Contact Sitemap Search
|Board Present:||Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell, and Jack T. Wright|
|Others Present:||C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; and Mary Jackson, Deputy Clerk|
CALL TO ORDERChairman Barnes called the April 17, 2006 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Gentry led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
There were no Constitutional Officers that wished to address the Board.
CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD
There were no citizens that wished to address the Board.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Wright said that he would like to add a resolution for the Board as a presentation.
Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, said that he would like to add a resolution to the agenda granting authorization for the Deputy County Administrator, Ernie McLeod, or himself to sign the agreements that the Board approves for Industrial Access Funding.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted authorizing the County Administrator or Deputy County Administrator to sign all needed documents on behalf of the County of Louisa for the Virginia Department of Transportations Industrial Access Road Funding Agreement.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the April 17, 2006 agenda was adopted as amended.
Regional Sewer Plant
Skip Notte, Dewberry and Davis Representative, informed the Board that he was here this evening to provide them with an update of some of the ongoing discussion between the Town and County. Mr. Notte said that some new information has come to light since the last time that he spoke with the Board regarding the Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant options that are currently being proposed. Mr. Notte said that they are trying to determine where they stand with capacity and where they are going in the future. Mr. Notte said that since their last meeting, they have discussed two different options to either replace or upgrade the existing Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant on the south side of Route 22/33 or to select a new location that would be brought on currently with the existing one with the ultimate goal of transferring everything over to the new location that is not as site restrictive as the current site. Mr. Notte said that one of the ideas was to put it on the north side of Route 22, which would then ultimately discharge to the North Anna River. Mr. Notte said that since this time, they have had several discussions to determine a feasible site. Mr. Notte said that everyone is familiar with the Cutalong Development that is planned for Lake Anna, who is also planning on constructing a Waste Water Treatment Plant. Mr. Notte said that with the idea of the close proximity of the two potential sites is to see if there would be an opportunity to combine these two sites together and look at one site that would be operated by the Water Authority and deal with all of the wastewater treatment rather than having two treatment plants within three miles of each other. Mr. Notte said that the feasible sites they have discussed is the proposed rail site that included a proffer of certain acreage to the County and the other site was a bit more centrally located to all three areas for the 400 acres that is owned by Purcell Land and Lumber Corporation. Mr. Notte stated that they looked at the Purcell land due to its proximity to Contrary Creek and its ability to have to obtain as little easements as possible. Mr. Notte said that their idea was to stay within public right of way and be strategically located next to a discharge point to minimize the length of pipe that would have to be installed. Mr. Notte said that they had four sites to begin with, which was discussed by all parties where they determined that the rail park and the Purcell land were the best two sites at this time if a partnership could be reached in going forward to bring these two plants together. Mr. Notte provided a handout to the Board that reflected the costs for construction and other related costs for each of the sites ranging from 8” piping to 18”. Mr. Notte said that they were looking at three different creeks for the discharge, which are Christopher Creek, Contrary Creek, and Duckinghoe Creek. Mr. Notte said that there are still questions that need to be answered with regard to receding waters and whether or not the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would consider them adequate. Mr. Notte said that the cost estimate that he provided to the Board reflects two options for the rail park with one discharging to Christopher Creek and the other discharging to Duckinghoe Creek. Mr. Notte said that option two reflects the Purcell site. He said that they tried to consider future expansion of this plant as the County continues to grow. Mr. Notte said that an 8” pipe could handle a .5 MGD Plant, which is slightly larger than the plant that it currently serves. He said that a 12” pipe could handle a million gallon per day plant and an 18” pipe could handle a two million gallon a day plant. He pointed out that there is a bit of a difference in the range between the different options that are out there associated with these two parcels. Mr. Notte said that based on the size of plant that they go with, their current plant is operating at 320,000 gallons out of the 400,000 gallons available.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright asking if each of the three options presented would service the same area geographically. Mr. Wright asked Mr. Notte to further clarify what the difference was with the costs reflected for the piping at the plant compared to the creek. Mr. Wright asked if all three of the projected costs included the cost of the land for the site. Mr. Wright asked if there were additional costs if they were to put it at the Cutalong. Mr. Wright asked if the only option that would have additional costs for the land was the Purcell site. Mr. Gentry said that it appears that all three options were eventually going to discharge into Lake Anna and asked if they had considered taking it to the Northeast Creek. Mr. Gentry said that he knows that there has been a lot of discussion about the quality of water at Lake Anna and feels that this might open up issues. Mr. Harper asked Mr. Notte to clarify why the present site is restricted and what it was originally designed to expand too.
Mr. Notte replied that each one of the proposed sites would serve the same geographic area. Mr. Notte said that the difference between the two projected costs is determined by whether a discharge happens immediately at the plant or if they have to run additional infrastructure. Mr. Notte said that after the waster water has been treated, if DEQ comes back and says that the stream immediately at the plant cannot handle the waste load associated with the plant, they might have to run a pipe down to a point where there is a large enough drainage area and a large amount of water for it all to mix together and complete what is considered to be the treatment process. Mr. Notte pointed out that they currently have a 20% contingency for construction costs and a 15% related costs, which is reflected in the handout he provided. Mr. Notte stated that the estimated costs do not reflect any costs associated with any of the land. Mr. Notte said that none of the costs include figures for siting this at the Cutalong. Mr. Notte said that there are costs in there associated with pumping from the Cutalong. Mr. Notte confirmed that the Purcell land is the only site that would have additional costs associated for the land. Mr. Notte said that they have not looked at taking the flow to the Northeast Creek since getting the upgrade sizes of the existing plant. Mr. Notte said that he doesnt believe that they would consider dumping in the Northeast Creek, but probably a reservoir to discharge below. Mr. Notte said that they looked heavily on the north side of Route 22 because of the potential to tie in the County and Towns ideas of expansion or re-location of a regional plant and what the Cutalong was going to do. Mr. Notte said that the present plant is restricted due to the size of the parcel and that the existing site sits on a side of a hill. Mr. Notte said that originally this site was designed for 400,000 with the potential to expand to 600,000. Bar Delk, Water Authority Director, said that they had addressed this issue with the Town Council asking them to raise the plant in size from 400,000 to 600,00 or 800,000, which would cost around nine to eleven million dollars to raise it. Mr. Delk said that they are trying to stay under 500,000 gallons a day threshold that requires them to go to advanced treatment. Mr. Delk said that if they had a second plant that would keep them both under 500,000, it alleviates them having to have the advancement treatment. Mr. Notte said that the footprint size of the plant and the amount of land that they have being bordered by two streams does not provide a lot of room for expansion.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Purcell said that he wanted it noted for the record that he has not been part of any of the discussion on this, nor would he be voting on this now or in the future. Chairman Barnes asked what the involvement was with the Cutalong and asked if they were considering being a partner.
Mr. Lintecum said that the Cutalong expressed a desire for them to examine this as an alternative to them building their own plant. Paul Larner, Cutalong Representative, reminded the Board that as of October 2005, the Cutalong Subdivision had planned on building its own waster water facility on site. Mr. Larner said that as they progressed in these discussions, the idea surfaced that since the present 400,000 GPD facility was at 80% capacity and in need of expansion. Mr. Notte said that together with future anticipated needs of the County; they felt that a logical idea would be to build one larger facility to service the Town of Louisa, Louisa Countys growth areas, and the Cutalong development. Mr. Larner said that this felt like a sensible approach to them for three reasons since it makes sense for the Town, the County, and Cutalong to combine their sewage into one facility. Mr. Larner said that they are looking to make a monetary contribution to the construction of a regional plant and have the plant be operated by the Louisa County Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Larner said that he is not in a position to say what that contribution would be at this time since he is not aware of the costs that have been presented this evening. Mr. Larner said that they would rather put their funding towards a regional facility in place of constructing their own facility. Mr. Larner said that he would like to see a directive for them to pursue discussions on this and be a lot more definitive with regard to the location of the plant, the timing of the construction, and their respective contribution role.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Delk what would happen if they chose not to build a plant. Chairman Barnes asked how much it would cost for them to expand the current treatment facility. Mr. Wright asked what the timeline was that the Cutalong was looking at for this operation to make it feasible for them. Mr. Wright asked what their commitment was with the subdivision below the Cutalong that were assured they would be able to tie into their system under certain circumstances. Mr. Wright said that when you talk about using Route 22 as a potential dividing line and asked if this would present any problems at a later date for the rail line. Mr. Havasy asked if one of the agreements in the proffers for the Cutalong was that they were going to use the wastewater from any sewage treatment plant to water the gulf course. Mr. Havasy said that if they were not going to use the waster water for the gulf course, how many gallons of water per day would it take to maintain a gulf course and where would the water come from.
Mr. Delk responded that the regional treatment plant currently has been over its capacity for five straight months, which corrective actions have been taken. Mr. Delk said that the Town recently approved a subdivision at the upper end of town, which basically speaks for the rest of the capacity at the plant. Mr. Delk said that the next project that happens to come along for the Town or the County, DEQ would not give their approval. Mr. Notte said that for them to expand the current facility to 600,000 GPD would cost them around $6.5 million and to expand to 800,000 GPD they would be looking to spend around $9.5 million. In response to Mr. Wrights question, Mr. Larner said that the timeline for a decision and a deal would be within a month to two months time frame. Mr. Larner said that they have already prepared their own application for DEQ, which they have held off on submitting to see what happens with this proposed deal. Mr. Larner said that the timeline for usage for their subdivision is eighteen to twenty-four months because the reality of the permitting process to get the sewer permit, finish the Master Plan, and designing the roads would allow them to sell lots within twelve months for the construction of the homes to begin. Mr. Larner said that he believes that the Shorewood Subdivision would love this deal because this would provide them with the potential for sewage with a tap in fee. Mr. Larner said that they were going to pay for the extra 50% capacity and reserved the right to charge tapping fees. Mr. Notte said that as of right now, there is one line that runs from the Town of Mineral to the high school and from the high school to the airpark, which is pumped under pressure and goes through three pump stations to get to the airpark. Mr. Notte said that the idea would be to take this line, turn it and go under the rail line to just have the one line at this time. Mr. Notte said that dependant upon the growth and how the County expands, whether this would be the ultimate regional site would ultimately dictate how many lines are needed in the future. Mr. Larner said that it was not part of their proffers, but it was in their presentation that they were going to use the grey water to irrigate the golf course. Mr. Larner said that to irrigate the golf course, they would have the alternative or right to withdraw it from the Contrary Creek, which they would build an impoundment in the creek to treat it before utilizing the water.
Upon further discussion by the Board, they agreed to have Mr. Lintecum to move forward with the parties involved to get the numbers together and bring the information back to them.
Update - Inoperable Vehicles
Pat Morgan, County Attorney, said that he wanted to provide an update to the Board for the progress that has been made on the Inoperable Vehicle Ordinance. Mr. Morgan said that he has met with Mr. Gentry and the committee concerning the proposed ordinance and the changes that they felt that would be advantageous to the County. Mr. Morgan said that he has added another “whereas” in the ordinance reflecting that one of the reasons that the Board is making this effort is because these vehicles have an adverse impact on the health and welfare of the citizens of the County, it makes it a bit more selective since the vehicles would have to be in view from the public right of way. Mr. Morgan pointed out that they would not be looking at private roads or private lanes for inoperative vehicles. Mr. Morgan said that the committee had asked for the definition of an inoperative vehicle has been scaled down a bit to do away with trailers and other things of that nature. Mr. Morgan said that there was a concern previously raised about what would happen with a vehicle that could be operated, but not on the roads or public highways, so they added an additional line to the definition to inoperable vehicles saying that the term would not include vehicles that are operative, but not lawfully operated on public roads and right of ways. Mr. Morgan said that they have added an additional line concerning what was considered to be shielded or screened from public view saying that it means that it would not be visible from someone standing at ground level from outside of the property from which the vehicles is located, which he got from another locality that has a similar ordinance in effect.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Harper questioning what the logic was behind wanting to do away with trailers. Mr. Harper asked if “operative vehicle” was defined anywhere in this ordinance. Mr. Harper questioned what shielded meant from view.
In response to Mr. Harpers question, Mr. Gentry said that when the committee was considering the ordinance, they went along the lines that there is a lot of farmers that have these types of structures such as trailers that are used for storage; therefore, they would not be classified in this category. Mr. Morgan replied that he has not included the definition of operative vehicle in the ordinance, only the definition for inoperative vehicle. Mr. Morgan said that shielded means something that cannot be seen from view. Mr. Morgan said that they took out “or covered” under the definition of shielded so a person would not be allowed to use a tarp to cover the vehicle.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Harper said that he believes that more than just farmers use these types of dwellings; therefore, he feels they should be included in the ordinance. Mr. Harper suggested that they include the definition of operative vehicle if they are going to include it in the verbiage of the ordinance. Mr. Purcell said that he believes that the first order of business for the Board should be whether or not they decide to proceed with this tonight or go back to hold another public hearing. Mr. Purcell said that the Board had received an email from the County Attorney saying that they were able to proceed with this tonight without having to hold another public hearing, but he has received several calls from constituents that would like to have the opportunity to comment. Mr. Wright said that even though the Board is able to vote on this tonight, with the controversy that has been in the County during this period of time and then having a selective group that has put this together, he feels that they owe it to the public to make them more aware of the changes that have been made. Mr. Wright said that he would support a public information session to make them aware of the changes, but not to hold another public hearing.
Mr. Morgan said that he would look at the definition of operative vehicle.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Gentry pointed out that the reason that they have presented the changes this evening was due to the outcome of the public hearing, they had decided to give a ninety-day period to allow individuals to get more involved with this. Mr. Gentry said that they worked with three members of the Clean Community Commission (CCC) and other individuals that spoke during the public hearing to make up the committee for the Inoperable Vehicle Ordinance. Mr. Gentry said that all of these changes were the result of the two meetings the committee held, where they went line by line, word by word, through the ordinance for what they thought would be good changes. Mr. Gentry said that he does not see any reason to repeat the process of holding a public hearing since the committee reviewed all of the details thoroughly. Chairman Barnes said that they have to be realistic to the point that regardless of what they pass, it is going to be tweaked again in the future. Chairman Barnes said that there might be some things that come from this that the Board didnt see, but he feels strongly that they need to advertise the changes on the web and in the paper to allow the citizenry to review. Chairman Barnes said that he would not support another public hearing, but he does want to have the changes posted on the Louisa County website for a thirty day period for the citizens to review. Mr. Havasy said that he would like to second this with one addition, which is, that after the thirty-day period, a decision will be made. Mr. Gentry said that he brought this up at their last meeting that the only thing the committee left with a 50/50 vote on was the part about the inspection stickers and the valid license plates. Mr. Gentry said that after a lot of discussion, the committee agreed upon everything else. Mr. Gentry said that the next thing that he was expecting, which he has talked with the Chairman of the CCC about this, was to have them come back with recommendations on how the County could be part of the solution as far as crushing vehicles and other things of that nature. Mr. Gentry said that he hopes to have this report from them within thirty days. Mr. Purcell said that he would like to know if they would receive any information on what impact this would have on the Board financially with their responsibilities should this document pass in this form. Mr. Gentry said that the idea is to get the recommendations from the CCC and then the Board would decide from there. Mr. Harper informed Mr. Morgan that he would be sending an email to him on feedback that he has received.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to post the modifications that have been made to the Inoperable Motor Vehicle Ordinance on the Louisa County website for a period of thirty days and post in the local newspaper to allow the citizenry time to review the details prior to the Board making their final decision after this time period.
Discussion - Trevilian Station Battlefield Easement
Mr. Morgan referred to the memorandum that was included in their Board Packet on the progress that has been made thus far. Mr. Morgan said that the Railroads were not interested in bearing the liability of maintenance of the site. Mr. Morgan said that he checked with the Countys insurance carrier to verify whether they could carry a policy if the Railroads were to give the easement to them, which he received a response saying that they could provide a policy, but the Railroads would not have accepted it. Mr. Morgan said that the Railroads typically have a policy that requires railroad protection insurance that they require localities to pay to them because they know that local governments have the defense of sovereign immunity. Mr. Morgan said that he did speak with the gentleman from the Buckingham Branch Railroad to ask what the costs would be for the County to have this coverage, which he was told that it would cost something, but he had to speak with another individual who was out of the office on vacation. Mr. Morgan said that he hopes to have the answer for this to report back to them at their next Board meeting.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Purcell asking if the Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation (TSBF) owned property on one side of this extensively. Mr. Purcell asked why they couldnt clear some trees to create the pull off, which would eliminate the railroad liability for the County.
Mr. Morgan confirmed that TSBF did own property on one side of this area. Mr. Morgan said that he had spoke with Mr. Harlow about this, which he was told that they had designed this because the highway right of way was too narrow.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Purcell asked Mr. Morgan to speak with Mr. Harlow about relocating the pull off. Mr. Wright asked what the fee was for this type of coverage. Mr. Gentry asked if the Railroad would treat VDOT the same way or if this was something they were doing because of the County taking the responsibility for the easement. Mr. Wright said that private insurance companies should be able to write protective liability into your regular policy and asked why this wouldnt be acceptable.
Mr. Morgan replied that it would be an annual fee ranging from $2,000 to $10,000. Mr. Morgan said that his conversation was with the Countys insurance company first, which he was told that this would be something the railroad would require this whether they provided a policy or not. Mr. Morgan said that he would continue to look at all possibilities. Mr. Morgan said that he was told from their insurance company that they require it because their first line of defense would be sovereign defense and the railroads would be sued separately.
Discussion - Central Absentee Voting
Cris Watkins, Voter Registrar, referred to the information that she had submitted for their packet saying that she is requesting their approval to have a Central Absentee Precinct (CAP). Mrs. Watkins said that the CAP would be a fifteenth precinct. Mrs. Watkins said that they had 641 absentee ballots returned that had to be processed during the Presidential Election. Mrs. Watkins said that they had to divide these ballots and hand carry them to different precincts to have them hand tally these ballots. Mrs. Watkins said that the CAP Precinct would be the Ogg Building, where they store their voting machines. Mrs. Watkins said that the CAP Precinct would require three workers to tabulate the ballots. Mrs. Watkins said that this would help eliminate a lot of human error due to the other individuals being tired by the time they tabulate these votes. Mrs. Watkins pointed out that this would help with the secrecy of the ballots. She said that the County is getting to the size where they can benefit from having a CAP Precinct. Mrs. Watkins said that the voting machine would cost $5,660 delivered to the County, which she still had $22,000 left from the purchase of their Edge Voting Machines that could be used to purchase this additional machine. Mrs. Watkins said that they would have to pay around $425.00 per November General Elections to pay the officers of the election.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to schedule a public hearing to adopt a Central Absentee Voter Precinct Ordinance.
Discussion - Permanent County Decals
Mr. Wright said that a lot of counties and cities around the state have gone to the permanent decals. Mr. Wright said that he has spoke with several surrounding localities have gone or are in the process of changing to it. Mr. Wright pointed out that the only reason that the County has the decals currently is for entrance in to the Landfill and the Recycling Centers. Mr. Wright said that he has had a lot of individuals tell him how difficult it is to change these stickers. Mr. Wright said that they would be able to add the fee to their tax bills annually for the permanent stickers. Mr. Wright pointed out that this would alleviate the long lines that you see the Treasurers Office working with each year. Mr. Wright said that this would not lose any revenue for them; it would only reduce the workload.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that he likes the idea of this, but he would like to have the appropriate staff coordinate the logistics with their counterparts in the respective Towns. Mr. Gentry said that he believes that this is a good idea from what he has read on the amounts that it saves localities. Mr. Gentry said that not everyone gets a tax bill, so some individuals might be left out. Chairman Barnes said that if someone did not pay their taxes, the Treasurers Office has the ability to do a DMV Stop that prevents individuals from renewing their license plates until their taxes have been paid. Chairman Barnes said that he had received several emails this week regarding the long lines at the Treasurers Office. Following the discussion by the Board, they agreed to have Mr. Lintecum discuss this with Gloria Layne, Louisa County Treasurer, and The Town Mayors and report back to the Board within thirty-days.
Mr. Wright said that the Building and Grounds Committee had been asked at one of their meetings to look at the County facilities and how they are used. Mr. Wright said they looked at the old Library and the Ogg Building, which he feels that the Registrars Office has had an interest in this facility because they need additional space and it would be convenient for them to be where their election machines are stored. Mr. Wright said that with having the CAP Precinct, if it were approved, it would give them enough office space as well as for the Electoral Board. Mr. Wright said that the only negative aspect about this is the office must be handicap accessible as the signs states, but when you go to the parking spot in the back where the accessibility is, the space has been reserved for a Judge; therefore, they would have to take this into consideration as part of their renovation. Mr. Wright said that he would like to see them pursue working with Mrs. Watkins and the Electoral Board toward the possibility of the Ogg Building being the central location for the absentee ballot voting and move the staff to this facility. Mr. Wright said that the basement of the Ogg Building is reserved for the Sheriffs Department since they use it for storage.
The Board agreed to have the Building and Grounds Committee continue to work with the appropriate staff and Electoral Board to discuss relocating to the Ogg Building.
Mr. Gentry said that just so everyone knows that the swimming pool project is not dead, they have a committee meeting on April 19, 2006 to pursue with the discussions from the Board.
Chairman Barnes informed the Board that he attended a meeting at the IDA last week where he was informed that each of them should be receiving an invitation to their annual picnic.
Chairman Barnes informed the Board that the numbers were released for the unemployment rates, which Louisa County was at 3.8% and is the lowest it has been in a long time.
Mr. Purcell said that the New Elementary School Committee met recently where they have decided that they are going to go forth with Design C, which has a curvature design to it. Mr. Purcell said that they would be making a presentation on the school and opening it up for bids. Mr. Purcell said that there are some School Board members that are taking heart to some emails that have been sent to them by constituents and are looking into some other options. Chairman Barnes said that he reiterated that the Board wants the same design for the schools to have the same type of structure as the others. Chairman Barnes said that one of the factors that are increasing the cost of this school is the site work, which is estimated at $3.5 million.
Mr. Gentry said that he would like to re-appoint David Walcutt to JAUNT, Bill Martin to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, Angela Hammond to Region Ten, Bob Gibson to the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, and Milton Maxton to the Water and Sewer Rate Commission.
Mr. Purcell said that he would like to re-appoint Nancy Wheeler and Ed Massey to the Social Services Board.
Mr. Wright said that he would like to appoint Lloyd Hicks to the Transportation Safety Commission to replace George Young due to his schedule being unpredictable.
Chairman Barnes said that he would like to re-appoint Charles Jones, Sr. to the Board of Road Viewers.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board reappointed David Walcutt to JAUNT, Bill Martin to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, Angela Hammond to Region Ten, Bob Gibson to the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, Milton Maxton to the Water and Sewer Rate Commission, Nancy Wheeler and Ed Massey to the Social Services Board, Charles Jones, Sr. to the Board of Road Viewers and appointed Lloyd Hicks to the Transportation Safety Commission.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to adopt the Consent Agenda for the following five resolutions:
Resolution - Authorizing the Distribution of Fire Programs Fund Allocation
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted authorizing the distribution of $46,853.25 to the Louisa County Volunteer Fire Fighter Association; who will further divide the monies equally amongst the seven County Volunteer Fire Companies.
Resolution - To Add Extended Pelham Drive and Beaver Dam Court ino the Secondary System of State Highways
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted to add extended Pelham Drive (Route 1084) and Beaver Dam Court (Route 1086) into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia.
Resolution - Supplement to the County Administrators Department for Employees
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted authorizing a supplemental appropriation of $493.25, the amount received during the prior five months of FY06, to the County Administrators Department for Employee Recognition.
Resolution - Recognizing National County Government Week and the Appreciation of Louisa County Employees
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted recognizing April 23 29, 2006 as National County Government Week and for the appreciation of Louisa County Employees a family picnic will be held on the evening of May 10, 2006 in the back of the County Office Building.
Resolution - Recognizing National Volunteer Week
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted recognizing April as Volunteer Month.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Mr. Lintecum presented his report highlighting the following items:
Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has enclosed a copy of Mr. Coffeys report to the Board reflecting the activities of the Community Development Department.
The Board did not discuss any correspondence.
Mr. Morgan did not discuss any legal correspondence with the Board.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of April 3, 2006 as presented.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Messrs Gentry, Havasy, Jennings, and Wright abstaining from reimbursement checks pertaining to them, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the first half of April 2006 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $579,740.19.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess for dinner at 6:15 p.m.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 6:58 p.m.
CUP01-06 - Terri Kershner
Darren Coffey, Community Development Director, summarized the request as being for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the establishment and operation of a commercial kennel. Mr. Coffey said that the property is located on the southeast side of Route 701 (Eastham Road), approximately 2.0 miles north of Route 652 (Kentucky Springs Road) and is in the Jackson Magisterial and Voting Districts. Mr. Coffey said that the applicant is Terri L. Kershner. Mr. Coffey said that two people attended the Neighborhood Meeting expressing various concerns such as the total number of dogs, the status of the definition changes for kennels, conditions in place that would limit the use to this owner, what would the process be if complaints were received by the County, definition of the term commercial, and constructing a stronger barrier around the dog pen area. Mr. Coffey said that the Development Review Committee met on February 22, 2006 to review the case where they voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission with conditions. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission held their public hearing on March 9, 2006 where they voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board with the inclusion of eight conditions as identified in staffs report.
Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. With no one wishing to address the Board, Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that he had the occasion on Friday, Saturday, and today to drive the east end of Route 701 trying to find if there was any negative impacts regarding this request, which he was unable to do. Mr. Wright said that he feels that it is a good location and is fairly well isolated. Mr. Gentry said that he had one constituent ask him about the boarding areas being in gravel rather than concrete, which could impact the health of the animal and asked if this was a part of the state permit on what is allowed and not allowed. Mr. Jennings said that with all of the meetings that occurred between the committees and commissions, he would support this request based upon their recommendations. Chairman Barnes said that it is not that he is against the application, but he is going to abstain from voting to remain consistent since he has not supported these requests in the past because of the term commercial in an agricultural area.
In response to Mr. Gentrys question, Mrs. Kershner replied that concrete is extremely bad for large dogs because it gives them arthritis and causes their paws to bleed. Mrs. Kershner said that she poured a slab years ago, which she will never do again. Mrs. Kershner explained that she places 4” to 6” of gravel down with a 4” overlay of sand, which makes it like cleaning a litter box.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Barnes abstaining, a resolution was adopted approving the issuance of CUP01-06 for the establishment and operation of a commercial kennel for tax map parcel #63-(9)-3 and 4 with the inclusion of eight conditions as identified on Resolution number RES06-066 that is on file in the County Administrators Office.
Amendment to the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 86
Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission has been working on looking at the uses and definitions of the Zoning Ordinance for about seven months now. Mr. Coffey said that the Board had recommended a couple along with the Planning Commission and the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Coffey said that there are four definitions that he is presenting this evening for Accessory Apartment, Marina, and Home Occupation Class A and Class B. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission considered these definitions during their public hearing that was held on April 13, 2006 where they recommended approval of the definition as well as the Marina use adding it by right to C-2 Zoning by a 5-2 vote. Mr. Coffey said that the amendment they are proposing for accessory apartments would be to modify the definition to allow for rentals to persons other than family members and care givers. Mr. Coffey said that the home occupation expands the allowable use for Class A and Class B, which has also been modified to allow for two outside employees. Mr. Coffey said that the Marina definition has never been defined in their ordinance, which he felt should be allowed by right.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Harper saying that the definition under accessory apartments doesnt quite read like he thought that it would. Mr. Harper said that is states, “subordinate to a primary dwelling unit that is part of the same structure on the same lot,” and asked whether a structure someone had over their garage would qualify. Mr. Wright asked what impact this would have if they were to adopt this tonight for individuals who have been issued a CUP because in the past they have not allowed individuals to have employees unless they lived on the premises. Mr. Wright asked if this would be discrimination if they did not allow these individuals to have the same benefits.
Mr. Coffey replied that the way the definition is currently written as it is being proposed would not allow individuals to rent an accessory apartment that is not attached to the main structure. Mr. Coffey said that for those situations that have been approved under different circumstances has a legal use; therefore, this would not affect those at all. Mr. Coffey said that this change takes uses that might not have been able to operate under the current ordinance and allows them to operate. Mr. Coffey said that he does not believe that this would be discrimination against any of the previous applicants.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Purcell said that as far as the Marinas, he understands that they are going to chose what is by right or CUP in the commercial designation. Mr. Purcell said that he agrees with Mr. Harper about the accessory apartments, which he feels if they were to add detached along with attached, it would cover both aspects. Mr. Purcell asked what the rationale was behind adding the verbiage that a unit must not be rented for less than six month increments. Mr. Havasy asked if they originally had both detached and attached in the definition during their discussion stages. Mr. Havasy pointed out that if they did not modify this, they would be alleviating some of the affordable housing that would be made available. Mr. Harper said that Dominion has now improved their refueling to the point that if anyone were traveling in and wanted to stay at one of these places, it would not be for a six-month period. Mr. Harper said that he found it interesting to look under business uses where it says that they are better defined to allow for a wider variety of uses under controlled conditions and then they turn around and expand home occupations that are less regulated. Mr. Harper said that Mr. Coffey said that this was to do away with some constraints on home occupations and questioned if the constraints did not exist for a reason. Mr. Gentry said that in talking about the detached structure, what would limit a person to having just one. Mr. Gentry said that the marina ordeal was discussed since there were only a couple of commercial properties that exist right now and this would allow them to do by right.
Mr. Coffey confirmed that Marinas would have a specific definition of what is allowed by right. Mr. Coffey said that this verbiage was added to discourage summer rentals for accessory apartments by the lake. Mr. Coffey said that at one time they did have both attached and detached in the definition, but when staff had discussed it, they found a loophole. Mr. Coffey said that if they were to delete, “ that is part of the same structure,” this would address this issue. Mr. Coffey said that there are a lot of uses for CUPs that are technically illegal, but there isnt any reason for them to be illegal since the definition of the current ordinance is outdated. Mr. Coffey said that having only one detached structure is what they were intending, but when staff discussed it, this was the loophole they found; therefore, removing it from the definition.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Purcell said that he would defer to Mr. Gentry and the Shoreline Committee on the marina topic since they addressed the issues pertaining to this. Mr. Purcell said that he would recommend that they allow for a provision to allow for one detached accessory apartment and approve the rest of the definitions as they have been submitted.
Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. With no one wishing to address the Board, Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to adopt the definitions as they have been identified with the exception of the accessory apartment where the verbiage will be changed to allow for one detached unit per parcel.
Chairman Barnes applauded Mr. Coffey for all of his hard work and dedication in getting these changes made. Chairman Barnes said that this would be beneficial for those who have these structures to have the potential to supplement their income. Mr. Wright said that he had concerns about the by right for the marinas, Mr. Coffey said that they would be able to place conditions on those that request rezoning. Mr. Purcell said that he would like to have it noted for the record that he was not in favor of the committee system when Mr. Coffey originally proposed it, but it seems to him that a lot of their hearings have gotten shorter and individuals are having fewer complaints. Mr. Gentry said that these committees have not taken any of these issues lightly.
Mr. Wright informed the Board that on April 8, 2006, he had the opportunity to attend an event that he was invited to attend by the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Mr. Wright said that Coast Guard Auxiliary has sent recognition to the Board for all of their support. Mr. Wright said that this organization spends their time protecting the lake and the power plant. Mr. Wright said that he had asked Mr. Lintecum to send some gravel to the boat ramp that the Coast Guard Auxiliary used to make it better for them to use. Mr. Wright read the certificate for all to hear and presented the plaque to Chairman Barnes.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess their April 17, 2006 regular meeting at 7:29 p.m. until Wednesday, April 19, 2006, for their budget work session that will be held at Jouett Elementary School at 6:00 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
FITZGERALD A. BARNES, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA