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

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
APRIL 7, 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; Robert Dube, Fire Chief; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Mike Schlemmer, Coordinator of Emergency Services; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; and Zuwana Morgan, Deputy Clerk


Chairman Harper called the April 7, 2008 regular 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.


Mr. Hal Schaffer, Jackson District stated he came as a representative and Chairman of the Louisa County School Board.   Mr. Schaffer said on behalf of the School Board and Superintendent Pettit, he came before the Board with a special request.  Mr. Schaffer said last week the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to give the School District  an increase in funding of three percent opposed to the 4.88 percent that the School Board requested.  Mr. Schaffer said because this year money was tight the School Board understood  the reduction and are prepared to deal with it.  Mr. Schaffer stated the other part of the resolution would restrict the Schools to major classifications or category restraints.  Mr. Schaffer asked the Board to reconsider and amend the resolution to provide the funding in a lump sum.  

Mr. Schaffer stated one of the reasons the School Board was asking for a lump sum was because they could not issue contracts to teachers until the entire budget was finalized and the School Board would know exactly what was approved for each category.  Mr. Schaffer said that process would take them beyond the point where contracts needed to issued.  Mr. Schaffer said the second reason he felt was equally important.  Mr. Schaffer said giving the School Board a lump sum would be a major step in increasing trust and a working relationship between the two Boards.  Mr. Schaffer said it was really a “no-lose” situation for both Boards.  Mr. Schaffer stated the School Districts budget would still be in category form which was directed by the State Board of Education, however the School Board would be able to manage its own Budget without having to get approval from the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Schaffer said this would reduce the workload of the Supervisors and decrease the chance of miscommunication.  Mr. Schaffer the School District would be able to operate more efficiently and be able to maintain a well balanced budget.  Mr. Schaffer stated if this did not work, there was always the option of reverting to categories next year.

Mr. Schaffer stated with higher future expenses, the inevitable growth of the County, the need to plan for more schools and an uncertain economy, it was vital for the Countys two elected Boards to work together towards a common goal and that required trust and cooperation.  Mr. Schaffer said funding the School District with a lump sum would go a long way towards that end, and would allow both Boards to function more smoothly and allow a much more efficient use of the taxpayers money.


Mr. Havasy said he would like to add School Board request as a discussion to old business.  Mr. Spencer stated he would like to add the work on Court House dome to old business. Mr. Byers said would like to add the VACO and VML executive directors report to new business.  Mr. Harper said he would like to add the resolution declaring April 14-20, 2008 as Knights of Columbus Kovar days in Louisa county to consent agenda items.

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

Mr. Lintecum introduced Chief Robert Dube to the public and Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Lintecum said Chief Dube would be out meeting with the volunteer fire squads and coming up with a plan for the Emergency Services Department of Louisa.  

Chief Dube said he looked forward to working with the volunteers and coming up with and effective and efficient service for the citizens of this County.

The Board welcomed Chief Dube.


VDOT Monthly Update
Sean Nelson, Acting Assistant Resident Administrator, provided an update of VDOT activities, which included the following: Maintenance:

Construction: Land Use: Traffic Engineering:

Mr. Wright said the name of the road on Route 635 was Willow Brook Road not Little Brook.

Mr. Havasy asked for  an update on Route 15 at Zion Crossroads the pull offs where trucks are making U-Turns.

Mr. Nelson said the issue had been sent to traffic engineering and they had planned to put up “No U-Turn” signs.

Mr. Spencer said he wanted to thank Mr. Glass for putting up the pedestrian crossing sign on Bibbs Store Road.

Presentation James River Water Project

Mr. Joseph Hines with Timmons Group Engineers stated he was going to cover the following; general project overview, potential project partners, considered alternatives, considered ownership and management, estimated project cost, potential financing options and public information and feedback.

Mr. Hines said Pleasant Grove was the recommended alternative.

Ms. Sheryl Stevens with Timmons Group Engineers stated that the Timmons Group looked at options on how Fluvanna and Louisa Counties would form and organization that would own and manage the structure.

Ms. Stevens said Timmons recommends a Joint Wholesale Authority.

Mr. Hines stated the next step would be the public information meetings.  Mr. Hines said Louisa Countys public meetings are schedule to be at the Betty Queen Intergenerational Center on April 23, 2008 and April 24, 2008 between 4:00p.m. 7:00p.m.

Mr. Hines said that Timmons would continue with the financial modeling and rate study.  Mr. Hines stated Timmons would host the public meetings in April and get public feedback. Mr. Hines said after the public meeting Timmons would want both Boards to come together and come to some type of agreement on the type of authority structure.  Mr. Hines said Timmons would want the Counties adopt some type of structure by mid year 2008.  Mr. Hines said hopefully the engineer design could get done by Summer 2008, construction could start Spring of 2008 and the project completion date would be three to four years out.

Mr. Spencer said Lake Monticello had 4000 houses already, would Louisa be guaranteed to 1.5 million gallons.  Mr. Hines should yes they should be able to.  Mr. Spencer asked Louisa should or Louisa would.  Mr. Hines said yes Louisa would.

Mr. Spencer said this water would not just stop at Zions Crossroad it would be available to the rest of the County of Louisa.  Mr. Hines said yes it would.  Mr. Hines said the County would get a tap in the line and how the water was distributed throughout the County would be up to the Board.

Mr. Spencer said he just wanted to make it clear, so citizens didnt think the County was spending all that money at Zions Crossroads.

Mr. Wright said the total pay back would be $78 million based on $2.6 million for 30 years. Mr. Hines said it would be like any conventional financing and over time you would pay more.

Mr. Byers asked does the intake facility belong to Dominion Power.  Mr. Hines said yes the initial intake facility does belong to Dominion Power.  Mr. Hines said Timmons would piggy back that facility and modify their intake structure to meet the two counties requirements.  

Mr. Byers asked would that give a lifespan comparable to what DEQ provides.  Mr. Hines stated Timmons does not anticipate them withdrawing and if Dominion were to shut down the facility, Timmons doesnt anticipate not being able to acquire the facility.

Mr. Harper said the Board was going to send a letter to the Federal Government requesting some financial assistance with this project.

On motion by Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to send the letter to the Federal Government requesting financial assistance with this project.

Presentation - Health insurance renewal options and recommendation

Ms. Sherry Vena stated she was representing the Health Care Review Group.  Ms. Vena said there were several members of the group at the meeting and David Blanchard from Dominion Benefits.  Ms. Vena said health care was a very important issue.  Ms. Vena stated renewal negotiations have become more and more challenging every year.  Ms. Vena said the Review Group was surprised when Anthems starting point was a 16.5 percent increase however, the big surprise came when the group realized there was not a whole lot of flexibility.  Ms. Vena stated at that point the consultants from Dominion Benefits recommended taking it to market.  Ms. Vena said at the end of the day Anthem stood firm with a 12.6 percent increase.  Ms. Vena said for a slightly higher level of benefits with a 97 match to Anthem physicians Southern Health came in with 4.6 percent increase.  Ms. Vena stated this would represent a financial saving of over $300,000.  

Ms. Vena said even with the saving the group was still a little reluctant to come to Board and ask to make the change because of the impact on the employees had not been thoroughly considered.  Ms. Vena said such a change would cause some disruption to the employees.  Ms. Vena said Southern Health was so confident in their transition team they gave a guarantee in writing that states if the County decides to transition and the process does not meet expectation a check for $30,000 would be issued to the County.  Ms. Vena said Dominion Benefits has also offer to come in and assist with the transition if needed.  Ms. Vena thanked the Board for their consideration in this very important matter.

Mr. Byers said it appears from everything he has looked at this was a fairly sufficient cost saving for the County.  Mr. Byers said when you look at the service that would be provided the group had been proactive in getting a good price  Mr. Byers said he could support the transition.

Mr. Wright said there were two ways to pay insurance either upfront or in co-pays.  Mr. Wright said savings should be shared equally by the County, School Board and the employees.  Mr. Wright said he it was a well thought out plan and could certainly support the move.

Mr. Barnes disclosed that he was currently a Southern Health user and him being a user does not affect this recommendation.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to go with the recommendation of the Health Insurance Review Group.


Repairs At the Court House Dome

Mr. Spencer said the Dome had been fixed twice for a fortune by a company that specialized in those type of renovations.  Mr. Spencer said he would like the Board to discuss filing a suit against the contractors.  Mr. Spencer said the County paid to get the job done and to get the job done right.  Mr. Spencer said the taxpayer should not have to pay for the repairs.

Mr. Havasy said he agreed.  Mr. Havasy said the Board needed to start looking at County government like a private citizen.  Mr. Havasy said a private citizens would not let something like this be done on their home and not do anything about it.  Mr. Havasy said he would ask the Board to follow Mr. Spencers recommendation and have the County Attorney look into it.

Mr. Gentry asked does the County know how much of the damage was related to workmanship as opposed to the storm damage that it had.

Mr. Linhares said the storm damage that occurred that knocked the spiral off did not do any particular damage to cause the problems in the dome.  Mr. Linhares said the problems in the Dome had been occurring prior to the storm damage.  

Mr. Byers said he agreed with Mr. Spencer.  Mr. Byers said the Board should get  someone to look at the contract from whoever did the last repairs and determine if there was any warranty.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum to start the process and bring it back to the Board.

Discussion School Board request

Mr. Havasy said the Board had heard from Mr. Schaffer and he would like the Board to enter a discussion on allowing the School Board to manage the monies given to them.

Mr. Spencer asked since he had made the original motion that failed could he make this motion.  Mr. Morgan said yes he could because was not a reconsideration, it would be a new motion.

Mr. Wright said it bothers him to be put in a position where the Board is told “we will cooperate with you, if you do this”.  Mr. Wright said the School Board was asking the Board to pay for the cooperation they are given.  Mr. Wright said he didnt agree with the salary increases the School Board gave last fall when they found  $100,000 in the budget and gave a $7,000 raise to someone who was employed 60 days.  Mr. Wright said when he would not support giving the increase without categories.Mr. Spencer said he supported his School Board member and the people of Louisa voted for him as well.  Mr. Spencer said the School Board members are put in office by the citizens just as the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Spencer said it is up to the School Board to make the decision on how the money was spent.  

Mr. Gentry said off the top the categories looks as if they give the Board of Supervisors some authority however, as the Board saw last year they really didnt.  Mr. Gentry said he would support giving the School Board the increase without the categories.

Mr. Barnes stated the School Board are elected officials and they are held accountable just as the Board of Supervisors are.  Mr. Barnes said he was going to support the three percent without categories and give the School Board the opportunity to manage it.

Mr. Byers said he was not in favor of the three percent but, in the spirit of cooperation he believed the Board of Supervisors should allow them to have the opportunity to move the money where they see fit. Mr. Byers said he would support the three percent without categories.  

On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Wright voting against, the Board voted to approve the three percent increase to the School Board without categories

Mr. Barnes disclosed his wife works for Louisa County High School.


REZ17-07; Douglas E. Darling, Applicant; Orchard Vista 11-76 LLC, Doctors Green 11-78 LLC, Ledyard Estates 11-79 LLC, Piedmont Overlook 11-80 LLC, Pine Glen 4-8 LLC, River Bluff 4-12 LLC, Timber Hills 4-13 LLC, Anna Overlook 4-14 LLC, Fox Vale 4-15 LLC, Owners; request conditional rezoning of approximately 1072.3302 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Rural Estate (RE).  

Conditional rezoning of approximately 1072.33 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Rural Estate (RE).

The property is located on the north side of Route 639 (Doctors Road), east of the intersection with Route 794 (Ponderosa Road).  Green Springs voting District.

The subject property is designated in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential and is not located in a designated growth area.  

The Rural Estate District is intended to accommodate very low-density residential uses while preserving the Countys rural character.  The regulations for this district are designed to protect the heritage of agricultural areas, by promoting permanent open space and encouraging the thoughtful placement of housing that is compatible with the rural environment.  The uses of development setbacks, shared access and roadside buffers are encouraged to retain the rural character of the county along side the open farm activities prevalent in the county.

The minimum lot size requirement is 6 acres, unless at least 50% of the site is in dedicated open space, with a 3-acre minimum lot size.  This plan is proposing a minimum of 549 acres (or 51% of the site) in permanent open space including passive and active uses, such as vegetative buffers at project boundaries and along the North Anna River, equestrian activities, and a community site such as a park or church.

The lots would be served by individual water and sewer systems as approved by the Virginia Department of Health.

The applicant has submitted a set of twelve (12) voluntary proffers as a part of the rezoning request, summarized as follows:
-        RE District Master Plan
-        Development Density and Characteristics
-        Cash Proffer Contribution
-        Open Space, Equestrian, and Community Improvements
-        Traffic Impact Study and Transportation Improvements
-        Adequate Ground Water Supply
-        Church and Community Site
-        Environmental and Landscape Master Plan Improvements
-        Establishment of a Homeowners Association
-        Architecture and Community Design Guidelines
-        Notification of Potential Lot and Home Purchasers
-        Open Space Easement Feasibility Study
-        Controlling run-off from the development

There were four people (not including the applicant and representatives) present for the Neighborhood Meeting held on October 10, 2007.  No one spoke in direct opposition to the request and the following items were discussed:
-        Existing activities surrounding the development and notification of potential purchasers
-        Concerns with only one access for the development
-        Traffic increase on Route 639 and at intersection with Route 33
-        Minimum dwelling size requirements
-        Interior road standards
-        Public golf course

The Development Review Committee met on October 24, 2007 to review this application.  The applicants agent was present and they presented the request to the Committee.  The Committee had major concerns with the additional traffic on Route 639 and at the intersection of Route 639 with Route 33.  It was the opinion of the committee that the Traffic Impact Analysis after a rezoning approval (as proffered) would not be efficient and that this information was needed upfront before a decision was made, particularly with regard to potential adverse impacts on the local roads due to increased traffic volume.  In addition to the significant traffic concerns, there was dialogue with the applicants agent regarding existing neighborhood uses (farming and hunting dog related activities), and storm water  run-off from the property onto adjacent land.

The Development Review Committee voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of denial to the Planning Commission indicating that more information was needed on the impacts of this project, especially related to the increased traffic.

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on November 15, 2007.  The request was tabled at both this meeting and the January 2008 meeting due to the number and types of public comments received during the public hearing, along with the additional information submitted by the applicant regarding the initial Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and other issues.

All transportation infrastructure issues appear to have been covered in the revised Traffic Impact Analysis which also reflects VDOTs input, and the transportation related proffers appear to adequately mitigate the anticipated traffic impacts of the proposed project.

The Planning Commission determined at its February meeting that the storm water improvements as proffered were adequate and will be well regulated by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).    Additionally, staff believes that the development, as proposed, may actually improve the storm water run-off in the area by stabilizing the entire site and providing for functional regional storm water ponds (either wet or dry).  The proposed overall storm water measures combined with the on-site measures for each lot should result in a net benefit to the surrounding community in terms of storm water run-off and erosion.  

The Planning Commission again tabled a decision on the rezoning application until the March meeting.  This decision was primarily due to the fact that the Green Springs Commissioner was absent due to illness and still had questions concerning storm water and traffic.    

On March 13, 2008, the Planning Commission discussed this application further with specific emphasis on the possibility for a conservation easement over the projects open space, minor clarifications on several proffers, and general comments on the size of the project.  

The Commission voted 6-1 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors with the proffers as submitted by the applicant dated January 30, 2008.  The motion included the provision that there be significant progress on the conservation easement prior to submission to the Board of Supervisors.  

The Board should consider possible impacts of this proposed rezoning, whether the proffers add significant value to the overall project, and if they adequately mitigate the adverse impacts that the development may cause including, but not limited to, storm water, traffic generation, schools, and public safety.  

Mr. Havasy said with 107 lots the county would get $480,000 in cash proffers, how much of the proffers would go to VDOT improvement.

Mr. Coffey said the way the proffers are written the VDOT improvements would be at the owners cost.  Mr. Coffey said the way the proffers are written the county could say they wanted the developer to implement the improvements.  Mr. Coffey stated the monies used to make the improvements would be counted towards the proffers.

Mr. Harper said there are some improvements that have to be done.  Mr. Coffey said yes there were.  Mr. Coffey stated any road improvements that would have to be done by the developer would be those that were a direct impact to this project.  Mr. Harper asked about Route 639 and Route 33 intersection.  Mr. Coffey said the Traffic Impact Analysis says the impact to the road would be manageable with this project.  Mr. Coffey said in order for it to have an impact there would need to 60 to 70 more lots in the development.  

Mr. Gentry asked once the amount of lots were reduced was there anything from VDOT specifically saying the work at Route 33 and Route 639 would not be required.  

Mr. Coffey said from the best he can remember VDOT did not say those improvements were required, the developer chose to put them in the proffers.

Mr. Gentry said why would the county use 100,000 plus to do an improvement that VDOT was not recommended.  Mr. Coffey said the way the proffers are worded the money could be used for the transportation improvement or something at the County discretion.

Mr. Spencer said he was reading in a letter and it stated “Darren said he was agreeable to all set cash proffers to make improvement to the existing roads…etc”.  Mr. Coffey said he talk to Mr. Morgan and the statement in the letter does not bind the County.

Mr. Spencer asked if the golf course totally out of the plans.  Mr. Coffey said yes, it had formally removed from the application.  Mr. Spencer questioned if the applicant  could they come back and request a conditional use permit for a golf course. Mr. Coffey said a golf course was permissible in a rural estate district so they could theoretically do that.  Mr. Coffey said an equestrian center has been proposed and any golf course that would be added in the future would be a separate application.  Mr. Coffey said the developer has also talked with Virginia Outdoors Foundation about the possibility of conservation easement over the open space.  Mr. Coffey said that would be compatible with the equestrian center type use but not a golf course type use.  

Mr. Spencer asked would there be big horse shows in this development.  Mr. Coffey said there was not commercial activity allowed.  Mr. Coffey said it would be for private stables only.  

Mr. Barnes said the $4500 cash proffers could take ten to twenty years if they dont build but three houses a year.  Mr. Coffey said the cash proffers would be received with the building permit.  Mr. Barnes said it may take some time to see with todays economy.  

Mr. Byers asked had there been significant progress on the conservation easement.  Mr. Coffey said the developers have talked to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.  Mr. Coffey said it was his understanding that an organization such as Virginia Outdoors Foundation would not put an easement until the zoning was in place and they receive a letter from the county saying it was okay and that was part of the comprehensive plan.  Mr. Coffey said it was definitely a two way process.  

Mr. Wright said two of the “shall” that he  asked to be changed in the proffers had not been changed.  Mr. Coffey apologized and said it was his oversight.  Mr. Morgan said if the applicant agreed it could be changed.

Mr. Havasy said Mr. Gasper the Assessor was asked by a citizen in a Planning Commission meeting would this affect their taxes.  Mr. Havasy said Mr. Gasper told the citizen it would not because this development was self contained.  Mr. Havasy said he has citizens that live next to new developments like this that have seen there taxes double.  Mr. Havasy  said this development would effect the taxes of near by neighbors.

Mr. Coffey said the tax assessor told him they look at A-2 versus A-2 properties and the sale comparisons in that area for A-2 property.  Mr. Coffey said the Assessor said they would not compare A-2 to rural estate properties.  

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Mr. Frank Cox stated when the project was submitted in September they knew to a certain extent they would be the Guinea pigs in trying a new zoning district.  Mr. Cox said the countys Development Review Committee, Planning Commission and Staff have worked hard to help create the right plan.  Mr. Cox said that Mr. Coffey was very emphatic about getting this right.  

Mr. Cox said the proffers are very clear and when the golf course was drawn up they thought the golf course would be an attracted addition and they found out otherwise.  Mr. Cox said the proffers clearly state the land was to be used for an equestrian center. Mr. Cox said the Planning Commissioner asked that the developer be very specific about what was going to be put in the equestrian center.  

Mr. Cox said they were hoping not to have to do a traffic study because of the cost but the Planning Commission and Mr. Coffey insisted.  Mr. Cox said the traffic study showed improvements at Route 33 and Doctors Road are well over due.  Mr. Cox said not just from the stand point of traffic volumes but safety issues also.  

Mr. Ned Roache Greens Spring District stated he came to oppose the project. Mr. Roache said after the 50th house an emergency exit would be put in at Ponderosa Road Mr. Roache said would that exit just be used for emergency service vehicles.  Mr. Roache said it has been rural area and they would like to keep it that way.

Norman Canfield Greens Springs District stated he was very much for the project.  Mr. Canfield said the land had some real erosion problems and he believes the development would fix that.  Mr. Canfield said the area has also been used as a trash dump.  He said it would be a tax advantage.  

Gary Virly Green Springs District stated he owns 280 acres adjacent to the new development.  Mr. Virly said the traffic on Route 639 has been a big problem and would only get worst. Mr. Virly said Route 639 continues to be used as a short cut.   Mr. Virly said creeks and streams go dry up there every year.  Mr. Virly said he was oppose to the project and thought the Board should be also.

Troy Dugger Green Springs District stated he was opposed to the project.  Mr. Dugger said he doesnt understand the water table study, if there really was a study Mr. Dugger said traffic was already bad and with 107 home with two cars per home, that would cause more congestion.  Mr. Dugger said once the train goes by there are cars piled up to go across the track.  Mr. Dugger said it seemed that the people in established neighborhood are getting treated like second class citizens.

Jacqueline Washington Green Springs District stated she was opposed to the project.  Ms. Washington said the area has been zone A-2, low density, no growth area and she would like it to stay that way.  Ms. Washington said the developers are purchasing the land and not doing it under conditions of approval.  Ms. Washington said she doesnt doubt that Mr. Darling has a good project it just in the wrong area.  Ms. Washington said the area now was a nice community and they would keep it an A-2 no growth zone.  Ms. Washington said Louisa County Schools are already over crowded with children in trailers.  Ms. Washington with people are starting families at 50 you could not guarantee there would not be more children these communities.  Ms. Washington said there are not many people who could sustain a much higher tax rate.  

Randy Young Green Springs District stated he opposed the project  Mr. Young said before he brought his property he talked to his neighbors for feedback and they told him there was minimal traffic and a great place to live.  Mr. Young said he was concerned that with the equestrian center  would the private owners bring in their friends with their horses.  Mr. Young said the traffic at Route 33 and Doctors Road backs up considerably at the train track.  
Tammie Ragland Green Spring District stated she would echo the concern already made about the traffic, tax increase and well water.

Demetrius Washington Green  Spring District stated he was opposed to the project for the reasons already stated by the other citizens.  Mr. Washington said his main concern was traffic.  Mr. Washington said he runs a farming operation and he has big trucks coming in and out of the operation day and night.  Mr. Washington said if traffic was backed up from the train tracks to Route 33 it cause a major problem for the feed trucks.  Mr. Washington said he depends on them to make a living.

Bradley Grady Green Spring District stated he opposed  because of the traffic it would cause.

Stephen Carter Green Spring District stated he opposed the project.  Mr. Carter said he hadnt heard about how the entrance would handled and the land for it should not be at the tax payer expensive.

Susan Carter Green Spring District stated she was opposed to the project.  Ms. Carter said her questions about the conservation had been answered.  Ms. Carter said she wanted to know about the timberland.  Ms. Carter said Mr. Gasper said the taxes would not change unless the neighborhood changed.  

Kim Owens Green Spring District stated she was opposed the project for all the previous reasons stated.

Adrian Owens Green Spring District stated she was opposed the project for all the previous reasons stated.

Demetrius Washington Sr. Green  Spring District stated he was opposed because the traffic and that traffic has been a danger for a long time.

Ella Washington Green Spring District stated she opposed the project because of the traffic and she likes the community the way it is.

Joan Weakler Green Spring District stated she opposed the project.  Ms. Weakler said as a mother of small children she loves the way it is.  

Ada Ells Green Spring District stated she opposed the project.  Ms. Ells said as mother her concern was also safety.  

Wendy Craig Green Spring District stated she opposed the project for the same reasons as everyone else.  Ms. Craig said if the zoning was A-2 and that was what the citizens brought into and when was it allowable and how can someone manipulate to change the plan. Ms. Craig said the comprehensive plan was already in place.  Ms. Craig said the project was a lovely vision except its on Doctor Road.  Ms. Craig asked if they Board received the petition from the Community that was sent weeks ago.  

Bill Spay Green Spring District stated opposed the project and he agreed with what everyone said.  Mr. Spay said he was worried about the kids and the traffic.

Rick Gibson Greens Spring District stated he opposed the project.  Mr. Gibson said 107 houses would be doubling the population.  

Mr. Harper closed the public hearing and with no one else wishing to speak he  brought it back to the Board for discussion.

Mr. Cox said many of the comments were valid.  Mr. Cox said he thinks the big issue would be the size of the property.  Mr. Cox said the emergency access came from the Development Review Committee.  Mr. Cox said they agreed to do put up a bus shelter.  Mr. Cox said the hollering hounds were put in the plan.  Mr. Cox said the three lane improvement would go a long way for the citizen concerns.  Mr. Cox said they realize there are some erosion problems and plan to deal with it.  Mr. Cox  stated there were some fairly extensive proffers.  

Mr. Havasy said everyone has to understand there were 7 units combined into one.  Mr. Havasy stated by right they have 70 units.  Mr. Havasy said this project started out in the thousands.  Mr. Havasy said one of the things that has come about was the developers wanted what was best for the community.  Mr. Havasy said no one wants something new in their backyard.  Mr. Havasy said the developer and the county both worked hard to get the right plan.  Mr. Havasy said the fox hunting next door does concern him.  Mr. Havasy said other people want to live in Louisa County also and that the county was growing and would not be stagnant.  Mr. Havasy said to remember they have the right to build 70 houses by right.  Mr. Havasy said he thinks they came up with a good project and he would support it.

Mr. Byers asked was there significant property acquired to make the intersection Route 639 and Route 33 safe.   Mr. Coffey said to his understanding from talking to VDOT some right away would have to be purchased.  Mr. Coffey said that would a potential issue and the developer would have to go to the property owner.  Mr. Byers asked was that placing the responsibility on the county to a make that available.  Mr. Coffey said if the parties were not willing to negotiate then County would have a role at that part.  

Mr. Gentry said his concerns are with the proffers themselves.  Mr. Gentry said the  proffers are reading to make county responsible to make the improvements.  Mr. Gentry said he does not think the proffers should dictate what the county was going to do.  Mr. Gentry the projects he likes but the proffers has some holes in them.

Mr. Spencer said there are too many what if in the proffers.  Mr. Spencer said its a beautiful project but who was going to gain from it.  Mr. Spencer said the developer would make all the money.  Mr. Spencer said the taxes would go up.  Mr. Spencer said the county wouldnt get the $4500 in the cash proffers until building permit was issued.  Mr. Spencer said there was a lot of work put into the project but couldnt support it.  Mr. Spencer said he cant see what good this was going to do the community..  

Mr. Wright said on paper it looks good.  Mr. Wright said likes the project but he could not support it if its not clear.

Mr. Barnes said this was a very difficult request. Mr. Barnes said he has always been for land owners right.  Mr. Barnes said this county was becoming very diverse.  Mr. Barnes said he was not born in Louisa but he has been here for 20 years and no one pull up the draw bridge when he came.  Mr. Barnes said your property value will be effective.  Mr. Barnes said the problems he has was with the proffers.  Mr. Barnes said the way the proffers are written they are setting Louisa County up.  

Mr. Harper said he likes almost everything but the proffers.  Mr. Harper said in 10 years from now things could change.  

Mr. Gentry asked what was the process to get the proffered changed to be more acceptable to the Board.

Mr. Morgan said if it was a minor change they could be done however, if its a major change you would have to either deny and the applicant would have to wait a year or table it and allow the applicant to make changes and there would have to be another public hearing .

Mr. Gentry asked were their concerns major.  Mr. Morgan said yes that would be a major change.

Mr. Spencer said the people are concern about emergency exit.  Mr. Coffey said the proffer states that before the  50th building permit was issued built the emergency secondary would be built

Mr. Barnes said it would be simpler to table.

Mr. Havasy asked how do you go about getting private property owners to sell their property so easement could be made.  Mr. Havasy said how else would they word the proffers all they can do is try to the people to sell a piece of their land for easements.  

Mr. Barnes said it can be tabled for up to 12 months.

        On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Spencer against, the Board voted to table REZ17-07 until significant changes are made in the proffers.

Amendments to the Louisa County Code (Chapter 66. Subdivisions and Chapter 86 Zoning) as they pertain to sign regulations for Louisa County

In May 2007, the Board of Supervisors directed the Community Development Department to review the existing sign regulations with consideration toward amending the Zoning Ordinance in order to have more current and effective regulations.  

Some of the major changes incorporated into the proposed amendments include:
-        A set of extensive definitions
-        A list of exempt signs
-        Clarification on posting of political signs based on state code and documented legal action
-        Stricter height regulations;
-        The use of a percentage distribution method for commercial/industrial buildings (based on the total allowable sign area).

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on March 13, 2008.  There was no one present from the public to speak for or against the proposed amendments.  By a vote of 7-0, the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed amendments.

Mr. Coffey said his staff had to think about what was reasonable.  Mr. Coffey said the current ordinance does not allow for the signs that want to go up in Zions Crossroad and this ordinance does.  Mr. Coffey said political signs are required to be taken down in ten days.  

Mr. Coffey said the maximum sign height was an issue.  Mr. Coffey said there was a site plan for two or three 100 foot signs.  Mr. Coffey said it wasnt allowed in the current ordinance or the proposed.  Mr. Coffey said the current height was 40 feet and the proposed height is 35 feet.  

Mr. Byers asked were there fees or permits required for replacement a sign.  Mr. Coffey said if you have a non conforming sign you dont need a permit and there werent any fees.

Mr. Byers said if someone had sign that was damaged and needed to be replaced and the original  was not in compliance  the county shouldnt charge them for replacing the sign  

Mr. Barnes asked did real estate signs have to be on the property. Mr. Coffey said yes they have to be on the property not down the road directing you to the property.

Mr. Wright asked was the ordinance on political signs court ordered.  Mr. Morgan said they dont care for restrictions before the election but they are fine with restrictions afterwards.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.  With no one else 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. Barnes, with carried a voted of 7-0 the Board voted to amend the ordinance as recommended.


Resolution Authorizing  a contract with Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates for audit services

Mr. McLeod said the resolution would give Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates a five year contract and prices could go up by CIP however, not more than five percent.  

Mr. Byers questioned would there be an opportunity to meet with Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates to discuss expectations.

Mr. Harper said he wanted to make sure there was a pre-audit and a post audit.

Mr. McLeod said they are also providing a book in layman terms for anyone that wanted it.

On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes , which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a contract with Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates for audit services

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the Treasurers Office

Mr. McLeod said when the Treasurers Office was inquiring for a new banking vender and Bank of America was chosen, Bank of America proposed giving the County $15,000 toward credit card fees.   Mr. McLeod stated at that time the total value of the fees from citizens paying their real estate tax online ranged from $12,000 to $13,000.  Mr. McLeod said because of the $15,000 given by Bank of America, the County began to waive the online fees.  Mr. McLeod said since then, the amount of fees had increased from $13,000 up to $50,000.  Mr. McLeod said the Treasurers Office was asking for supplemental appropriation for the remaining  $35,000.  

Mr. Wright said he didnt know what the offset expenses were.  

Mr. Gentry questioned why wasnt the Treasurer at the meeting explaining this to the Board.  Mr. McLeod said the Treasurer asked for him to explain it.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the Treasurers Office

Initiate Review - Addition to the South Anna Agricultural and Forestal District

On motions of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to initiate the review to add to the South Anna Agricultural and Forestal District.

Discussion Ethics

Mr. Byers said VACO put together a book on ethics.  Mr. Byers asked if the County Departments have it and was it available to the employees.  Mr. Byers stated he would like the Board to send a letter commending them for the document.

Mr. Harper said if the Department heads had not received a copy for Mr. Lintecum to get that to them.  Mr. Harper said for Mr. Lintecum to send a letter of commendation from the to Board.


Mr. Barnes stated he would like to appoint Gloria Pope to the JABA Board of Directors.  Mr. Spencer stated he would like to appoint Donya Bauer to the Commission on Aging.  Mr. Byers stated he would like to reappoint Barbara Hollins to the Commission on Aging.  Mr. Byers stated he would like to reappoint Marilyn Root to the Commission on Aging. Mr. Harper stated he would like to reappoint Dewitt Freeman to the Industrial Development Authority.  

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Ms. Gloria Pope to the JABA Board of Directors, Ms. Donya Bauer to the Commission on Aging, Ms. Barbara Hollins to the Commission on Aging, Ms. Marilyn Root to the Commission on Aging and Mr. Dewitt Freeman on the Industrial Development Authority.


Mr. Lintecum stated the public meeting/hearing for the joint operation and construction permit for Dominion Virginia Power Unit 3 will be held Wednesday April 16, 2008 starting at 6:00 p.m. at the Louisa County Middle School.  Mr. Lintecum said that date was originally scheduled for a Budget Workshop.  

Mr. Havasy asked if the Board could send a letter of support.  Mr. Harper said the Board could do that however, he was asked to be there.  

Mr. McLeod said the Board would meet on April 9, 2008 for a budget workshop and possibly finish up to set a date for the public hearing and do the public advertisement.  Mr. McLeod said the public hearing could be on the May 5, 2008 and on May 7, 2008 there could be another workshop to go over what was discuss at the public hearing.

Mr. Byers said he would suggest the Board try to attend the Dominion meeting at the Middle School.  Mr. Byers stated the environmental impact statement from Dominion stated that the construction would not have a significant impact on the Schools and other services however that may not be true.

Mr. Harper stated the last time Dominion held a public hearing there was a meeting the Monday before.  Mr. Harper questioned if they were having a meeting on the Monday before this public hearing.  Mr. Lintecum said he had not been informed of that.

Mr. Gentry said he was told there was going to be a meeting that Monday.  Mr. Gentry said at the DEQ meeting in August 2006 the Board pass along their concerns about infrastructure.  Mr. Gentry said he suggested  the Board passed along that same information to NRC because it stated the Boards position.

Mr. Harper questioned the nature of this public hearing.  Mr. Lintecum said the NRC would be getting input on the impact of a new unit.

Mr. Barnes questioned if the Boards comments were geared toward opposition.  

Mr. Gentry said the 2006 comments were not opposed to the unit just concerns.

Mr. Byers said if there was going to be an impact on the infrastructure and the Schools, someone has to pay for that.  Mr. Byers said he was not opposed to the new units however, if they were going impact the County there should be some consideration given.

Mr. Harper said the process was supposed to be over a number of years.  Mr. Byers said one of the agreements with Dominion was that a planning document be given to the localities which would show the impact and the phasing in.  

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to submit the concerns of 2006.

Mr. Lintecum said he received a letter from Mr. Butch Davies of the Transportation Board, regarding public hearing dates.

Mr. Lintecum stated there was a report from Joanna McDonald has provided the following memo outlining grant activity since October 2005 in the Board Packet.

Mr. Lintecum stated the Facilities Management Department monthly summary was included in the Board Packet.

Mr. Lintecum stated the Board of Supervisors monthly summary of top projects were included in the Board Packet.

Mr. Lintecum stated Household Hazardous Waste Day would be Saturday April 19, 2008.

Mr. Byers asked was there some reason most of the grants go to the Sheriffs office and Emergency Services.

Mr. McLeod said those Department Heads work closely with Ms. McDonald and those were the grants that were found.   Mr. McLeod said the Parks Directors would be working with Ms. McDonald to try and find some for Parks and Recreation.

Mr. Byers asked was the whole  county building going to be bullet proof.  Mr. Lintecum said only Treasurer and Commissioner Offices  had asked for bullet proof glass.


Resolution - Authorizing the County Administrator to take any actions for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the county administrator to take any actions for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance.

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the CIP

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 to the CIP.

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for vehicle repairs

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 vehicle repairs

Resolution - Requesting a traffic speed study on Route 630, Harris Creek Road, from Route 208 for 0.4 miles

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution Requesting a traffic speed study on Route 630, Harris Creek Road, from Route 208 for 0.4 miles

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the CIP for donated funds for the Aquatic Facility

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 to the CIP for donated funds for the Aquatic Facility

Resolution Declaring April 14-20, 2008 as Knights of Columbus Kovar Days 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 declaring April 14-20, 2008 as Knights of Columbus Kovar Days in Louisa County.


Mr. Spencer said he would like the to added wording to say that the county was within the appropriated amount.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod what should be put in the resolution to get Mr. Spencer point across.  Mr. McLeod said by adding the original or specific supplemental appropriated amounts would do it.

Mr. Byers asked if all the expenditures were in the appropriation.

Mr. McLeod said there are some Departments had a problem before and still have a problem with their expenditures being above appropriations.

Mr. Byers said if that was the case how could that language be added.

Mr. McLeod said the problem comes when the bottom line of a Department was going to be over.  Mr. McLeod said that once the Department has an invoice from a vender the county should pay the bill even if it is over appropriation.

Mr. McLeod said he thought he should bring a supplemental appropriation to the Board or get the department to reduce their expenditures so they would come in under their budget at the end of the year.  

Mr. Harper said how does Board get a mechanism in place saying that the Board was not authorizing over expenditures on any line until they are notified and give approval.  Mr. Harper said he understand Mr. Lintecum has some range of approval however if 30 percent through the year has past and the Department has already spent 60 percent of its budget, they need to come and talk the Board.  

Mr. McLeod said at the next Board meeting he has another report where the Departments and Agencies would be identified and brought to the Boards attention.   Mr. McLeod said the Finance Department was currently looking at two or three mechanisms to tell the Board where the issues are and how bad they are.  Mr. McLeod said the CSA budget was already over.  
Mr. Spencer said he wants to set some in motion that if you dont have the money then dont spend it.

Mr. McLeod said in the past, departments could overrun some line items as long as the bottom line was okay.

Mr. Spencer said he didnt want Departments and Agency writing checks and expecting the Board to pay.

Mr. Harper asked Board members if there was room to move within the budget they would allow the Department to do so however if the bottom line of the budget was going over the Board wanted to know.

Mr. McLeod said he thought that was what he had been giving the Board on a monthly basis.  Mr. Harper said the Board wanted a mechanism that said the overage was not going to get paid until it is explained.

Mr. Wright said this wasnt as simple as it sounds.  Mr. Wright said things dont happen that smoothly.

Mr. McLeod said he would email Department Heads and Constitutional Officer and let them know if they go over the bottom line the Board wanted them to go before them and either ask for a supplement or give an explanation of why they can not meet their bottom line.

Mr. Gentry said he thought the notice to come from the County Administrator.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod to find someone to train the Board on the Budget process.  

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Wright , which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Byers voting against and Mr. Barnes abstaining from bills concerning him, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of March 2008 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $711,647.54.


        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 17, 2008 and meeting.

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 18, 2008 and meeting


Mr. Spencer said the county would not be able to get their money back for the frivolous lawsuit.


On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the April 7, 2008 meeting at 9:19 p.m.