. Havasy stated most of the citizens would be covered by insurance and for those that werent, the County would be diligent and compassionate with them.  Mr. Havasy questioned who should pay, the taxpayer or insurance companies that were receiving premiums.
 
Mr. Byers said the Board needed to make sure the administration of the program didnt have expenses to the point that the cost was more than the income. Mr. Byers said if insurance companies were paying more out, they were going to charge higher premiums.
 

Mr. Havasy said the Board was not there to discuss insurance companies premiums, instead they had the responsibility of discussing the business of the County.  Mr. Havasy stated the Board was to be concerned about saying the taxpayer, not the insurance payer.  Mr. Havasy said studies from insurance companies have shown that the ride to the hospital was such a small cost compared to the hospital cost, that the insurance companies werent even figuring them in.  

Mr. Wright said the insurance business has already factored in place for this.

Mr. Harper stated there were some fundamental differences.  Mr. Harper said he did not agree with the program; however, majority of the Board said they would support it so he would agree in that regards.


On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved awarding a contract to DAB (Diversified Ambulance Billing) for revenue recovery billing services.

Discussion - Government Financial Offices Association Recognition

Mr. Harper said for the past six years, the County has received recognition for excellent financial reporting.  Mr. Harper said the Board appreciated the effort it took to get that recognition.  

Mr. Barnes stated the recognition said a lot about the Countys staff.   Mr. Barnes said he would like to commend the staff for doing everything needed to make sure Louisa County took care of their fiscal responsibilities.  Mr. Havasy agreed.

Discussion - Commercial Set Backs

Mr. Havasy stated Green Springs Districts commercial area was growing fast and he hoped it continued to grow.    

Mr. Coffey said the discussion of how developers could bring their buildings closer to the street has come up several times.  Mr. Coffey said because of the zoning ordinance, the buildings have been required to be set back from the street.  Mr. Coffey stated that old urbanism allowed buildings to come to the street.  Mr. Coffey said if the County could amend the zoning ordinance to allow for a waiver under certain conditions, developers could move their buildings closer to the street.  Mr. Coffey said this hadnt been brought up to the Planning Commission as of yet.   Mr. Coffey said the waiver would allow the building to be closer to the road, landscape could be put in and it would be more pedestrian friendly.  Mr. Coffey stated now with the ordinance in commercially zoned districts, developers can only develop one way.  Mr. Coffey said the waiver would put some flexibility in the ordinance and permit good designs where appropriate.   Mr. Coffey said if the growth areas were where the County wants to encourage good designs, then set backs may be something the County should consider.    

Mr. Coffey stated if the Board wanted him to take it to the Planning Commission and them bring it back to the Board, he would do so.  

Mr. Gentry questioned if putting the building closer to the road would create a tunnel effect.  Mr. Coffey stated it would be all site specific and content based.  Mr. Coffey said in some places, it wouldnt be appropriate.  Mr. Coffey said if youre trying to create a place where there was a pedestrian flow, this kind of waiver would be preferred.  Mr. Coffey stated the current ordinance didnt allow for any flexibility.  

Mr. Byers said providing an option certainly seemed to have merit.  Mr. Byers said the impact on safety should be considered when putting the parking lots in the rear, for example, if it would be in front of a wooded area.


Mr. Barnes said he could certainly support the proposal.  Mr. Barnes stated any options given to businesses coming to the community helped.  Mr. Barnes said the proposal still was in line with what the Board originally wanted.  

Mr. Harper said Mr. Havasy requested that the Board ask the Planning Commission to start deliberation on this matter.

Mr. Spencer said he liked the proposal and thought it looked great.  Mr. Spencer thanked Mr. Havasy and Mr. Coffey.  

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to send the commercial set back proposal to the Planning Commission for deliberation.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Lintecum stated Senator Houck was successful in getting one year of funding for the federal prison cells; however, getting funding for the second year was going to be problematic.  Mr. Lintecum said he believed that eventually, the County would have to start putting sufficient local monies in the regional jail.
 

Mr. Gentry said Delegate Janis put in a bill that would give the Board of Supervisors the option to request by resolution a speed limit of 35 MPH or less in school zones.  Mr. Gentry said he received a call from VDOT stating that they were very upset about the bill and were blaming Louisa County.  

Mr. Lintecum said the Revenue Sharing Application has been postponed.  

Mr. Havasy said he would like to thank the members of the Board and the members of the public who inspired the Board to write letters to those elected officials.  Mr. Havasy stated because this Board and other Boards took action, the response was favorable.

Discussion - Dam safety requirements

Mr. Delk stated he had been trying to get the two dams done under the old regulations for some time now.  Mr. Delk said he had a proposal from Dewberry to do the safety requirements for both dams, at a cost not to exceed $25,000.  Mr. Delk stated the benefits of the dam break analysis and flood plain inundation were to map out the area below the dam in case the dam failed.  Mr. Delk said the mapping tells you ahead of time, so no one would build any developments below the dam.  Mr. Delk stated he did not believe there were any developments at this time below the public dam.  Mr. Delk said if he could get the requirements done by this Summer he could avoid the $2,500 fee.    

Mr. Harper said he knew that Mr. Delk had been working on this for some time and has been passionate about getting it done.  

Mr. Delk noted that he went to a public hearing in Richmond to speak against the regulations and ask that the flood control dams be exempted.  

Mr. Gentry questioned if the Board could do anything to help Mr. Delk.  Mr. Delk said he didnt know.

Mr. Byers questioned how long the safety permit lasted.  Mr. Delk said it was a six-year permit.

Mr. Byers questioned what mechanism was used to make sure no one was granted a building permit in that zone.   Mr. Delk stated most of the area was in the flood plain and he didnt know that there was a mechanism in place to make sure building permits werent issued.  

Mr. Gentry stated he would like an explanation of why the changes were taking place.  Mr. Gentry requested that Mr. Lintecum write a letter inquiring about the changes.

Mr. Delk said the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board in Richmond passed new regulations that would go into effect July 1, 2008.

Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Delk if he was concerned about what would happen between now and then.  Mr. Delk said he was given a six-month extension.  Mr. Gentry questioned if it mattered after July 1, 2008.  Mr. Delk said it wouldnt matter, the new regulations would be in place and the next time around you would have to meet those regulations.

Mr. Lintecum said not only would have to be done but there will be a $2,500 fee for each.  Mr. Delk said he would try to have the requirements done before July.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to follow Mr. Delks recommendation of having the dam safety requirements completed by the end of the six-month extension.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors, in accordance with Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia, will conduct a joint public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed Secondary Six-Year Plan for Fiscal Year 2008/09 through 2014/15 in Louisa County and on the Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2009/09.

Mr. Lintecum stated this was the annual meeting where the County gives the citizens an opportunity to give their input on the Six-Year Secondary Plan for the roads in Louisa County.

Mr. Glass stated during the year there were some projects added to the plan and those projects were in mind.  Mr. Glass said Mr. Havasy wanted to add the intersection of Lindsay Road (Route 675) and Route 22.  Mr. Glass questioned if there were any other routes the Board members would like to add to the plan.  

Mr. Harper said he would like to add Chestnut Avenue (Route 1127).

Mr. Spencer questioned the status of Ellisville Drive (Route 669) between Poindexter Road (Route 613) and the Orange County line.  Mr. Glass said it was federal funded and would take a couple of years.  Mr. Glass said VDOT would add to Route 669 every year as the funds became available.  

Mr. Barnes questioned if Lasley Lane (Route 633) was on the plan.  Mr. Glass said yes.  

Mr. Barnes said the Board needed to explain to the public that the Six-Year plan wasnt always completed in six years.   Mr. Gentry stated the items on the bottom of the plan could take ten to twenty years and there were some items that have been there for twenty-seven years.

Mr. Gentry said the County was looking at a 44 percent cut.  Mr. Gentry questioned Mr. Glass if he knew how much on the list would get done because of the cut.  Mr. Glass said not as of yet.  Mr. Glass said in order to keep the higher priority projects on track, VDOT may have to take money from lower priority projects.

Mr. Havasy asked if James Madison Highway (Route 15) at Zion Crossroads was on the list to be widened.  Mr. Lintecum explained that Route 15 was a primary road.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.  With no one wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed the Public Hearing and brought it back to the board for discussion.

Mr. Spencer questioned if Church Ave (Route 1001) was on the Six-Year Plan.  Mr. Glass said Route 1001 would be handled through Richmond.

Mr. Byers asked if Plum Tree Road (Route 739) was on the plan.  Mr. Glass said Route 739 was currently fully funded.  Mr. Glass stated there was going to be some work done by a developer on Route 739 and once that was completed, VDOT would come in.  Mr. Gentry asked if the developer had given any timeline.  

Mr. Havasy questioned how the priorities were set.  Mr. Glass said the Board sets the priorities.

Mr. Havasy stated the reason he put Lindsay Road (Route 675) on the list was because of safety.  Mr.  Havasy said it was impossible to make a right hand turn and stay in the right lane.  Mr. Havasy said he would like to Board to consider not putting it totally on the bottom.          

Mr. Harper questioned where would the Board would like to move Route 675.  Mr. Gentry suggested putting it as the last thing for this year, and then it would be first next year.  Mr. Barnes asked if moving Route 675 would affect any thing on the current year.  

Mr. Barnes questioned if the roads scheduled for 2008 and 2009 were fully funded.  Mr. Glass said not all of them.  Mr. Barnes asked if Byrd Mill Road (Route 649) was funded.  Mr. Glass stated yes.

Mr. Wright stated Octagon Church Road (Route 611) needed a resolution to become a rural rustic road.  

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Roads (2009/10 through 2013/14) and the Construction Priority List (2009/10) for Louisa County.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried a vote of  7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting that Octagon Church Road (Route 611) be designated as a rural rustic road.

Amendments to the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 86) regarding the minimum lot width requirement at the building setback line as it relates to the following sections:

-        Section 86-62.6 Frontage; minimum lot width (A-1)

-        Section 86-65.6 Frontage; minimum lot width (A-2)

Mr. Coffey said a couple years ago when a few of the regulations in the ordinance were clarified, the building set back line was not part of that.  Mr. Coffey stated the ordinance had created a hardship for some citizens because the set back required their house to be built really far back from the road.  Mr. Coffey said the reason for width to depth ratio was to discourage long, skinny and irregular shaped lots.  
Mr. Coffey stated the Planning Commission would like the Board to accept the following minor changes: “minimum lot width in the A-1 district should be at 200 feet at the building set back line.”  Mr. Coffey said the word “and” would be deleted and it would read, “In no case shall the lot width be less than 20 percent of the depth of the lot at its widest point.”  Mr. Coffey stated the ordinance would be taking the two issues and de-linking them.  Mr. Coffey said it would be the same with “The A-2 district should be 150 feet at the building set back line” and “In no case shall the lot width be less than 20 percent of the depth of the lot at its widest point.”  Mr. Coffey said Mr. Barlow suggested to change the 300 feet to 200 feet at the building set back line to make it consist with A-1.   Mr. Coffey said all the changes are to less restrictive on the property owner.  Mr. Coffey indicated that a good ordinance should be very specific.


Mr. Harper questioned if the ordinance was intended to be less restrictive and if that was desirable.  Mr. Coffey said from a staff standpoint, it made the ordinance easier to enforce.  

Mr. Harper questioned if the ordinance would effect more irregular shaped lots.  Mr. Coffey explained the width to depth ratio helped effect the shape of the lot and helped surveyors and other consultants to shape the lots better.
 

Mr. Harper questioned currently,  how many people had been affected.  Mr. Coffey said about a dozen.

Mr. Spencer questioned if the citizen had a long, narrow lot and could get the side set backs, why the Board was worried about it.  Mr. Coffey said it created a hardship for property owners.

Mr. Spencer questioned if a citizen could put their house in the middle of a 125-foot wide lot and have the required set backs on each side.  Mr. Coffey said this issue didnt have anything to do with the side yards or rear yards, it only had to do with where the front set back line would be.


Mr. Wright said one of the reasons he objected to the wording was because it was forced citizens to build their house far from the road.  Mr. Wright said from a safety standpoint, it takes the fire and rescue squad longer to get to those houses.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Mr. Tommy Barlow, Mountain Road District, stated the consequences of this ordinance had been overlooked by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Barlow said this ordinance was a hardship on a lot of his clients that had large parcels.  Mr. Barlow stated because of the set back line, the appraisal of one of his clients home went down $25,000.  Mr. Barlow said Planning Commission didnt anticipate this when they did the ordinance.  Mr. Barlow asked for it come back to the Board and Planning Commission.  Mr. Barlow stated changing the set back from 300 feet to 200 feet would make it consistent with the above paragraph in the ordinance.  Mr. Barlow said the simple rewording would take the ordinance back to where it was before the 2007 ordinances.  

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

Mr. Gentry questioned why it was so important to change the set back from 300 to 200.  Mr. Coffey said Mr. Barlow stated it would be consistent with A-1 and would be less restrictive.  Mr. Coffey said he spoke with Mr. Morgan and because its less restrictive, it was okay that was not previously discussed.

Mr. Byers questioned if the change in the ordinance came as recommendation from the Planning Commission and could Mr. Coffey and Mr. Barlow change it with out the Planning Commission looking over it.  Mr. Coffey said yes, the unlinking of the sentence did come from the Planning Commission.  Mr. Coffey stated the Board had the authority to make changes to the ordinance if it was less restrictive.
 
Mr. Byers asked if it was proper to have recommendation from the Planning Commission and then it be changed without them having the opportunity to look at it.  Mr. Coffey said it was certainly an issue the Board could send back to the Planning Commission to take action on.  

Mr. Spencer said no one had the right change the Planning Commissions  recommendation with out the entire Commission knowing about it.  

Mr. Spencer stated he would like to make a motion to send the amendments back to the Planning Commission for their review.  Mr. Byers seconded the motion.  Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote.

PRESENTVOTE
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Abstain
Dan W. Byers Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. No
Willie L. Harper Yes
Richad A. Havasy No
P.T. Spencer, Jr. Yes
Jack T. Wright No

With the votes reflecting 3-3-1, the motion failed to send the amendments back to the Planning Commission to review the changes.                      

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, with Mr. Wright voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board adopted a resolution to amend the Louisa County Code Chapter 86. Zoning as it pertains to the minimum lot width at the Building Setback Line.

Mr. Barnes disclosed that he may be affected by the ordinance.

Mr. Byers said he did not want to devalue the other Planning Commissioners by accepting something they were not aware of.  

        On motion by Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board sent the request to change the set back from 300 feet to 200 feet back to the Planning Commission for their full body review and give a recommendation.  

Amendments to the following sections of the Louisa County Code, Chapter 38. Environment, Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control, which will recodify, clarify, and amend existing sections of the ordinance to comply with the regulations as authorized by the Code of Virginia, Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4 (Sec.10.1-560 et seq.), known as the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law.

DIVISION 1. GENERALLY (Recodify and New)
-        Section 38-26 Title, Purpose, and Authority (Recodify and New)
-        Section 38-27 - Definitions (Recodify and New)
-        Section 38-28 Local Erosion and Sediment Control Program (Recodify and New)
-        Section 38-29 Person responsible for administering program (Recodify and New)
-        Section 38-30 Erosion and sediment control agreement (Recodify and New)
-        Section 38-31 Erosion impact areas (Recodify and New)

DIVISION 2. SUBMISSION OF PLANS; APPROVAL OF PLANS; RESUBMISSION OF PLANS (New)
-        Section 38-32 Submission of Plans (Recodify and New)
-        Section 38-33 Approval of Plans (Recodify and New)
-        Section 38-34 Resubmission of Plans (Recodify and New)

DIVISION 3. PERMITS AND FEES; SECURITY FOR PERFORMANCE (New)
-        Section 38-35 Permits and Fees (Recodify and New)
-        Section 38-36 Security For Performance (Recodify and New)

DIVISION 4. MONITORING AND INSPECTIONS; ENFORCEMENT (New)
-        Section 38-37 Monitoring and Inspections (Recodify and New)-        Section 38-38 Enforcement

DIVISION 5. PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIONS; APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW (New)
-       Section 38-39 Penalties and Injunctions (Recodify and New)
-       Section 38-40 Appeals and Judicial Review (Recodify and New)

-       Sections 38-41 to 38-80 Reserved

Mr. Harper questioned the reason for the request.  Mr. Coffey said the Community Development Department was adding definitions, streamlining and using the format recommended by the State.  Mr. Coffey said the only substantial change was that the State may require that the plans be reviewed again after six months.  Mr. Harper questioned what would happen with the plans the County already had. Mr. Coffey stated the plans the County currently had would not be effected.  Mr. Coffey said they would still be controlled by the ordinance.  Mr. Coffey said this was one of the things the County needed so the State would come back and review.

Mr. Havasy said excavating was defined as any digging, scooping or removing of any earth materials. Mr. Coffey stated you had to be disturbing more than 10,000 square feet of soil to need a permit.  

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

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to amend the Louisa County Code Chapter 38. Environment Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control.

Amendments to the following section of the Louisa County Code, Chapter 2. Administration, Article I. In General, which will recodify, clarify, and amend Sec. 2-4. Election districts and precincts, to establish a central absentee voter precinct.

Mr.  Morgan said the Electoral Board would like to change the system with the absentee voting precinct.  Mr. Morgan stated originally, the precinct was to be just for general election.  Mr. Morgan said the Electoral Board asked that the precinct be open for all elections.

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

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to amend Chapter 2. Administration, Article I. In General, Sec. 2-4. Election Districts and Precincts, to add and amend the provision for a central absentee voter precinct.

COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr. Harper said Mr. Lintecum had mentioned that Senator Houck was able to get the County exemption restored at the Regional Jail.  Mr. Harper stated the County would soon have to fund some of the operational costs of the jail.

Mr. Gentry stated he would like Mr. Lintecum to send thank you letters to Senator Houck and Delegate Janis for their support.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Spencer stated he would like to appoint Kathleen Dahowski to the Affordable Housing Committee.  

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Ms. Dahowski to the Affordable Housing Committee.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum stated Zuwana Morgan had been promoted to Deputy Clerk.  Mr. Harper congratulated Ms. Morgan on her promotion.  Mr. Harper stated whenever he called the Administration Office, Ms. Morgan was always very helpful and quick to respond.  Mr. Barnes agreed.  

Mr. Barnes stated he wanted thank Mr. McLeod, Ms. Morgan and Ms. Lloyd for placing all his information a CD-Rom.  Mr. Barnes said the least amount of paper given to him, the better.

Mr. Lintecum said Community Development included a summary of activities for February 2008 in the Board Packet.

Mr. Lintecum said included in the Board Packet was a memo from Mr. McLeod, which provided an overrun analysis for the Boards review.

Mr. Lintecum said included in the Board Packet was the Louisa County Land Disturbing Activities for February 2008.


CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - Authorizing supplemental appropriation for vehicle replacement

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing supplemental appropriation for vehicle replacement.

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for Tourism Department

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for Tourism Department.

Resolution - Proclaiming April 2008 as the Month of the Young Child

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution proclaiming April 2008 as the Month of the Young Child.

Resolution - Declaring April 2008 as Clean Up Louisa County Month

Mr. Wright stated there was a date error on the resolution declaring April 2008 as Clean Up Louisa County Month.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution declaring April 2008 as Clean Up Louisa County Month, with the date corrected.

Resolution - Proclaiming April 2008 as Fair Housing Month in Louisa County

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0,the Board adopted a resolution proclaiming April 2008 as Fair Housing Month in Louisa County.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

           On motion of Mr. Havasy , seconded by Mr. Wright, with Messers Harper, Gentry and Byers abstaining on bills pertaining to them, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of March 2008 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $287,353.12.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

           On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the March 3, 2008 meeting.

Discussion - Request from Sandra Quinlan

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to deny the request made by Sandra Quinlan for $256,980.37 for property damages.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry , which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 7:52 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

            1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel reporting directly to the Board.
2.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the
Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:44p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, 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 17th day of March 2008, 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 17th day of March 2008, 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.

Mr. Byers asked that the Board consider what happen this evening.  Is it appropriate for  the Planning Director or Chairman of the Planning Commission come to the Board changes that had not been discussed with the Planning Commission.

Mr. Barnes said he wanted to the remind the body that the Planning Commission was appointed, not elected.

Mr. Gentry said the Board did the right thing by sending it back to the Planning Commission.


RECESS

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the March 17, 2008 meeting at 8:48 p.m. until March 18, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.

BY ORDER OF

________________________________
WILLIE L. HARPER, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA