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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
May 19, 2008
6:00 P.M.



Board Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr. and Jack T. Wright

Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, Interim County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Zuwana Morgan, Deputy Clerk and Brittany Spaur, Records Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the May 19, 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.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD

Mr. Ray Harlow Louisa District stated he had been reading in the paper concerning the 2008/2009 county budget.  Mr. Harlow said right now things were very hard and very tight on the people in the county.  Mr. Harlow said he thought the Board should take into consideration holding the budget down.  Mr. Harlow said there were people in the county who could not heat their homes last winter because they could not afford to fill their tanks. Mr. Harlow asked what would it be like this winter, with the prices of fuel going up. Mr. Harlow said the Board needed to take a strong look at what was being spent in the county.

Mr. Harlow asked the Board if they had ever heard of the grunt people.  Mr. Harlow said those were people whose annual income was between $8,000 and $10,000 and who did not have a full-time job. Mr. Harlow said those individuals had to work three part-time jobs to get to that amount. Mr. Harlow said there were elderly people in the county on a fixed income from the government of $600 a month.Mr. Harlow asked the Board if they could live off of $600 a month.  

Mr. Harlow said it should not be a free ride in this county. Mr. Harlow said the Board needed to take a serious look when people come before the Board and ask for charity.  Mr. Harlow said people were getting a charity from taxpayers dollars, that are given to be used for the county, not for charity.


Mr. Harlow said teachers are asking for a raise.  Mr. Harlow asked the Board were they going to give the grunt people a raise.
 

Mr. Harlow said there were with county employees that used county vehicles to drive back and forth to work with taxpayers dollars.

Mr. Harlow asked the Board to take what he said into consideration and thanked them for their time.


Mr. Frank Keffer Louisa District stated he spoke two weeks ago about the by-right lot size.  Mr. Keffer said either citizens had not heard the right information or there was something going on behind the citizens back.

Mr. Keffer said the minutes had been altered and had not been published like they were in the regular minutes.  Mr. Keffer said that he was told that someone would get back to him and it had been two weeks and no one had contacted him.  Mr. Keffer said if the Board thought this was just going to disappear, it wasnt until the citizens that were paying the tax dollars get what they deserve.


Mr. Keffer said times are tight and some have to decide whether they would buy fuel, food or medication.  Mr. Keffer said elderly people dont have that kind of money.
Mr. Keffer said he heard that the county was trying to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on playgrounds and soccer fields, when the new school hadnt been built.  

Mr. Keffer said Mr. Havasy was the one who made the statement about the 70 by-right lots.   Mr. Keffer said he thought it was time Mr. Havasy notify the public that he made a mistake.  Mr. Keffer said he was sure it was a mistake.  Mr. Keffer said when our children make a mistake, we make them apologize to the person they misinformed.  

Mr. Keffer thanked the Board for their time.

Mr. Harper said to Mr. Keffer that he had spoke with Mr. Lintecum and he would be back in touch with him.


Mr. Harry Ruth Jackson District stated he represented the Friends of Lake Anna.  Mr. Ruth said the Friends of Lake Anna have been working together with the Lake Anna Civic Association and the Lake Anna Boating and Recreation Association with a common goal to protect the Lake Anna environment and its surrounding landscape for the health, safety and welfare of current residents/users and for future generations.  Mr. Ruth said the organization was not  anti-nuclear, nor do they have “not in my backyard” sentiments, but do support a wise and safe use of nuclear energy.  Mr. Ruth said their simple goal was to protect Lake Anna for its 500,000 plus annual users and insure compliance with the law.

Mr. Ruth said he applauded Dominion Resources for their past stewardship of Lake Anna and was not opposed to the North Anna Project.  Mr. Ruth stated the Friends of Lake Anna does support the addition of the 3
rd reactor at the North Anna plant, but they want to ensure that all environmental issues are taken care of prior to the issuance of a Combined Operating License.

Mr. Ruth said Lake Anna occupies only about 3.5 percent of the countys land, while the lake residents contribute over 30 percent of the residential tax revenue for the County for a total of over $7 million in tax revenue in 2007.  

Mr. Ruth said the Friends of Lake Anna had several concerns that they were requesting that the Louisa Board of Supervisors address.  Mr. Ruth said the concerns relate primarily to declining lake levels and the cooling method proposed for the 3
rd reactor

Mr. Ruth said the county just recently came out of a drought situation that started in May 2007 and just ended in April 2008 and the lake water level dropped three feet during the drought.  Mr. Ruth stated over 50 percent of the people on the lake could not use their boats because they were high and dry.  Mr. Ruth said others that were using the lake were running into previously submerged items, which caused many human injuries and property damage.  Mr. Ruth said many fishing tournaments were cancelled because of the safety of boat occupants and property damage.  Mr. Ruth said one restaurant owner had to close down due to lack of customers because of the low water levels.  Mr. Ruth said many of the dry fire-hydrants in residential communities were unusable due to lack of water creating a major safety hazard and many business owners suffered due to a decrease in business.

Mr. Ruth said Dominion has acknowledged that the wet/dry cooling method they are proposing for the 3rd reactor would use up an additional 24 million gallons of Lake Anna water each day in the Energy Conservation Mode and up to 16.6 million gallons per day in the Maximum Water Conservation Mode.  Mr. Ruth said Dominion has also stated that the wet/dry cooling method would cause a doubling of the lake drought cycle from an average of 21 days per year to over 40 days per year (primarily during the summer months when lake and the state park are used by the public.

Mr. Ruth said Dominions current proposed cooling methods would cause Lake Anna to have additional declining water levels of between 1.1 and 1.4 inches per month during a drought, particularly during the summer months.  Mr. Ruth stated during the past year, if the 3rd reactors cooling method had been used, it would have caused the lake level to be down between four and five feet where it would have created major safety hazards for boaters and safety hazards for homeowners, because the fire departments would not be able to use the dry fire hydrants.  Mr. Ruth said Dominion could continue to operate with an eight foot drop in the water level.

Mr. Ruth asked the Board to help mitigate the impact to the lake residents, the 500,000 annual lake users and businesses that rely on the lake for income, with the goal of not having a decline in property values which, would also dramatically affect Louisas tax income.  

Mr. Ruth said there were other alternative cooling methods that were being used by other countries throughout the world that could be used for the 3
rd reactor and would not cause the lake level declines. Mr. Ruth said there were also many other mitigating features that could be taken to minimize the impact to the lake. Mr. Ruth said if the lake level were raised three inches during the winter, then during the summer droughts wouldnt be as bad. Mr. Ruth said another was having less water than 20 CFS released over the dam during drought periods.  Mr. Ruth said when the lake has no input from the North Anna River or streams, they should not be releasing a constant flow of water for downstream users to benefit.

Mr. Ruth said a win-win situation would be achieved for all if an alternative cooling method was selected and additional mitigating factors were instituted.  Mr. Ruth said Dominion would build their 3
rd reactor, Louisa County would benefit from the increased utility tax revenue, Louisa businesses would not lose valuable customers due to low lake water levels, the fire departments could use their dry fire hydrants, the safety of Louisa residents would not be challenged, the State Park would continue to thrive and the residential taxes from lake properties would not decline.  

Mr. Ruth said the Friends of Lake Anna were not opposed to the 3
rd reactor, but had many concerns with its cooling method and related impacts.  Mr. Ruth asked the Board to create a Louisa County Board of Supervisors Advisory Committee, consisting of various lake organizations, independent businesses and county staff, to study all the various impacts to the county and what mitigating measures could be taken as a result of the 3rd reactors cooling method before the county moved forward.

Mr. Ruth thanked the Board for their time and consideration.

Ms. Mary Johnson Louisa District stated for the past three and a half years, she had the benefit of working with Mr. Darren Coffey and his staff on a number of projects here in Louisa County.   Ms Johnson said much to her dismay, she understood Mr. Coffey had resigned from his position to take a similar position with Fluvanna County.  

Ms. Johnson said she had been in this line of work for over 27 years, with her last 18 years here in Louisa and, she would like it to be put on the record that in her opinion, Mr. Coffey had been, by far, the most effective Planning Director she had worked with to date.

Ms. Johnson said she had found Mr. Coffey at a minimum, to be honest, trustworthy, and consistent with enforcing the regulations under his charge.  Ms. Johnson said no, Mr. Coffey was not perfect, he was human like the rest of us, subject to making an occasional mistake.  Ms. Johnson said she didnt always agree with Mr. Coffeys decisions, but without a doubt, he was the best she had seen in her entire career.

Ms. Johnson said if she was not mistaking, and she didnt want to be accused of lying to the Board, but she believed Mr. Coffey was instrumental in assisting the county in a number of positive changes in this community.

Ms. Johnson said she would not list them all, but just a few; The shoreline management ordinance; PUD zoning district; Revised A2 zoning with new TR and RE districts; Buffer and screening requirements; Sign ordinance update; Louisas fee schedule update; revised IND zoning with new I-1 and I-2  districts; the comp plan update; build out analysis; cash proffer policy; telecommunications ordinance and master plan; housing trust fund; new and improved zoning uses and definitions;
check lists were written and incorporated; The DRC and neighborhood meetings were established to streamline information and promote more open communication.
Ms. Johnson said not to mention what he and his staff are currently working on; revisions to the RD zoning district, the broadband study, revisions to the A2 commercial setback regulations; a draft transportation chapter and model fire code.  Ms. Johnson said the list went on and whatever the Board has asked for, Mr. Coffey and his staff worked hard to deliver it.  Ms. Johnson said how quickly we forget.

Ms. Johnson said she knew a lot because for about two years, she had served on the Long Range Planning Committee with many of the Board members. Ms. Johnson said she took part in the debates, and everyone enjoyed the ability to work with each other with a cooperative spirit.  

Ms. Johnson said under Mr. Coffeys leadership, she has worked with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, as a cohesive unit, exercising mutual respect, professionalism and with the ability to disagree agreeably.  Ms. Johnson said a lot was accomplished during that time.  Ms. Johnson asked what happened and what changed all of that.

Ms. Johnson said she had listened to some the of recent recordings of public meetings and what she heard was nothing less than appalling and frightening.  Ms. Johnson said as she listened to the recording of what took place after the regular DRC meeting in April, she became very frightened.  Ms. Johnson said you should listen to it if you have not already done so.  

Ms. Johnson said it was frightening on many levels; the aggressive hostility, the anger, the derogatory accusations and the thought that this was how our local government was being led.  Ms. Johnson said even now she would confess to be a little frightened for giving her commentary.  Ms. Johnson said she knew she was not the only one who has recently wondered would the hostility now be directed towards me or would there be retributions on some personal or professional level if she spoke up.  Ms. Johnson said she knew some remain silent because of this.  Ms. Johnson said that is scary.

Ms. Johnson said but in the midst of this very real intimidation, she wanted to close by saying that she does not blame Mr. Coffey for leaving after being subject to such hostility and open disrespect with little or no support from those that he served.  Ms. Johnson said Mr. Coffeys accomplishments stood on their own and he didnt need her to bring them to light.  Ms. Johnson said Mr. Coffeys good works are of permanent record here in Louisa County and for one, she thanked him for that.

Ms. Johnson said she stood there to tell Mr. Coffey that she was truly sorry for the way he had been mistreated, she was sorry for the angry words of one, and for the fear and apathy of others.  Ms. Johnson said she appreciated all that Mr. Coffey had done for the county and wished him the very best in his future endeavors and he would be missed.

Ms. Johnson said she would like to remind the Board that good people are hard to find.  Ms. Johnson said the county needed to get past this and move forward.  Ms. Johnson said we need to exercise three words common sense, compassion and conscience.  Ms. Johnson said lets not forget those concepts as we move forward.

Ms. Johnson thanked the Board.

Mr. Jim Scharf Green Springs District stated he was the Green Springs Planning Commissioner.  Mr. Scharf said he wanted to express his regret to Darren Coffeys departure from the county.  Mr. Scharf said Mr. Coffey would be a very large and hard to fill vacancy in the county.  Mr. Scharf said he has gotten nothing but honest, courteous and professional advice from Mr. Coffey on the Planning Commission and the Development Review Committee.  Mr. Scharf said they had asked Mr. Coffey to make recommendations to the Planning Commission and he rightly refused.  Mr. Scharf said Mr. Coffey would give the Commission the facts, summarize the issue and provide them with a copy of the state and county ordinances pertaining to the item.  Mr. Scharf said there was no attempt by Mr. Coffey to make recommendations to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Scharf said Mr. Coffey has been very professional and some of the tools he and his staff have created have made it much easier.  Mr. Scharf said he was going to miss Mr. Coffey and he was going to be a hard person to replace.

Mr. Pete Bradshaw stated he was a former Planning Director for Louisa County.  Mr. Bradshaw said he was saddened by the resignation of Darren Coffey.  Mr. Bradshaw said when he first heard the news his first thought was “here we go again”.  Mr. Bradshaw said he knew perhaps more than most, what Mr. Coffey had been through.  Mr. Bradshaw said he believed he knew what Mr. Coffey felt and what has motivated him to move on.  Mr. Bradshaw said the same thing had happened to him when he was the Planning  Director in Louisa eight years ago.  Mr. Bradshaw said Louisa has had five Planning Directors in the last 15 years.  Mr. Bradshaw said that showed there was a problem.

Mr. Bradshaw said there were two primary negatives that were associated with Mr. Coffeys resignation. Mr. Bradshaw said first, the fact that a true professional of his unquestionable quality and integrity had been subjected to this kind of abuse and disrespect.  Mr. Bradshaw said secondly, the damage this had done to Louisa County.  

Mr. Bradshaw said a successful Land Use Policy and Planning Process was vital to the County Government and the quality of life for its citizens.  Mr. Bradshaw said continuity of the land use policy over time was very important.  Mr. Bradshaw said Mr. Coffeys recommendations and leadership, in his opinion, had greatly enhanced the ability of the Board of Supervisors to establish a sound land use policy.  Mr. Bradshaw said the continuity had been disrupted.  Mr. Bradshaw said this would be a great loss to Louisa County.  

Mr. Bradshaw said local government retained professional planners to utilize their expertise to plan for the future.  Mr. Bradshaw said for there to be a successful working relationship between the local governing body and the Planner, it was incumbent upon the Board of Supervisors to have a clear vision of what they would like the county to look like and be like in the future.  Mr. Bradshaw said the vision needed to be communicated clearly to the Planner. Mr. Bradshaw said the Planner and the Planning Commission would then articulate this as a proposed policy in the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Bradshaw said the Board of Supervisors would then make this official, after any necessary amendments and public hearings by adopting the plan.

Mr. Bradshaw said the Planner, Planning Commission and Boards constituents needed to act as a team in assisting the Board to make a successful process.  Mr. Bradshaw said obviously there were going to be differences of opinion, but those differences needed to be discussed in a civil and professional manner.  Mr. Bradshaw said if there was criticism, let it be constructive not destructive, as it had been done with Mr. Coffey.  

Mr. Bradshaw said the leadership in Louisa County needed to look in the mirror, to reflect on what has happened, to understand the problem and to identify mistakes that had been made and to correct them before more damage was done to the county and its reputation.  Mr. Bradshaw said no grand standing, finger pointing, just cooperation and a team effort to move in a positive direction.

Mr. Bradshaw said Mr. Coffey was a man of unquestionable honesty and integrity.  Mr. Bradshaw said he has worked with Mr. Coffey over the last three years and had observed the high ethical standards that Mr. Coffey had established for himself and his equality of administration of the county ordinances.  Mr. Bradshaw said Mr. Coffey had diligently worked to improve the planning process, the comprehensive plan and its implementation tools, the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance.  Mr. Bradshaw said in his opinion, Mr. Coffey was the best Planner Louisa County has ever had.  

Mr. Bradshaw said he and Mr. Coffey had not always agreed and there were quite a few times Mr. Coffeys decisions had made his life difficult, but it wasnt Mr. Coffeys job to make his life less difficult.  Mr. Bradshaw said Mr. Coffeys job was to enforce the code, which had been established by the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Bradshaw said Mr. Coffey had done an excellent job with that.  Mr. Bradshaw said a man of Mr. Coffeys quality would be very difficult to replace.  Mr. Bradshaw said he would miss Mr. Coffey.  Mr. Bradshaw thanked Mr. Coffey and wished him all the success.  Mr. Bradshaw said he would be looking forward to working with him in Fluvanna County.


Mr. Bill Martin Jackson District stated he just wanted to echo the words that had been said about Darren Coffey.  Mr. Martin said he was a new Planning Commissioner.  Mr. Martin said Mr. Coffey had made his four months as a Planning Commission easier than what he expected.  Mr. Martin said Mr. Coffey had been a wonderful person to work with and was totally shocked to hear about him leaving.  Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Coffey for all he had done.

Mr. Edward Massey Louisa District stated a little over two years ago he and his wife decided to refinance their home and take advantage of some of the low interest rates.  Mr. Massey said in 1990 they purchased 40.129 acres and had a separate plat recorded in the Circuit Court for five acres.  Mr. Massey said at that time the mortgage company did not require a deed for the five acres so there was never a deed put with it.

Mr. Massey said when they went through the refinancing they said they needed to have a deed for the five acres.  Mr. Massey said they went through Community Development Department and was advised to do a deed.  Mr. Massey said that deed wasnt right and they had another lawyer draw the deed up and it still wasnt accepted by the Community Development Department.  Mr. Massey said he was directed by Mr. Coffey to get the surveyor to erase 1990 off the plat and do a family division.

Mr. Massey said that put a hardship on his family because he and his wife were both previously married.  Mr. Massey said his wife had a child in her first marriage and he had three in his.  Mr. Massey said the land belonged to he and his wife, not their children.  Mr. Massey said the way the family division worked his wife had to deed 33 acres over to him.  Mr. Massey said not only did that cost him the expensive of two lawyers, a surveyor and it could cost his wife ¾ of the 33 acres.

Mr. Massey said he asked for a meeting with Mr. Lintecum and Mr. Coffey and he was told there was State law and it had to be done that way, it could not be a deed put to the five acres even though it was recorded at the county courthouse.  Mr. Massey said he accepted what was said.

Mr. Massey said he lost the low interest loan and ended up getting an A.R.M. which has cost him quite a few thousand dollars in interest over the years.  Mr. Massey said the value of the property was dropping and the loan has not.

Mr. Massey said he would like the Board to look into this and get back with him.  Mr. Massey said was it really State or County law or if Mr. Coffey was just acting as a county subdivision agent.  

Mr. Massey said it has already put him and his wife in quite a bit of hardship and he doesnt want it to come back and be more of a hardship.  Mr. Massey said he would like the 33 acres to be put back into his or her name with the right of survivorship.

Mr. Harper said he would ask Mr. Lintecum to look into it and advise Mr. Massey and the Board.


ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Gentry stated he would like to add a discussion on minutes in the newspaper. Mr. Gentry stated he would like to add a discussion on land acquisitions at Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.  Mr. Barnes stated he would like to add a discussion recognizing the Technology Student Association at Louisa County Middle School.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to switch item one with item two on the agenda. Mr. Harper stated he would like to add a resolution to adopt the changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998.  Mr. Harper stated he would like to add a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for PSAP Wireless 911 Grant.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the May 19, 2008 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

Annual Report J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College Dr. Gary Rhodes


Dr. Rhodes thanked the Board for sharing Doris McCray and Sheriff Fortune with J. Sargeant Reynolds and Piedmont Community Colleges.  

Dr. Rhodes said it had been a busy year for J. Sargeant Reynolds with an all time high enrollment.  Dr. Rhodes said it had also been a challenging year, with the state not having the monies to help pay.  Dr. Rhodes said J. Sargeant Reynolds was the third largest of the 23 community colleges in the commonwealth.  Dr. Rhodes said J. Sargeant Reynolds had18,000 students.  Dr. Rhodes said there were 451 students from Louisa, which equaled two percent of all Reynolds enrollment.  Dr. Rhodes said in 2007, 11 of the graduates were from Louisa.  Dr. Rhodes said in 2005/2006, three Louisa students transferred to four-year colleges or universities.                                                                                           
Dr. Rhodes said students go to community colleges for one of three reasons;  they intend to go a four-year college and start at a community college to spend less money,  they want to take a career program or for workforce development.

Dr. Rhodes said there was a dual enrollment program with Louisa County High School with 411 enrollments.  Dr. Rhodes said several courses were offered that allowed High School students to get college credits.  

Dr. Rhodes thanked the Board for their support.  Dr. Rhodes said the college was growing and would continue to grow.  Dr. Rhodes said there were now three campuses.  Dr. Rhodes introduced Ms. Doris McCray to the Board.

Ms. McCray said she was in her seventh year as a Board member of J. Sargeant Reynolds and she really has enjoyed it and it had been a revelation to her.  Ms. McCray said she could not speak highly enough of J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College.  Ms. McCray said with all community colleges you get more bounce for your buck.


Ms. McCray said the middle college had 130 students graduate this year.  Ms. McCray said that school is for students who didnt graduate fromHigh School.  Ms. McCray said those students were able to obtain their GED and they were thrilled.  

Ms. McCray said she had a challenge for the Board after June if there were any three of the Board members that would like to have a tour she would take them herself.  


Dr. Rhodes said this year there were 1,000 students graduating.

Mr. Gentry said he has been to the facilities several time and the facilities and the people were great.

Mr. Byers said he attended J. Sargeant Reynolds several years ago and it was an affordable opportunity for people that would not be able to afford college otherwise.  Mr. Byers said he appreciated what community colleges did.

Mr. Spencer said he taught state inspection at the Goochland and Parham Road campuses.  Mr. Spencer said he thought it was great that they were able teach people who didnt have GEDs and could barely read to do state inspections.  

Mr. Harper thanked Dr. Rhodes and said community colleges played a significant roll in Louisa and Virginia as a whole.


CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:40 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

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


REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:05 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 19th day of May 2008, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and

WHEREAS, §2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 19th day of May 2008,, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearing - REZ02-08; William H. Towsey, Jr., Applicant; Glawson Holdings, LLC, Owners; request rezoning of approximately 22.00 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to General Commercial (C-2).  The property is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 522 (Zachary Taylor Highway) and Route 623 (Chopping Road).  

Mr. Coffey said the rezoning was in the Mineral voting district.

The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential adjoining Community Service in the Lake Anna Designated Growth Area.

The application indicates that the initial purpose for the rezoning was to relocate an existing approved Home Occupation Class B business, by constructing a showroom with maintenance for tractors, lawn mowers, implements, etc. as well as office space.  

A primary benefit to the proposed rezoning application is the specific geography that is being examined.  That is to say 22 acres that are logically defined by current zoning, two major roadways, adjacent commercial zoning, and very close proximity to the Lake Anna Growth Area.  The fact that this parcel lies along a primary highway (U.S. Route 522) should have no bearing on whether this application is approved or denied.  Proximity to a primary highway is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to rezone a property for commercial use.  Proximity to a growth area may be a logical reason, in addition to other considerations such as the existing transportation network, adjacent property uses, etc.

There was one person other than the applicant and their representative, at the Neighborhood Meeting held on March 12, 2008.  The applicants agent explained the request and addressed questions asked by the individual present relating to hours of operation, lighting, proposed uses and entrances to the property.  The agent explained that through this process they would be taking the comments received and developing a set of proffers to submit which may include buffers, limiting C-2 uses, lighting, etc.

The DRC met on March 26, 2008 and had a lengthy discussion regarding this project.  They generally agreed that the area would be a good location for the applicants business, but there were significant concerns regarding the “openness”, or lack of specificity, of the rezoning request, as well as the amount of unknowns associated with possible future businesses.  

Mr. Spencer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Speer, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission provided that more information is provided at that meeting.  The motion passed 5-0.  Information requested includes, but is not limited to, a concept plan for the 22 acres showing proposed entrances (one on 522 and one on 623) and buffers (minimum of 50 feet), dark-sky lighting, compliance with all applicable VDOT and VDH requirements, and proposed uses to either be proffered in or out for the project.  

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 10, 2008, at which three people spoke, expressing their concerns for commercial zoning on this property.   These individuals indicated that they did not feel that enough information was provided on the types of commercial uses and that once commercial came into the area it would continue expanding.

A motion was made to forward a recommendation of approval, on the requested rezoning with the proffers submitted by the application, to the Board of Supervisors, which passed 6-0 (with Mr. Speer absent).  It was discussed that there is a history of previous commercial activity in the area along with the current business and that the proposal is within those traditions.

Mr. Coffey said there was text change in #3.

On April 3, 2008 draft proffers were submitted, as summarized below and attached:

1. Vegetative buffer at least 50 feet in width, as indicated, in accordance with the Louisa County Plant Material List.

2. One entrance to the subject property from each U.S. Route 522 and State Route 623, in accordance with VDOT requirements.

3. A listing of excluded uses.

4.  Dark sky lighting requirements.

5.  Utility locations determined by Virginia Department of Health (VDH).

In conclusion the Board may wish to consider the potential precedent set by this rezoning for future C-2 applications adjacent to, but not located in, growth areas.  The Board should also consider any potential adverse impacts of the development such as the effect on the character of the area, water quality, traffic, adjacent uses, etc.

Mr. Harper asked if Mr. Coffey felt like he received everything he asked for.  Mr. Coffey said he didnt ask for much to be honest.  Mr. Coffey said it was a relatively simple rezoning process and wasnt the most comprehensive rezoning package he had seen, but it was what it was.

Mr. Havasy said he was concerned about the statement that said final signed proffers had not yet been received.  Mr. Coffey said at the time the statement that was written was true; however, they received the final proffers today and the Board members each had a copy of them.

Mr. Byers asked were hours of operation typically listed.  Mr. Coffey said with his experience with rezoning no they do not.  Mr. Coffey said with a CUP that tends to be typical.

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

Mr. Lillie stated they always look for comments from neighbors or anyone else before compiling the final list of proffers. Mr. Lillie said they try not to do the final proffers until they get to the Board level.  Mr. Lillie said they hadnt had any comments and therefore, what has been proffered out came from the applicant.  Mr. Lillie said it was the applicants church that adjoined the property.

Mr. Harper asked was there a concept plan.

Mr. Lillie said yes.  Mr. Lillie said there was a sketch of one that showed the location.  Mr. Lillie said he took the highway departments take for Route 522 and surrounding plats and overlaid it on the same scale.  Mr. Lillie said there was a large scale that goes through the center of the property east to west and divided the property into  northern and southern parts.  Mr. Lillie said he divided the southern part of the property into three areas.  Mr. Lillie said the first part, which was at the intersection of Routes 533 and 623, would be where the applicant would locate his business.  Mr. Lillie said part two would also be developed at that time.  Mr. Lillie said they werent sure what would go there, there had been talk of putting a dry storage area there.  Mr. Lillie said and for the area marked as number three, they didnt have any idea what would go there.  Mr. Lillie said there would be an entrance off of both Routes 522 and 623.

Mr. Havasy asked for a copy of the concept plan.

Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Coffey if the applicant had done what he requested and was he satisfied.  Mr. Coffey said yes he was satisfied.  Mr. Coffey said the public input was minimal.  Mr. Coffey said it wasnt the fanciest rezoning application, but it didnt have to be.  Mr. Coffey said they do have a buffer which was pretty important.  Mr. Coffey said in his opinion it was a sufficient application.

Mr. Harper said the area for the rezoning was a suitable area.  Mr. Harper said there had already been some precedents set and it was close enough to the growth area to be considered.  

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the rezoning of approximately 22.00 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to General Commercial (C-2).  The property is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 522 (Zachary Taylor Highway) and Route 623 (Chopping Road).  

Public Hearing - CUP03-08; Chris Hilkert, Applicant; H. William and Melissa Gard, Owners; request the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 86-107. (3) Height regulations of the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a 47-foot residence height where a 40-foot maximum is allowed.  

The property is located on the west side of Route 522 (Zachary Taylor Highway) in Georgetown Estates Subdivision, Lot 7 and is in the Mineral Voting District.

This request is for the issuance of a conditional use permit for at 47-foot tall single-family residential structure.  Per the Zoning Ordinance, section 86-107 (3), residential structures over 40 feet require a conditional use permit.  This structure is requesting seven additional feet to the by-right maximum of 40 feet.  

Staff has identified no detrimental impacts this additional height may have on the surrounding area.  The scale of the structure is compatible with that of the propertys topography, the surrounding properties, and the style of architecture that is planned for this subdivision.  In fact, the developer, who is also the owner of two adjacent parcels, has submitted a letter of support for this application.

There was no one present to speak during the Neighborhood Meeting held on March 12, 2008.

            The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 10, 2008, at which no one was present to speak other than the applicant.  The Planning Commission did not express any concerns and by a vote of 6-0 (with Mr. Speer absent) voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors on the requested conditional use permit.

It does not appear that the requested conditional use permit for a 47 tall residential structure will have an adverse impact on the area.  If this permit is approved the following condition is recommended, along with any other deemed appropriate by the Board:

1.        The maximum height of the structure shall be no more than 47 feet as defined by the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance, “Height, building The vertical distance measured from the adjoining grade at the front entrance of the building or structure to the highest point of the structure.” and as determined in the field by a building inspector.

Mr. Wright asked when was the height restriction put in.  Mr. Coffey said he did not know when it was put in.

Mr. Byers asked was there a state requirement that would deal with height that this would be in contradiction to.  Mr. Coffey said no, not that he was aware of.  Mr. Coffey said height restrictions were local jurisdiction authority, unless there was a unique situation.

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

Mr. Harper said he would take more consideration if homes were already in the subdivision; however, since that would be the first house in the subdivision, potential owners would be able to see what was already there.


On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 86-107. (3) Height regulations of the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a 47-foot residence height where a 40-foot maximum is allowed.  

Public Hearing - CUP02-08; David and Susan Clark, Applicants; David and Susan Clark (REES Holdings IV LLC), Owners; request the issuance of a conditional use permit for the operation of a commercial stable, to include a boarding facility, riding academies and hosting events

The property is located on the northeast side of Route 646 (Yanceyville Road), at the intersection with Route 604 (Roundabout Road) and is in the Mineral Voting District.  

This use is potentially compatible to the surrounding agricultural area depending on the nature and frequency of events, with particular regard to traffic generation and noise.  The number of boarded horses does not appear to be an issue.  The number and type of events is a concern to many area residents.

There were sixteen people present including the applicants at the Neighborhood Meeting held on March 12, 2008.  The questions and concerns expressed dealt with the following issues:

-        Number of people at the events (control crowds at gate)
-        Maximum number of horses (number of horse trailers)
-        Additional traffic
-        Parking
-        Law enforcement on-site during events
-        Artificial lighting
-        Noise levels
-        Seasonal or year round activity
-        Insurance for leasing property
-        Sanitary conditions (human and animal)
-        Trash disposal
-        Outside vendors on-site

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 10, 2008 at which two people were present and spoke during the public hearing.  The first individual stated their concerns regarding the entrance to the property and line of sight.  His concern is for safety only and not the plans for the farm.  The second individual stated their support of the proposal.

There was a lot of discussion between the Planning Commission members and the applicants regarding the proposed use and conditions of the CUP.  There was discussion about the entrance, lighting, fees charged for events, crowd control and number of participants, spectators, etc.

A motion was made to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.  The motion passed 6-0 (with Mr. Speer absent) with the following conditions being recommended:

1.        Submission and approval of a site plan in accordance with the Louisa County Site plan regulations prior to issuance of any building permits (Administrative Review).

2.        Horses will be boarded (stalled or pastured) using “Best Management Practices” as dictated by the Virginia Extension Service.  This does not include horses onsite associated with event activities.

3.        Hours of operation for the facility are 8:00am 9:00pm daily, except when events are held.  Events shall be concluded no later than 11:00 pm.

4.        The Louisa County Sheriffs Office shall be notified at least one week prior to any scheduled events that will have more than either 50 horses or 100 attendees, whichever is greater.  Event staff will be   designated specifically for traffic control during events at or above this threshold.

5.        Adequate provisions shall be made for waste removal, restrooms, food preparation and other accommodations as required by the Virginia Department of Health and other state or local agencies.

6.        No more than one special event shall be conducted at one time

7.        
No other entertainment events are allowed under this permit.

8.        Dark-sky lighting shall be used on the property (shielded, downward directed light fixtures).

9.        Violation of any of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of this conditional Use Permit.

10.        The Board of Supervisors or their designated representative reserves the right to inspect the premises at any time without prior notice.

11.        Entrance approval granted by VDOT, along with any required sight distances and signage.

12.        This Conditional Use Permit is not transferable to another applicant or owner.

The Board may wish to consider the possible impact on surrounding properties and the amount of traffic generated by events on Yanceyville Road.  If the use is determined to be appropriate, the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, above, are suggested along with any others deemed appropriate by the Board.

Ms. Susan Clark asked that the Board consider removing condition twelve.  Ms. Clark said it was added at the last minute at the Planning Commission meeting.  Ms. Clark said it was mentioned in a way that discussion would have been welcomed; however, there was no discussion.  Ms. Clark said she nor her husband had an opportunity to respond at the Planning Commission meeting.  Ms. Clark said after going through this process which was somewhat of an ordeal.  Ms. Clark said if her and husband decided to leave the business to their children they shouldnt have to go through the same ordeal.  Ms. Clark said she felt the conditions should transfer with the property.  Ms. Clark said as a business it would be valuable to them to have those conditions in place.  Ms. Clark said from a community standpoint if the business was sold the new owner they would have to adhere to the conditions.

Mr. Byers asked were they building any structures or facilities there that would lend themselves to this particular type of operation.  Ms. Clark said they were finishing completion on a twelve stall barn for boarding and they were adding a 120-foot by 240-foot covered arena.  Ms. Clark said the arena sat lower than the barn so it should be pretty well hidden.  Ms. Clark said they had tree border around the property and she believed the roof of the arena was below tree height or right at tree height.  

Mr. Byers asked were the structures permanent.  Ms. Clark said yes the arena was a steel building.

Mr. Harper asked was the arena open on both ends. Ms. Clark said yes.

Mr. Gentry asked if she had found out if VDOT had approved the entrance.  Ms. Clark said that they receive a letter from VDOT that said the permit had been approved for widening the entrance to accommodate horse trailers and horse shows.

Mr. Wright asked what would Ms. Clark predict to be a normal crowd.  Ms. Clark said as far the number of people it would probably be between ten to twenty-five competitors and family members.  Ms. Clark said they have offered the facility to the local 4-H and that would probably draw the most spectators.

Mr. Harper said condition number four sets a limit of 50 horses with 100 attendees.  Mr. Coffey said condition number four has a 50 horse or 100 attendee trigger before the Sheriffs department was notified.  Mr. Coffey said the condition was currently worded where there was not a hard limit.  Mr. Coffey said that would be up to the Board, but he didnt want to let any inaccuracies past.  Mr. Harper thanked Mr. Coffey.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.  

Mr. Randy Tingler Louisa District stated he came to speak in favor of the project.  Mr. Tingler said he owned quite a few properties in that area.  Mr. Tingler said there was a lot of agricultural properties in the area.  Mr. Tingler said if the goal was to promote agriculture in Louisa County then we had to be willing to promote agricultural businesses.  Mr. Tingler said if Louisa County wants to stay rural and agricultural we need to have something for the agricultural products to be consumed and used by. Mr. Tingler said this business worked in well for Louisa County.

Mr. Tingler said thank you to Mr. Coffey and that he appreciated him.

Ms. Sarah Barlow Mountain Road District stated she represented the Louisa County Virginia Cooperative Extension Office.  Ms. Barlow said Louisa was a prime location for growth and has certainly been growing.  Ms. Barlow said the county has been striving to maintain the agricultural background that the county was founded on.  Ms. Barlow said it certainly wasnt the housing developments that made Louisa County a beautiful place to live and work in.  Ms. Barlow said it was agricultural businesses like Mr. Clarks that needed to be promoted within the area.  Ms. Barlow said Mr. Clark would be keeping the agricultural background that was appreciated here in Louisa County.  Ms. Barlow said Mr. Clark was not going to be dismantling another one of Louisas farms and turning it into a housing development.  Ms. Barlow said the Clarks         seem to be very service oriented people.   Ms. Barlow said they have already offered the facilities they are still building for uses like 4-H and FFA.  Ms. Barlow said she urges the Board to approve the CUP.

Mr. Cosby Woolfolk Mineral District
stated he had nothing against the proposal.  Mr. Woolfolk said his concern was the sight distance from their driveway looking East.  Mr. Woolfolk said he did not know how VDOT approved it.  Mr. Woolfolk said anyone could go stand in their driveway and look down the road and you could not see down 300 feet.  Mr. Woolfolk said that was his only concern with the project. Mr. Woolfolk said he lived on that the road and his property adjoins the applicants.

Mr. Woolfolk asked the Board to have VDOT look into it again.

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

Ms. Clark said in order for VDOT to give the permit to widen the driveway they would have had to evaluated the sight distance.  Ms. Clark said Route 604 has a similar or less of a sight distance.  Ms. Clark said they have met VDOT regulations.  Ms. Clark said there were driveways on Route 646 where tracker trailers have been parked.  

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Coffey how would the Board address what was given by VDOT.  Mr. Harper asked would VDOT give that permit without checking the sight distance.  Mr. Coffey said typically with these issues, he would defer to VDOT.  Mr. Coffey said the way condition eleven was worded specifically to say “e
ntrance approval granted by VDOT along with any required sight distances and signage.  Mr. Coffey said if the Board would like to emphasize the second part of the condition and ask VDOT to look at it again, they can do that.  Mr. Coffey said in his experience, VDOT does a very thorough job.  Mr. Coffey said the way the condition was worded the county was covered.  Mr. Coffey said if the Board wanted VDOT to take another look he would ask them to do so.  Mr. Coffey said VDOT has had a reversal of decision on more than one occasion lately.  

Mr. Gentry asked the applicant if there were any safety signs to reduce the speed limit.  Mr. Clark said yes, there was a 30 MPH sign on the curve almost directly across from their driveway.  

Mr. Byers asked the applicants if they would be in support if condition four was the limitation.  Ms. Clark said shed rather not be restricted.  

Mr. Byers asked Ms. Clark if deputies were required to work an event, would they be willing to pay for those deputies.  Ms. Clark said if that was what needed to be done.

Mr. Harper asked what would be a reasonable number to limit, without the applicant or future owners having to come back to the Board.  Ms. Clark said she really wasnt sure on a number. Mr. Clark said 50 horses would probably be a huge event for them.  Ms. Clark said they may have larger championship events but overall 25 horses would be the norm.

Mr. Clark said just by word of mouth they have had a very positive response.  Mr. Clark said most of the events would have 25 to 30 horses.  Mr. Clark said they have been approached to hold a two-day event that would involve more horses.  

Mr. Harper asked what could be done to keep it from getting too large.  Mr. Clark said they are looking at having a limited number of large events.  

Mr. Harper asked if the Board allowed 100 horses with 200 attendees, would that be a good limit.  Ms. Clark said it would be hard for them to get there.  

Ms. Clark said they were trying to start this business to sell it.  Ms. Clark said from the business side the conditions should transfer.  Mr. Clark said the Board was welcome to come and visit and that their brand was in the chimney so they were here to stay.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Coffey if they were to expand the arena, would they have to come before the Board.  Mr. Coffey said the expansion would not.  Mr. Coffey said if the Board set a limit it would be enforceable.

Mr. Harper said the object was not to limit the Clarks, but whoever came after them.  
Mr. Harper said he didnt have a problem with the limit of the 100 horses and 200 attendees, with the Sheriffs Office being notified at the 50/100 point.  Mr. Harper asked the Clarks would that work for them.  Mr. Clark said yes.


Mr. Barnes said he would hate to limit them.  Mr. Barnes asked would it be possible to have the condition reviewed annually.  Mr. Barnes said that would not tie them to a number.  

Mr. Coffey said he thought it would be very difficult to have an annual review of the condition.  Mr. Coffey said if there was a maximum set if the applicant thought it was too restrictive they could come back and have it amended.  

Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Coffey was condition twelve an unusual request.  Mr. Coffey said it was not unusual but probably more common for a CUP not to have that condition.  Mr. Coffey said if the use was compatible with the area then it didnt need to be on there.  Mr. Wright said there have been very few CUPs that had gone through that didnt have number twelve.  

Mr. Havasy said he was very happy with all the twelve proffers.  Mr. Havasy said he thought this business would promote what the Board wanted promoted in the county.

Mr. Spencer said the county was having a hard time getting the deputies overtime money and it had been busting the budget.  Mr. Spencer asked the applicants if they were required to have the deputies there would they be willing to pay them.  Ms. Clark said she would have to know what cost were involved with that.  

Mr. Clark asked what if they provided their own security.  Mr. Clark said the Sheriffs Office would still be notified but they would be on call.

Sheriff Fortune said any time you deal with a crowd of people law enforcement should be involved.  Sheriff Fortune said if an arrest needed to be made their security would have to call the Sheriffs Office so if would be best to have the deputies as their security.

Mr. Clark said they would then need to know the fee to have the deputies out there.

Mr. Byers said he thought the Board should remove condition number 12.  Mr. Byers said because of the type of business and if were sold or left to their children it would have to use it under the same conditions.  

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Coffey what was the intention with condition number four. Mr. Coffey said the intent was just that the Sheriffs Department would be notified so they would know that there was a medium to large event on Yanceyville Road at that location.  


Mr. Coffey said the event staff would be used for traffic control, and the intent with that was the applicant would do it or hire someone to handle the traffic.  Mr. Coffey said the intent was not to have an deputy do it or to hire an off duty deputy to do it.  

Mr. Coffey said they were conditions, not proffers.  Mr. Coffey said this was a Conditional Use Permit, not a Rezoning.  Mr. Coffey said the conditions are automatically transferable with the property unless the conditions say otherwise.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Coffey when he said traffic control was talking about putting someone out on the road.  

Mr. Coffey said yes,  someone would put on a yellow vest and direct traffic.  Mr. Coffey said he would assume there would be some liability issues.  Mr. Coffey said it hadnt been discussed prior to the meeting and he didnt know if the applicants had more specific thoughts on it.  Ms. Clark said they would hire someone to direct traffic.  Mr. Gentry said they could go to VDOT and have people certified to direct traffic.

Ms. Clark said she would like to increase the number of horses and decrease the amount of people in condition four.  

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote 7-0, the Board approved the issuance of a conditional use permit for the operation of a commercial stable, to include a boarding facility, riding academies and hosting events, with the removal condition number twelve and adding a maximum of 100 horses and 200 attendees.

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion Potential impact of North Anna Power Station, Unit 3

Mr. Coffey said Mr. Cockrell took the document received from Dominion last week and put it in a table and graph form.  Mr. Coffey said the information was very preliminary.  

Mr. Coffey said he focused his attention on the possible permanent impacts from the construction of Unit three.  Mr. Coffey said there were a few assumptions; one was based on the number of construction workers and permanent workers that would decide to reside here, that number came to 175.  Mr. Coffey said if you use the census bureaus number of 2.56 persons per household that came to 448 people.  Mr. Coffey said using an average of .38 students per household came to 67 students.  Mr. Coffey said traffic generation were 10 trips per household and water usage was 100 gallons per house.  Mr. Coffey said the table was equivalent to a 175 house subdivision.

Mr. Coffey said Dominions assumptions are 1.8 workers per vehicle.   Mr. Coffey said with busing people in the ratio would be lower and it would be more like two trips per person.  

Mr. Gentry said he was interested in where Dominion said 125 people to relocate and the county said 175 people, so the numbers are already questionable.  Mr. Gentry said even the 175 seemed pretty low to him.  

Mr. Gentry said it seems that Dominion should work with the county if the numbers were higher than that and supply some modular classrooms for the schools.  Mr. Gentry said he would had liked to have seen some offers from Dominion in that area.

Mr. Gentry said he thought Dominion did a really good job with handling the road issue.  

Mr. Gentry said the issue he did not see was the issue with the water.  Mr. Gentry said the amount of water to be used with the third Unit and the quantity of the water that may be generated through the cooling lagoon continues to be a question.  Mr. Gentry said he was told 25 million gallons of water was just an inch off the whole lake.  Mr. Gentry said water was going to a more and more precious commodity in 50 years.  Mr. Gentry said the third Unit could be engineered and would not to take the 25 million gallons out of the lake.  Mr. Gentry said he could care less about the stockholders of Dominion, his concern was with the citizens of Louisa County.  

Mr. Byers said he would like to see the availability of places for people to live.  Mr. Byers said highway safety for traffic control needed to be discussed, if there were any incidents the plans would become really important.  

Mr. Havasy said when other businesses move to the county, he doesnt remember the county asking them to jump through the hoops they are asking Dominion to jump through.  Mr. Havasy said when Wal-Mart moves in there would more of an impact of people moving in than Dominion.  Mr. Havasy said the Board needed to be fair.

Mr. Wright asked if he heard Mr. Gentry say 25 million gallons of water was one inch of water off the top of the entire lake.  Mr. Wright said one inch was 350 million gallons of water.  Mr. Wright said Dominion Power built that lake to collect the water, if it wasnt for them the water would not be there for anyone to use.  Mr. Wright said in April 1998 to October 2002 there was a four and a half year drought and it only took 90 days to fill the lake back up.

Mr. Barnes said it was part of the Boards responsibility to make sure the citizens concerns are heard.  Mr. Barnes said he wanted to reiterate his support.

Mr. Barnes said that no one is drinking the water out the lake.  Mr. Barnes said the county has to be fair to Dominion.  Mr. Barnes said its good to plan, but you may not know anything until the process starts.

Mr. Spencer said he was called last year when Cutalong was talking about taking 43 million gallons of water out the lake to do a golf course and he was told the lake would go bone dry.  Mr. Spencer said 350 million gallons was for one inch.  Mr. Spencer said he agreed that the lake was built by Dominion for the plant.  Mr. Spencer said the workers dont stay, they go back and forth.

Mr. Gentry said the fact of the matter was, it was 25 million gallons.  

Mr. Byers said he thought the Board was going in the right direction and working collectively.  

Mr. Harper said they have not always gone to the table to full agreement with Dominion, but at the end, it all works.


NEW BUSINESS

Discussion of minutes in the paper

Mr. Gentry said he didnt read the minutes of the newspaper so this had been a learning process for him.  Mr. Gentry said he thought once the minutes were approved that was what was being sent to the newspaper.  Mr. Gentry said in the future either what was approved goes to the newspaper or the changes be brought back before the Board.

Mr. Gentry said he certainly didnt want what he said changed drastically by the time it got to the newspaper.  Mr. Gentry said he heard the paper would only print eight or nine pages.  

Mr. Lintecum said a policy was created that once the minutes are summaries they would come to the Board for review.

Mr. Gentry asked if the Board would be approving the minutes twice.  Mr. Lintecum said yes and that if part of the discussion was verbatim, then all of it should be.  

Mr. Barnes said he was sick of this topic.  Mr. Barnes said in order for someone to know what was printed or not and if they did not request a FOIA, they would have had to get it from a Board member.  Mr. Barnes said the bottom line was tapes are what were the official minutes.  

Mr. Spencer said the bottom line is that what was printed should be true.  Mr. Spencer said in 1996 the minutes were put in the newspaper.  Mr. Spencer said to make the citizens aware, the citizen information period  and the minutes were brought into play.  Mr. Spencer said the minutes were available online.

Mr. Harper said that he would agree that was just a summary.  Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum to give the Board an idea what true minutes were.  


Discussion Land Acquisitions

Mr. Gentry said the county was going forward with the plans for their part of the road improvement on Route 208 at the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.  Mr. Gentry said there would be a piece of property that would require some negotiations.  Mr. Gentry said he would like the Board to authorize Mr. Lintecum or staff to start the process.  

Mr. Byers asked if the road improvements Mr. Gentry was speaking of were the right-of-way.  Mr. Gentry said yes.

It was the consensus of the Board for Mr. Lintecum to start the process.


Discussion Zion Crossroads WWTP permitting issues

Mr. Delk said last year in the budget process, Louisa Water Authority voluntarily said they would not ask for any money from the county for the operation of the Zion Crossroads Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was $60,000 the prior year.  Mr. Delk said it was taking sufficient revenue to operate the plant under normal conditions.  

Mr. Delk said there were new regulations that DEQ was not even familiar with and they have hired legal counsel to negotiate their contracts with DEQ.

Mr. Delk said he made the mistake of paying the first bill when it came.  Mr. Delk said the bills keep getting bigger and bigger.  Mr. Delk said the permit would be something the engineers would normally do if the regulations had not been changed.  

Mr. Delk said he was adding up to date what had been negotiated with DEQ and was trying to get what the county was legally entitled to.  Mr. Delk said the county could save $23.45 million depending on how the decisions were made.

Mr. Delk said he had already received another bill from the attorney.  Mr. Delk said what he was suggesting was to invoice the bill from the attorney to the county and have it paid under capital improvements, since it was part of that process.

Mr. Delk said he had $55,000 in his budget and he has already spent $71,000 at the end of the third quarter.  Mr. Delk said if was a regular renewal it would have been between $1,000 and $2,500 and he would have tried to pay it.  

Mr. Delk said there would be an additional charge and Richmond would probably be requesting more public hearings with the State Water Control Board.  Mr. Delk said he would need legal counsel at that meeting.  

Mr. Delk said he was requesting that the invoices that had been paid and the future invoices for legal counsel for the negotiation of the permit for the Zion Crossroads expansion be sent to the county to be paid under the capital improvement.


Mr. Lintecum said there was already money in the budget to pay for it and he thought it was a good investment because the county could save several million dollars.  Mr. Lintecum said it would be sticky and detailed so they needed to have the best legal counsel they could get.

Mr. Byers asked was the figure the $24 million they had spoke about.  Mr. Delk said there have been additional invoices since.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a voted 7-0, the Board approved the request to have the legal counsel invoices for the negotiation of the permit for the Zion Crossroads expansion paid through the capital improvement budget.

Resolution To adopt the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Capital budget for the County of Louisa

Mr. McLeod said the capital improvement was $24,554,285, which was an increase of $7,977,441 or 48.12 percent.  Mr. McLeod said there were five main projects that were 85.9 percent of the total, which were; Moss-Nuckols Elementary School, $9 million; Zion Crossroads Wastewater expansion, $7 million; James River water project, $3.75 million; Louisa Regional Wastewater Treatment, >$1 million; and Route 208 road project, $500,000.

Mr. McLeod said the county plans to borrow money for the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School and the Zion Crossroads Wastewater expansion.

Mr. McLeod said he summarizes the five year plan by functional groups.  Mr. McLeod said over five years, it would be $7,722,333 and the majority would be for Louisa County Public Schools.  

Mr. Spencer asked what was the $500,000 in Community Development Department.
Mr. McLeod said the $500,000 was for the revenue sharing for the road improvement on Route 208.

Mr. Spencer asked if the $11 million in Economic Development was for water and sewer.  Mr. McLeod said yes.

Mr. Wright said the date on the resolution was incorrect.  Mr. McLeod said the approved resolution would have the correct dates.

Mr. Spencer said the Board has added a lot of money to the capital improvement, but they hadnt cut anything.  Mr. McLeod said there had been cuts in capital, it was in the operational budget where money had been added.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Spencer voting against, the Board adopted a resolution to adopt the fiscal year 2008-2009 capital budget for the County of Louisa.

Resolution To adopt the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Operational budget for the County of Louisa and the Operational budget for the County of Louisa School Board

Mr. McLeod said the County Agencies budget request was $26.8 million, which was a $3.7 million or 16.02 percent increase.  

Mr. McLeod said the major increase of the $3.7 million was in Public Safety. Mr. McLeod said the Non-Departmental reflected the change the Board made at the last budget workshop for Workers Compensation and the Aid to Localities Reduction.

Mr. Gentry said the changes in the CIP were taken from the operational budget.  Mr. Gentry asked how did that work for the $210,000 for two years for the athlete fields at the new Elementary School was that taken from the operational budget.  Mr. McLeod said no. Mr. McLeod explained that the Board made close to $1 million worth of cuts in capital and then added back $210,000 in FY 09 and FY 10.   Mr. McLeod said overall capital was reduced.  

Mr. McLeod said the Schools had the largest penny increase of 1.12 pennies,  Sheriffs Polices was next with 1.06 pennies and Non-Departmental was third with a .96 penny increase.  Mr. McLeod said the Department of Social Services had gone up to .25 pennies for the option five the Board approved at the work session.

Mr. Byers said he could not support the budget as presented for a number of reasons.  Mr. Byers said he could support portions of the budget like a standard of living increase for employees and additional law enforcement.  Mr. Byers said the Board had given three percent as the limit to increase and there are some who had increased to 112 percent.  

Mr. Byers said the Board needed to be good stewards of the monies that the county collected.  Mr. Byers said a critical look needed to be taken at the services that are rendered and establish some efficiencies.  Mr. Byers said he didnt feel like all the information needed was collected for him to say that all the increases were justified.  Mr. Byers said he believed the county was delivering services that did not add to the citizens or make public safety any greater.  Mr. Byers said raising the budget 18 percent was a lot.  

Mr. Harper said if the Board had gone with what the County Administrator recommended he could support it.  Mr. Harper said the Board had added over $700,000 above and he was not going to support this part of the budget.

Mr. Wright said he would like to make a motion to adopt a resolution for the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Operational budget for the County of Louisa and the Operational budget for the County of Louisa School Board. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Harper requested a roll call.

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


With the votes reflecting 4-3, the motion failed to adopt a resolution to approve the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Operational budget for the County of Louisa and the Operational budget for the County of Louisa School Board.

Mr. Gentry said he was concerned that the Board had been through all the budget workshops and gone over item after item and now there seems to be differences of opinions with some Board members. Mr. Gentry said there was a problem somewhere.  Mr. Wright said the Board had gone through the budget item by item.   Mr. Gentry said the Board didnt agree on all the items but they did come to a consensus.

Mr. Barnes said there has been workshop after workshop.  Mr. Barnes said the Board has told the School three percent and they have issued contracts and now they dont even have a budget to pay their contracts.  Mr. Barnes said there are certain services that people expect. Mr. Barnes said the county has collected a lot of tax dollars from making investments like Zions Crossroads.  Mr. Barnes said if the Board wanted to save that one penny they could go to Zions Crossroads and stop all the construction.    Mr. Barnes said the Board needed to move forward

Mr. Byers said the Board needed look at what they are doing and look at efficiency.  Mr. Byers said county government needed to be reduced.  Mr. Byers said he hadnt changed his position since he started.

Mr. Wright said two or three years ago the county had a detailed audit.  Mr. Wright said the auditors looked at every position and the county had a very acceptable audit.  Mr. Byers said he looked at that study and he did not believe it looked at the efficiencies.  Mr. Wright said efficiencies are generally objective.

Mr. Havasy said he thought Mr. Barnes made some good points.  Mr. Havasy said people were making plans on what the Board already indicated.  Mr. Havasy said he would like to reconsider the vote.


Mr. Havasy said he would like to make a motion to reconsider the vote to adopting the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Operational budget for the County of Louisa and the Operational budget for the County of Louisa School Board.  Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.  Mr. Harper requested a roll call.

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


With the votes reflecting 4-3, the motion passed to reconsider the vote to adopt the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Operational budget for the County of Louisa and the Operational budget for the County of Louisa School Board.

Mr. Morgan said the vote to reconsider passed, but there needed to be vote to adopt the budget.

Mr. Havasy said he would like to make a motion to adopt the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Operational budget for the County of Louisa and the Operational budget for the County of Louisa School Board.  Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.  Mr. Harper requested a roll call.

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

With the votes reflecting 4-3, the motion passed to adopt the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Operational budget for the County of Louisa and the Operational budget for the County of Louisa School Board.


Resolution To set the tax levy for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for Real Estate, Tangible Personal Property, Merchants Capital, Machinery And Tools


Mr. McLeod said currently the tax rate was $.62 per $100 for real estate, $1.90 for tangible personal property tax, $1.90 for machinery and tools, $.65 for merchants capital, and $.48 for aircraft.

Mr. Wright said he would like to make a motion to adopt a resolution to set the tax levy for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for Real Estate, Tangible Personal Property, Merchants Capital, Machinery And Tools.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Harper requested a roll call.

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

With the votes reflecting 6-1, the motion passed to adopt a resolution to set the tax levy for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for Real Estate, Tangible Personal Property, Merchants Capital, Machinery And Tools.

Resolution To adopt the changes to the personal property tax relief act of 1998

Mr. McLeod said the percentage would continue to drop.  Mr. McLeod said it was in the high 40s last and it 43.21 percent this time.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the changes to the personal property tax relief act of 1998.

Discussion Technology Student Association at Louisa County Middle School

Mr. Barnes asked if the Board could present the students with a resolution of accomplishment.  Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Lintecum to call the superintendent to find out if the students are going to the national competition and if they arent why.  Mr. Lintecum said yes.

Mr. Gentry said for Mr. Lintecum to let the Superintendent know the Board strongly supported the students going.  

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Havasy said Hall Tavern had moved and he would like to thank the Schools communications group, who came out with cameras and video.  Mr. Havasy said the whole move would be documented.  

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum to write a thank you letter from the Board to Mr. Hoffman and his crew, expressing their thanks.

Mr. Gentry said the Louisa County museum opened up.  Mr. Gentry said for those who hadnt been there they should go visit.  


BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Spencer stated he would like to reappoint George Jones to the Board of Road Viewers.  Mr. Byers stated he would like to appoint Stanley Gonyo to the Affordable Housing Committee.  Mr. Harper stated he would like to reappoint  Donna Burns to the Thomas Jefferson EMS Council.  

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Mr. Jones to the Board of Road Viewers, Mr. Gonyo to the Affordable Housing Committee and Ms. Burns to the Thomas Jefferson EMS Council.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Mr. Spencer said he spoke to Jason Pauley on taking the roads into the secondary system and everything looked great.

Resolution To take two (2) streets in the Hopeful Church Estates Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to take two (2) streets in the Hopeful Church Estates Subdivision into the secondary system of highways in Louisa County, Virginia.

Resolution For a supplemental appropriation to the animal shelter for funds donated

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the animal shelter for funds donated.

Resolution For a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for funds donated for the summer DARE camp program

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for funds donated for the summer DARE camp program.

Resolution For a supplemental appropriation to the Social Services Department for additional State and Federal Funds for Third Quarter

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Social Services Department for additional State and Federal Funds for Third Quarter.

Resolution For a supplemental appropriation for Animal Control

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

Resolution For a supplemental appropriation for Local Law Enforcement Mini-Block Grant for Sheriffs Office

On motion of Mr. Gentry , seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation for Local Law Enforcement Mini-Block Grant for Sheriffs Office

Resolution For a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for PSAP Wireless 911 Grant

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for PSAP Wireless 911 Grant

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum stated the Board needed to schedule a public hearing to amend the County Code regarding the vehicle license tax.   Mr. Lintecum said the hearing could be set for Monday, June 16, 2008. Mr. Lintecum said the Board needed to conduct a work session to discuss the various methods in establishing such a tax. Mr. Lintecum asked when the Board like to set a work session.  

It was a consensus of the Board to hold the workshop at 5:00 p.m. on June 2, 2008.

Mr. Byers said he could see the county doing away with decals if it would free up some employees to be replaced or put into other positions.  

Mr. Harper said going forward the budget committee needed to be resurrected.

Mr. Gentry asked what was going on with the Bunting house.  Mr. Lintecum said there was a grant to see if it could be turned into a group home and they were still working on that.  Mr. Lintecum said the county had to make the decision to put a new roof on it because it would have gotten damaged.

Mr. Spencer said the American Legion was still interested in leasing the old library and they were willing to leave it open for Park and Recreation.  Mr. Spencer asked for Mr. Lintecum to look into it.  Mr. Gentry said the old library could be used for several things including Parks and Recreation.  

Mr. Lintecum said he had received correspondence from the Reading Windows asking to renew their lease and he told them the Board needed to make a decision on what was going to be done with the building.  Mr. Spencer said the county was spending $800 a month to heat and cool the old library and it would be better to let the American Legion pay the bills.  

Mr. Barnes said he wanted to make sure the Board was going to be consistent as in the past and advertise it for anyone to use.  Mr. Barnes said there may be a group that didnt know that the building was available.

Mr. Gentry said with those that were already in there and the America Legion there probably wouldnt be room for anyone else.

Mr. Barnes said he just wants the Board to publicize it so that its fair to other groups who may be interested.  Mr. Barnes said if someone came to him he wants to be able to say it was opened to everyone.

Mr. Spencer said the American Legion would take it and handle all the up keep.  Mr. Spencer asked would advertisement be for someone else that would do the same.

Mr. Wright asked was American Legion going to provide additional parking spaces.  Mr. Wright said their were only four parking spaces.  Mr. Spencer said that was why it was worthless to the county.  

Mr. Gentry said if someone puts a proposal in, would it say if they would allow other groups to use it.  Mr. Gentry asked was the county going to give the group that gets the building the right to specify.

Mr. Harper said he doesnt know how many people Reading Windows works with during the year but if its two people, he wouldnt put them on the street.

It was a consensus of the Board for Mr. Lintecum to bring information back to the Board regarding the old library.  


APPROVAL OF BILLS

Mr. Byers asked if their were sufficient funds appropriated to cover all the bills.  Mr. McLeod said their was one issue under the county attorney and he would bring the Board a request for a supplemental appropriation at the next meeting.

        On motion of Mr. Spencer seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with the Mr. Gentry abstaining from bills pertaining to him, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of May 2008 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $248,053.82.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the May 5, 2008 meeting.

RECESS

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the May 19, 2008 meeting at 9:04 p.m.


BY ORDER OF


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