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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
August 28, 2006
5:00 P.M.



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 Michele Doty, Deputy Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Barnes called the August 28, 2006 special work session of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m.  Mr. Jennings led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Wright indicated that he would like to present a letter to the Board for discussion at the upcoming workshop.   Mr. Gentry stated that he would like to open discussion on the amendments to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances uses and definitions.  Mr. Havasy said he would like to make a comment later about the heat related resources that were utilized during the first part of August.

        On motion by Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the agenda as amended

DISCUSSION CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SETTING REIMBURSEMENT PERCENTAGE FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF ACT

Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator, explained that the PPTRA program which had been implemented by Jim Gilmore became too rich for General Assembly and last year they placed a cap on it.  In December it was discussed at the Board level that we needed to change the ordinance to reflect what the State had done and this change was made.  The next step was to discuss this again during the budget phase at which time the Commissioner would  set the rate.  It was decided by the Commissioner during the budget phase for the rate to be 52% however a resolution was not done at that time.  It is now before the Board to adopt this resolution so the Commissioner can set the rate and billing can be done.

During discussion with the Board Mr. Wright questioned what would happen if this was not adopted as written and Mr. McLeod informed the Board that it would go back to the previous rate which would cause the County to lose revenue.  It was further clarified that the tax rate has already been adopted and this will adopt the percentage of reimbursement.  Mr. Wright stated that it will be important to make sure this rate change is communicated properly to our citizens to avoid confusion.

        On motion by Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt a resolution to adopt the changes to the personal property tax relief act of 1998.

CONSIDERATION OF LETTER

A letter from Mr. Wright was provided to the Board for their consideration prior to the meeting on September 11th.

DISCUSSION OF USES AND DEFINITIONS

Mr. Gentry stated that since no action had been taken at the August meeting in regard to the uses and definitions he wanted to put this item on the table for discussion in preparation for the September meeting.

Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development, indicated that he wanted to follow up with the Board on comments made at the August 1st meeting.  

Mr. Coffey indicated that staff has taken another look at the definition of accessory apartment.  The proposed definition would not change the intent of what the Board passed in April in regard to affordable housing but rather to reign it in and define it more clearly.  Mr. Coffey asked the Board to consider the change in the accessory apartment as part of the process.  Mr. Harper pointed out that a six-month requirement on an accessory apartment may become an enforcement problem if someone wanted to rent their apartment for only three months.  Mr. Coffey stated that this time frame was included to differentiate between a guest house/cottage which requires a CUP or an accessory apartment which would typically be for six months or longer to provide stable, affordable housing for low to moderate income individuals.

Mr. Coffey stated that permanent saw mill is currently listed as a conditional use in A-1 and it was suggested that this should be by-right in A-1.  Mr. Coffey explained that there are two categories of a saw mill, temporary which is allowed as proposed by-right in A-1, A-2 and IND and permanent which is allowed by-right in IND and requires a CUP for A-1.  During discussion by the Board it was agreed to leave permanent saw mill as by-right in industrial and continue to require a CUP for A-1 which will give the Board the opportunity to review and consider the size of the lot and the size of the mill being proposed.  

Mr. Coffey indicated that the definition of commercial stable is for large operations and is recommended currently as by-right in A-2.  He suggested that there was some concern that perhaps this should require a CUP in A-2 as A-2 is sometimes residential.  Mr. Harper indicated that there are additional concerns about private stables in A-2.  Mr. Coffey indicated that currently as proposed private stables are by-right in A-1 or A-2.  He further noted that there could be minimum acreage requirements set for the housing of agricultural farm related animals in A-2.  It was agreed that the topic of private stables would be further addressed at September 11
th meeting.  The Board agreed that a commercial stable should require a CUP in A-2.

Mr. Coffey indicated the relevance of the guest room definition had been questioned and the definition stated this is a room which is intended, arranged or occupied by one or more guest paying direct or indirect compensation therefore in which no provisions are made for cooking.   He stated that this is not an accessory apartment nor a guest house and asked if this should be regulated.  Mr. Coffey indicated that this is currently by-right in A-1 and RD and requires a CUP in A-2, R-1 and R-2.  Mr. Wright questioned to what degree this was an issue and Mr. Coffey suggested that currently there is none but future expansion in the county could create one.  Mr. Coffey pointed out that under the proposed definition anybody renting a guest room anywhere in the county in R-1, R-2 or A-2 would be required to have a CUP.  The Board agreed that this is too restrictive and should be by-right in A-1, A-2, R-1, R-2 and RD, and if this becomes a problem in the future it can be addressed at that time by requiring a CUP.  

Mr. Coffey next addressed hotels which are currently proposed in A-2 as a CUP and indicated there was some question as to whether a hotel should be allowed at all in A-2.  Mr. Wright indicated that A-2 is meant to be agricultural related and expressed the need to utilize these areas as they should be.  Mr. Coffey informed the Board that hotels are recommended as a CUP for C-1 and by-right in C-2 and RD and currently under the motel definition are allowed in A-2. The Board agreed that this should not be an issue as they cannot see a flood of hotel/motels come into these growth areas.  The Board agreed that hotels should be removed from the A-2 areas.

Mr. Coffey informed the Board that nursing home is also listed as conditional use in A-2, R-1 and R-2 and by-right in C-1 and C-2.  There was some question as to whether nursing homes should be in A-2 as these areas were originally intended to be agricultural.  Mr. Barnes noted that without water and sewer in these areas it would be difficult to accommodate 60-75 people.  The Board agreed that there would have to be size limits set due to the water and sewer restraints.  Mr. Purcell pointed out that a CUP will allow the Board to have control over these requests and place conditions on them if necessary.  The Board agreed to leave nursing home in the A-2, R-1 and R-2 areas requiring a CUP.  

Mr. Coffey indicated that the last definition for discussion was that of shooting ranges.  He indicated that the indoor and outdoor shooting ranges are both proposed to be by CUP in A-1 and A-2.  An indoor shooting range is also proposed to be allowed by CUP in C-1, C-2 and Industrial.  The outdoor shooting range is allowed by CUP in A-1, A-2, and in the industrial district.  The private shooting range is currently proposed by-right in only A-1 and A-2 with any size lot.  The Planning Commission discussed this and agreed to prohibit this use on properties less than 5 acres in size or in subdivisions, however this was reversed at the public hearing and the definition was unchanged and the use allowed by-right in the agricultural districts.  Mr. Barnes recommended that three acres be a minimum lot size for a private shooting range and anything under three acres would need a CUP.  Mr. Jennings expressed his concern on how this restriction will affect fund-raising activities by hunt clubs who have less than three acres.  During discussion by the Board it was agreed that due to the time necessary to obtain a CUP, charitable organizations would be allowed to obtain a permit for special events at an inexpensive fee.  Mr. Harper indicated that he understands the safety issue brought up but there is also an issue with the noise of discharging a firearm.  On Mr. Barnes suggestion the Board agreed that archery should be removed from this definition.  Mr. Havasy noted this is not a safety issue yet and that we are trying to be proactive with all the subdivisions coming in.  Mr. Coffey raised the issue as to whether a commercial indoor/outdoor facility should be allowed in A-1 or A-2 with a CUP.  Mr. Barnes noted that in a true A-1 you should be able to do as you wish.  Mr. Havasy noted that indoor ranges pose no safety or noise threat, and that shooting and hunting go hand in hand and they are part of the rural nature that we are trying to preserve in our county.  Mr. Havasy also pointed out that with a CUP the Board and Planning Commission always have the right to vote down these proposals if there are safety and welfare issues.  Mr. Wright asked about shooting preserves and Mr. Coffey indicated that shooting preserve is not a definition and is not specifically outlined.  He indicated that this would be by-right or covered under the outdoor shooting range definition depending on the nature of the activity, if it is for a hunt club it is not regulated, it is a by-right use.  Following extensive Board discussion it was agreed to leave the requirement of a CUP for commercial facilities, leave shooting range and private shooting range as by-right in A-1 and A-2, modify the definition to require a minimum lot size of three acres, remove subdivisions and archery from the definition, indicate the special permit allowed by fundraisers on properties under three acres and to add a section in the county code under the firearms ordinance on how to apply for a fundraiser permit.

DISCUSSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS

Mr. Coffey provided a slide of the land use map for reference during discussion with the Board.  

Mr. Havasy noticed some of the changes that were made in the western part and questioned why the section on Rt. 250 Three Notch Road was taken out of mixed use.  Mr. Barnes indicated that he had talked to Darren Coffey and Bob Gibson regarding this area and that there were residents in that area that were afraid of commercial activity coming right up to them.  This area is primarily residential and initially it was the entire section, however they took out the area which was referenced in a resident petition the was received.  Mr. Havasy said he is concerned that Fluvanna has backed up their growth area right next to ours and questions what will happen when a developer does come into that area.  Mr. Barnes stated that he had discussed this with residents and presently they have no intention of moving. Mr. Purcell questioned whether the county had reserved the VDOT right-of-way to run water and sewer lines irrespective of the zoning of the property at that time and Mr. Barnes indicated that they had.  Mr. Havasy stated that there are some uniquely historic houses especially in the Boswell Tavern area and in talking with Mr. Coffey, although no plans have been made, he would really like to make this a significant area and make it unique.  

Mr. Purcell indicated that the only issue he had with his district was the boundaries of the Trevilian Station Battlefield.  He indicated that he doesnt care if the boundaries reflect the land that the Battlefield actually owns, but he doesnt want a situation where this map could be used to influence other peoples land use decisions and feels that the lines should be removed from areas that they do not own.  Mr. Wright suggested having a separate section of the comprehensive plan that addresses historical areas but not necessarily identify them on the map.  Mr. Purcell agreed, stating he feels it should be recognized as a resource that the county is proud of.  Mr. Coffey asked if these maps would be a separate amendment that could be done at a later date due to the time that would be required to gather this information and the Board agreed that this could be done at a later time.  Mr. Purcell again stressed the need for these maps to reflect only the parcels that are owned by the Trevilian Battlefield Station so that the citizens around them are protected.  The Board agreed that the Greens Springs area would stay on the map because it is a National Registered Historic District and the Trevilian Station Battlefield would be removed.  

Mr. Barnes indicated that he had met with Mr. Coffey and felt that since the Ferncliff area, Rt. 208 Court House Road just outside of town and Price Road are all already primarily residential these growth area should be expanded.  Mr. Barnes noted that the Ferncliff area and the Price Road area are in close proximity to the interstate and this should will have little traffic impact.  

Mr. Harper questioned the concept used to establish growth areas and thought that concentric circles would be used between the two towns which does not appear to be the case.  He indicated that there seems to be some areas that are jutted out instead of coming straight across.  Mr. Coffey indicated that he tried to stayed true to the way the comprehensive plan was previously done and that these sections jutted out because of the parcel size and the entire parcel was included.  Mr. Barnes noted that if you cut across the parcel then part of it may be mixed use and the other low-density which could pose problems.  After further discussion it was agreed to trim the low-density residential around Louisa and Mr. Coffey noted that these changes will be online tomorrow.  Mr. Harper confirmed that the 100 foot buffers were placed around water areas and Mr. Coffey indicated that they had and the open space handout he provided addresses that issue.  

Mr. Gentry stated that in general he thought the whole area of Rt. 250 Three Notch Road/I-64 corridor, particularly between Ferncliff and Zion and from Zion further west, would be identified as mixed use but understands the changes that were made.  Mr. Gentry questioned how we justify having Green Springs or Trevilian Battlefield Station on the land use map other than by possibly saying that they are no growth area.  Mr. Gentry stated that he feels that both could be removed.  

Mr. Jennings indicated that he had asked for one change in the Lake Anna growth area which increases the low-density area.  He would like to increase the growth area in the corner by Rt. 652 Kentucky Springs Road since this property is so close to the lake it would make sense to be a low-density area.  

Mr. Wright indicated that the property on Rt. 663 Owen Creek Road near the intersection of Rt. 522 Cross County Road is owned by one person and questioned why this goes up so far in this area.  He stated that this area is unique in that it is the only residentially zoned property in Mountain Road District.  Mr. Coffey indicated that he again tried to stay linear and look at the parcels and property lines.  Mr. Coffey further noted that all of this is subject to change and can be amended by the Board at any time as this is a fluid document to guide the countys future growth.  Mr. Wright stated that he would like to see this area taken off so that the property owners would not be pressured to sell their property and it would be more consistent.  Mr. Coffey indicated that these changes would be made as requested.  

Mr. Barnes thanked Mr. Coffey and his staff for their timely response to the suggestions made by the Board and the public.  Mr. Barnes confirmed that legally the Board must act on the comprehensive plan at the next meeting.    

DISCUSSION UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES

Mr. Havasy took a moment to recognize the hard work, dedication and caliber that has been shown by Louisa County staff.  Mr. Havasy extended praise and thanks to Mike Schlemmer, Ralph Bickley and the EMSAL staff for the care given during the extreme heat situation at the end of July and beginning of August.  As well Mr. Havasy thanked James Smith from Parks and Recreation and Kenny Forest from the school district for making facilities and buses available during this time.  Mr. Havasy stated that staff went above and beyond and really showed what a quality group they are in taking such good care of the citizens of Louisa County.

Mr. Purcell thanked the planning staff and planning commission for all their hard work on the comprehensive plan stating that this is a really good plan and that this plan reflects changes that were spelled out in the previous plan.  Mr. Wright commented the last comprehensive plan began in December 1999 and was not completed until September 2001 and that this process has been a welcome change.          

ADJOURNMENT

On motion by Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the August 28, 2006 special work session at  7:40 p.m.


BY ORDER OF

________________________________
FITZGERALD A. BARNES, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA