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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
OCTOBER 15, 2007
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; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Michael Schlemmer, Director of Emergency Services; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager; April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk; and Zuwana Morgan, Records Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Wright called the October 15, 2007 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Barnes led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Ms. Gloria Layne, Treasurer, stated she needed to know what decision the Board was going to make on County decals in order for her Department to make the necessary preparations.  Ms. Layne indicated that an article about Goochland County eliminating their decals was included in the Board Packet.  Mr. Wright questioned if Ms. Layne read the entire article because it stated that Goochland County didnt know yet how the landfill would determine which cars were registered in Goochland County; therefore, they were going to have to come up with a decision of how they would recognize Goochland residents.  Mr. McLeod said the Goochland Board of Supervisors approved eliminating the decals and directed staff to work out the details.  Ms. Layne said the Finance Department issued a card to part-time residents that pay their real estate taxes, but dont live in the County and questioned why something to that sense couldnt be used for all county residents that used the landfill.  

Ms. Layne indicated that dog license applications had to be sent to everyone that received a vaccination from a licensed vet.  Ms. Layne said currently, the County would have to send out about 2,700 applications for dog tags that had never been applied for before.  Ms. Layne said once the information was received from the veterinarians office, it had to be processed every ninety days.  Ms. Layne indicated that the Board needed to decide whether a three-year tag could be available along with the one-year tags.    

Ms. Layne said in November, she was going to publish the list of the 2005 real estate that was going to delinquent for the first time in the Central Virginian.


Ms. Pleasants said she had a new citizen of the County contact her about the exemption on personal property of a vehicle if he/she was a disabled veteran.  Ms. Pleasants indicated that Louisa County didnt currently have that exemption in their ordinance.  Ms. Pleasants said there are a few localities that include this exemption in their ordinance and there are others that dont.  Ms. Pleasants added 13 vehicles in the County had been issued a disabled veterans license plate, which would have been $1,800 if they were exempted this year.    

Ms. Pleasants said under the State ordinance, if a piece of property qualified for the tax relief for the elderly and disable, and if at any time during the year the property was sold or changed hands, it would give her the right to do the pro-ration and pickup the full value for the remainder of the year if it was included in the Countys ordinance as well.  Ms. Pleasants said she wanted to encourage that the Board make this change under the tax relief in the County ordinance.  Ms. Pleasants said she hadnt seen a lot of this issue in the past, but now that the program was broader and open to more people, at the present time, if this were in effect, there would be four properties that would qualify.  Ms. Pleasants indicated that most localities in the State of Virginia had this ordinance in place.  Mr. Wright suggested that Ms. Pleasants, Mr. Lintecum and Mr. Morgan bring this topic back to the Board and questioned if it could be done at one of the meetings in November.  Mr. Lintecum said yes.  


CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD

Mr. P.T. Spencer, Louisa District, stated he read in the newspaper about the water rates being frozen for one year.  Mr. Spencer said it came to the Planning Commissions attention last Thursday that the Town of Louisa got hooked for 60 hookups on the west end of the Town, which cost them $450,000.  Mr. Spencer said that was because a developer was allowed to buy the hookups before the rates went up and the court ruled that the Town had to honor the 60 hookups with no rate increase.  Mr. Spencer said the reason the Town increased the rates was to pay for the new water and sewer upgrades in Town.  Mr. Spencer said the Board voted for $21 million in tax dollars to go towards the Zion Crossroads water reserve project and the Water Authority determined the rate increase to try to alleviate the capital cost of this expenditure.  Mr. Spencer said the Water Authority stated there was a 250-unit PUD coming to Zion Crossroads and there was no time limit on when a hookup had to be used; therefore, a developer could buy 250 hookups at the current price of $6,000 and cost the County $750,000, which concerned him.  Mr. Spencer said Spring Creek put in 96 houses this year and if they do the same next year, that was $288,000 coming out of the Countys pocket as a result of the frozen rates.  Mr. Spencer indicated that he would prefer that the developers pay their own way.  

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Barnes stated he would like to add a resolution requesting that Lasley Lane (Route 633) be added as a rural rustic addition to the six-year plan for secondary roads to consent agenda.  

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to add a resolution requesting that Lasley Lane (Route 633) be added as a rural rustic addition to the six-year plan for secondary roads to consent agenda.

Mr. Barnes stated he would like to add discussion of Moss-Nuckols Elementary School to old business.  Mr. Barnes stated he would like to add discussion of County decals to old business.  Mr. Purcell stated he would like to add discussion of water and sewer rates to old business.  Mr. Jennings stated he would like to add a resolution requesting a traffic speed/safety study on Windyknight Road (Route 631) to consent agenda.  Mr. Lintecum stated he would like to add a resolution recognizing Hopeful Baptist Church for their 200th anniversary to consent agenda.  

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the October 15, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion - Moss-Nuckols Elementary School


Mr. Barnes said this has been a long process and one that he thought and hoped that both Boards had learned a lot from and he thought it was time for both Boards to move on to build an elementary school.  Mr. Barnes said in the long run, both Boards had a fiscal and philosophical responsibility to educate the children in the County in the best way possible.    

Mr. Gentry said he had the privilege of meeting with the School Construction Committee to get educated on some questions he had and, at the appropriate time, he was ready to make a recommendation.  Mr. Havasy said he attended the meeting as well and was also prepared.  


Mr. Gentry said he would like to reference the resolution that the Board made on January 3, 2006.  Mr. Gentry said he thought the Board needed to send a message out that there were some items in the resolution that were no longer appropriate for this particular school.  Mr. Gentry said the first item being a total of $16 million for the school project.  Mr. Gentry said the Board also stated they wanted a two-story construction school and he thought that requirement should be eliminated because things have changed within the last several years where that wasnt as crucial as it used to be.  Mr. Gentry added he thought the architect should design what the most economic feasible school would be.  

Mr. Gentry said the Board stated the completed school would have a capacity of 700 students/850 SOL students, which hasnt changed.  Mr. Gentry indicated that the Board said the construction manager would keep a detailed record to reflect all savings, but because a construction manager wasnt being used, that needed to be removed.  Mr. Gentry said the plans would be still be required to be reviewed and approved by the Louisa County Community Development Department.  

Mr. Gentry said the Board previously wanted the County to retain ownership of the plans and the rights of their use, but there were some philosophies that it was no longer necessary because it wasnt important if a lot of schools werent being built at one time.  Mr. Gentry added if the County was building one school every five years, there would still probably be some prior changes and he didnt think retaining ownership of the plans was quite as crucial as it was when the Board decided on it originally.  

Mr. Gentry said limited construction of the outdoor facilities, for the most part, has been completed.  Mr. Gentry said the rough grading for both the ball field and the soccer field has been completed and leveled off, but, obviously, more work could be done, which could be finished with money that had been set for site improvements.  Mr. Gentry added that Parks and Recreation would get involved as well.  

Mr. Gentry said for an 85,000 square foot school, including what site work was left to be completed and soft costs, he came up with a total of about $18 million for the school project.  Mr. Gentry said also added to the $18 million would be money for roadwork, which could be as much as $500,000.  Mr. Gentry said he determined that the total amount for the project would be about $18.5 million based on State averages of $154 per square foot and other remarks he received from the Committee.  Mr. Gentry said the $3 million that had been wasted due to closing out early contracts also needed to be mentioned in order to determine a bottom line for the project.  

Mr. Harper questioned Mr. Gentry what the $18 million included for a point of clarification.  Mr. Gentry said $18 million included the building, the site work and the soft costs.  Mr. Harper questioned if the site work was for remaining work to be completed at the site.  Mr. Gentry said it included the entire site costs, whereas, the School Board had already spent about $1 million.
 

Mr. Harper questioned when the next elementary school was thought to be needed.  Mr. Gentry said it was his opinion that another elementary school wouldnt be built for the next five years.  Mr. Harper said if another elementary school wouldnt be built for the next eight to ten years, he didnt have a problem with not owning the plans; however, if another school would be built soon, he thought it was important to own the plans.  Mr. Harper added he didnt understand why other localities could get ownership of the plans and Louisa didnt seem to be able to.  Mr. Gentry said there were some suggestions that schools in the future were going to change drastically.  Mr. Harper said that wasnt a problem.  Mr. Barnes indicated that a lot of school designs were controlled by State specs and regulations.  Mr. Harper said he didnt think the Board should look strictly at one school; he thought a ten to fifteen year building program should be looked at.  Mr. Harper indicated that based on the population growth in the County, there was a potential for another elementary, as well as a middle school in the near future.  

Mr. Barnes said he didnt want the Board to forget that ball fields werent included in the overall concept.  Mr. Barnes said the fields needed to be seeded a year in advance before the school was opened.  Mr. Gentry said there was currently a graded, flat area, which would obviously need additional work and Parks and Recreation would take it beyond the school needs for recreation so that would have to be considered in the CIP, but overall, he thought the fields were in good shape.  Mr. Harper said he thought the fields should be ready for an elementary school.  

Mr. Wright questioned why Mr. Gentry included $500,000 for the road project when the Board discussed the County taking over that responsibility because it would possibly receive shared funds.  

Mr. Wright said at the middle school, the contractor completed the fields and then the County had to redo them twice more before they were playable; therefore, just because they were included didnt mean that they would be playable.  

Mr. Wright said last year when the School Board asked for $28 million to renovate Thomas Jefferson Elementary School, he proposed that instead of renovating the building, another school should be built as soon as this one was started and the same set of plans could be used for the both buildings.  Mr. Wright added he didnt think it would take five years before another elementary school was needed.  Mr. Gentry said when he met with the Committee they also talked about the Schools getting involved with the Countys growth initiative so that they could do a better job with enrollment predictions.  

Mr. Wright requested that $500,000 be taken off the $18.5 million because that would be County expense.  Mr. Lintecum said the Board had discussed it, but never adopted a resolution.  Mr. Gentry said he thought it should be included in the resolution that the road project would be the Countys responsibility.  


Mr. Gentry stated he wanted to make the motion to commit to an allocation of $18 million for the school construction, soft costs and site work, of which, $1 million has been spent to date and this commitment was contingent on the following conditions: the Board would no longer require a two-story school, the completed school would have a capacity of 700 students/850 SOL students, the project wouldnt have a construction manager, the plans would be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department, the County would retain ownership of the plans and the rights to their use, there would be limited construction of the outdoor athletic facilities and the County would absorb the costs of the road improvements as required by VDOT.  The total and complete costs for the school construction should reflect the $3 million that had been spent for closing out prior contracts plus the $18 million plus the $500,000 for the road construction for a total and final cost of $21.5 million.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

PRESENTVOTE
Eric F. Purcell Yes
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper Yes
Richad A. Havasy Yes
Allen B. Jennings Yes

With the votes reflecting 7-0, the Board voted to commit to an allocation of $18 million for the school construction, soft costs and site work, of which, $1 million has been spent to date and this commitment was contingent on the following conditions: the Board would no longer require a two-story school, the completed school would have a capacity of 700 students/850 SOL students, the project wouldnt have a construction manager, the plans would be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department, the County would retain ownership of the plans and the rights to their use, there would be limited construction of the outdoor athletic facilities, the County would absorb the costs of the road improvements as required by VDOT.  The total and complete costs for the school construction should reflect the $3 million that had been spent for closing out prior contracts plus the $18 million plus the $500,000 for the road construction for a total and final cost of $21.5 million.

Discussion - County Decals

Mr. Barnes said the Board needed to decide whether the County was going to keep the decals or not.  Mr. Wright said he thought the landfill was going to give the Board recommendations on how they thought the process with no county decals would work to identify if the vehicle was registered in the County.  Mr. McLeod said in the same meeting where the Board asked for recommendations, they also voted to keep the decals; therefore, no recommendations have been given.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that the decals would have to be kept for 2008 because it was too late to make a change since the personal property bills have already been sent.  Mr. Wright said a method needed to be determined on how vehicles could be identified at the landfill and at the recycling centers before the County could do away with the decals.  Mr. Wright suggested keeping the County decals for 2008 and visit the issue again in the spring to make a decision for 2009.

Discussion - Water and Sewer Rates

Mr. Purcell said he thought it was important for people to understand that the vote to suspend the water rates for up to one year wasnt to pad the developers pockets, which, in his opinion, was being insinuated.  Mr. Purcell said there was a significant investment at Zion Crossroads that you didnt want to go sour and it was also a time in the market where commercial lending companies were very cautious with how they were lending their money.  Mr. Purcell stated it has been said that one of the reasons why the quality outfits were looking to locate in Zion Crossroads was because of what Louisa had done to try to get them here, no different than when the County had to try to get the distribution center here.  Mr. Purcell indicated that the reason he made his motion was because he didnt want to do anything to dissuade people from continuing to invest in that area.  Mr. Purcell said the Board held the rates because there was a question of timing, not because there was a question of whether they would consider letting the Water Authority raise the rates.  Mr. Purcell stated he would be more than happy to offer for the Boards consideration a change from one year to six months.  

Mr. Wright said he received a letter from Mr. Jimmy Dodd, Chairman of the Water Authority, which stated “Realizing that the County may be privy to information and plans not available to the Authority, he would advise the other Water Authority Board members to agree to the Board of Supervisors request.”  Mr. Purcell said it didnt matter whether the rates were suspended six months, eight months or a year, the point was to try to stem the tide of the down market and not dissuade investment in the area.    

Mr. Barnes indicated that the letter given to the Board by Mr. Spencer was for the Town and the Board of Supervisors had no control over the Town raising their rates.  Mr. Barnes added the Board was concerned about the Zion Crossroads area.  Mr. Barnes said the according to the Community Development Report, the largest increase was commercial activity and the Board was trying to sustain a commercial market that has been good to this County.  Mr. Barnes said the $7 million that was collected in taxes last December was from Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Barnes indicated that Spring Creek has put in a lot of infrastructure, such as the wells they have drilled, the wells they have donated to the County and water hookups that they have allowed the County to use, that has benefited Louisa County through private partnership and the public.    

Mr. Harper stated he thought there was another point to consider.  Mr. Harper said he thought the letters were intended to say what could happen and to address the concerns of the letters, he questioned Mr. Morgan if the ordinance could be changed to state that a connection must be made within ninety days of the application or any new fees would apply.  Mr. Morgan stated he would do research and have the answer for the Board at their next meeting.      

Mr. Gentry stated he recognized and supported Mr. Purcells motion because he felt that by saying the rate increases would be suspended for one year, the Board was sending out a strong message that they were going to help where they could.  Mr. Gentry said however, he was concerned that people could possibly apply for a ten-year project at one time.  Mr. Gentry said he understood that it could cost a lot of money upfront, but he didnt like the option of being able to do that because he felt that the purpose of the resolution was to tie the rates down for one year, but the way the system worked, it could go beyond that period.
 

Mr. Havasy said he still expressed his opinion that he thought the developers should pay their own way.  Mr. Havasy indicated that the developers didnt pay the fees, the person buying the house paid them and he thought new people moving into the County should carry their part of the burden.  Mr. Havasy added he didnt think that an added $3,000, which was what the Water Authority proposed raising the rates to, would make a big difference to someone who was buying a $250,000 house because he thought they would realize it was the price of doing business.  Mr. Havasy said he sincerely hoped that the Board would reconsider this moratorium and increase the rates to the recommended rate proposed by the Water Authority.  
Mr. Purcell said in his opinion, there wouldnt be any new developments or any large commercial activity at Zion Crossroads that would be completed within the next six months; therefore, he would like to make the motion to revise the moratorium of the rates to six months to date instead of one year, as a formal compromise to show that the Board was concerned and interested in developers paying their own way and that they werent going to sit still on water rates forever.  Mr. Purcell indicated that the Board could revisit the issue at that time and chose what they wanted to do.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.
 

Mr. Wright stated when he read the last Community Development Report, the building permits for residential through September were up from September of the prior year.  Mr. Coffey said single-family residential permits for the month of September 2007 over the month of September 2006 were up 20 percent.  Mr. Coffey added year to date, single-family residential permits were down 6.5 percent.    

Mr. Gentry said along with that action, if approved, he thought it should include pursuing his and Mr. Harpers concern about changing the rule where the developers couldnt buy hookups all at once.  Mr. Havasy agreed.        

Mr. Barnes said the residential piece does spur some of the commercial, but hookup fees werent what the tax base was based on. Mr. Barnes indicated that hookup fees have not allowed the County to do what has been done at Zion Crossroads and that the water infrastructure is what has allowed the property to increase in value.  Mr. Barnes added that twelve months would not change the activity at Zion Crossroads.  

Mr. Havasy said the County, along with developers, has spent a lot of money putting infrastructure at Zion Crossroads, which has increased the value of that land to benefit a lot of private people.  Mr. Havasy said he thought some people that were using their land to develop it should also pay their fair share of developing the infrastructure.    

Mr. Barnes said he thought the Board was issuing unfairness because they have already voted for twelve months and a lot of businesses were proceeding upon that.  


After discussion, Mr. Purcell withdrew his motion.  Mr. Barnes withdrew his second.  

Mr. Harper indicated that the twelve months wasnt an issue, the issue was how far in advance a connection fee could be purchased.  Mr. Harper said it could simply be stated that a connection must be made within ninety days of the application or any changes in fees would apply, which wouldnt affect the original motion that had already been passed.  Mr. Morgan said that type of provision would require an ordinance change, which would require a public hearing.  Mr. Wright questioned if it was agreeable to the Board for Mr. Coffey to determine the feasibility of doing it.  Mr. Lintecum said the Water Authority actually received the applications and issued, collected and approved the connection fees, not the Community Development Department.  

Mr. Havasy said the Spring Creek Development had a build out of 1,200 homes, of which 200 have been built, and if they found out that the Board was looking into this and submitted an application for 1,000 building permits, the County would loose $3,000 on every building permit.  Mr. Harper stated that the Board could do an emergency ordinance for sixty days.  Mr. Morgan indicated that he needed to research on whether the Board had the statutory authority to set a limitation on connection fees.  

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed for the Water Authority to determine if the idea of stating that a connection must be made within ninety days of the application or any changes in fees would apply was feasible and to have the Water Authority report their findings back to the Board at the second meeting in December.    

NEW BUSINESS

Discussion - Six-year Primary road priorities

Mr. Gentry indicated that he thought the widening or the replacement of the bridges needed to be included in priority number 3.  Mr. Barnes agreed.    

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the six-year primary road priorities, with the change of priority number 3 to read:

Priority #3        Improve and widen the Route 15 North and Route 15 South bridges crossing I-64, and widening Route 15 North of I-64 at Zion Crossroads to four (4) lanes approximately one (1) mile through the commercial/industrial zone in Zion Crossroads to be able to handle the increase in traffic because of the developments at Zion Crossroads.  

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Wright said Mr. Gentry and himself attended a meeting last week with the Mayor and Chairs Group to discuss the priorities for the legislative program and the work that was being done with the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), which was an ongoing situation.  Mr. Wright stated they met with three of the legislators and he thought they were all very attentive to the items discussed.  Mr. Wright indicated that he thought they had a very productive meeting.  

Mr. Jennings thanked Mr. Cooke for the Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Center (RJDC) report.  Mr. Jennings said a few months ago there was an issue about expanding facilities and questioned if that was still being considered.  Mr. Cooke indicated that a final decision hadnt been determined.      

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Wright said Mr. Harper resigned as a liaison from the Fire Association and Mr. Havasy would be taking that position on, but he had to resign as the liaison to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District.  Mr. Wright stated he would be taking on the position as a liaison for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District in Mr. Havasys place.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to appoint Margaret Lee to JAUNT.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to appoint Lillian Morris to the Commission on Aging.  Mr. Purcell stated he would like to re-appoint George Jones to the Board of Road Viewers.  Mr. Havasy stated he would like to re-appoint Robert Norton to the Board of Road Viewers.  Mr. Havasy stated he would like to appoint James Bogdan to the Water Authority.  Mr. Harper stated he would like to appoint Doug Whitlock to the Board of Building Appeals for the Property Manager position.    

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, with Mr. Barnes being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board appointed Ms. Lee to JAUNT, Ms. Morris to the Commission on Aging, Mr. Jones to the Board of Road Viewers, Mr. Norton to the Board of Road Viewers, Mr. Bogdan to the Water Authority and Mr. Whitlock to the Board of Building Appeals.  

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:31 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.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:06 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 15th day of October 2007, 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 15th day of October 2007, 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

Amendments to the following sections of the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances; which will provide a density bonus in the Agricultural (A-2) zoning district for affordable housing:

-        Section 66-2 and Section 86-2. Definitions - Affordable Housing

-        Section 86-66.3 Subdivisions - (2) Density Bonus

This proposal would permit 10 lot subdivisions in A-2, with no more than 7 market-rate lots.  

The Planning Commission felt this recommendation would allow for too much development in the rural areas and would create an ordinance that is difficult to manage.  The Commission also had concerns involving the possible impacts of additional rural growth and the public perception of pursuing another A-2 amendment at this time.  The Commission unanimously voted 7-0 to recommend denial for these proposals.

Mr. Coffey said affordable housing was defined as
safe, decent housing that serves households with incomes that are below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), and that generally costs no more than 30 percent of a households gross income (including taxes, insurance, and utilities).

Mr. Coffey said the second part of the proposal would be to allow for a density bonus in the A-2 zoning district.  Mr. Coffey said
the subdivision could have a maximum of three additional lots, permitting a subdivision of 10 total lots if the three additional lots are dedicated for affordable housing, serving households with incomes that are below 80 percent of the area median income.

Mr. Purcell stated he was told by a member of the Planning Commission that since the Board changed eighteen to seven by rights in A-2 that there had only been one potential application for subdivisions and questioned if that was correct.  Mr. Coffey said there hadnt been a lot of applications, but he didnt know it if was accurate to say there had only been one.  

Mr. Barnes questioned if the concept of density bonus explained above was used by other localities.  Mr. Coffey said other localities certainly used it, but it was more common in urban localities than in rural localities.  Mr. Coffey said his one concern with this has been that there wasnt a market incentive to encourage developers to avail themselves of this.  

Mr. Harper questioned how this would be enforced because a 10-lot subdivision could take 10 years to sell out.  Mr. Coffey said he wasnt sure exactly how the mechanics would work, but at the time of the subdivision plat, the developer would have to commit to something in writing as part of the deed or covenants that would basically state that it was subject to the approval of the County or its agent.

Mr. Wright opened the public hearing.

Mr. Bruce Martin, Mineral District, stated he was definitely in favor of affordable housing, but he didnt support creating an affordable development to sell it as affordable housing.  Mr. Martin indicated that all surrounding counties have two or three lots by right and some counties have a time limit on how many homes can be built over a certain amount of time.  Mr. Martin said the Board reduced the by right lots from eighteen to seven and going from seven to ten was proceeding in the opposite direction unless it was the intention to only encourage housing growth, and not agricultural growth in the County.  Mr. Martin indicated that this also undermined the Comprehensive Plan because the Plan defined the growth areas and to allow by right subdivisions to be located anywhere within the County would make it impossible to control growth.  

Mr. Martin said he wondered who kept track of all the promises that were being made on behalf of the citizens to provide for infrastructure for the lots that were being created.  Mr. Martin added the enrollment was already full for the school that the County was stumbling through the process of getting built; therefore, he thought the growth within the County needed to be slowed down at this point in time.  
 

Mr. Lawrence Levine, Green Springs District, stated as a citizen of the County, he was fundamentally against creating more affordable housing; however, he thought the County might need more jobs to look out for the citizens the County currently had.  Mr. Levine said Albemarle and Goochland Counties had a lot of retail and those people needed a place to live and if they saw that they could live in Louisa County at a cheaper price, a situation would be created where people would come to Louisa that couldnt afford to live in other counties and those people would have more children which would create more of a school problem.  

Mr. Levine said at the Planning Commission meeting last week, it was stated that there were going to be 500 new jobs created within the next year at the new shopping center at Zion Crossroads and up to 2,000 within the next three years.  Mr. Levine said that was a lot of jobs and he didnt think the County necessarily wanted all of those jobs to be filled with people that were suddenly moving into Louisa County, taking retail jobs and living in our affordable housing, sending their kids to our schools.    
 

Mr. Gerald Harlow, Green Springs District, stated Louisa County already had the most generous by right development allowed any where around.  Mr. Harlow added all surrounding counties had one-third of the amount that Louisa allowed.  Mr. Harlow said if the County couldnt get affordable housing with what we already had, three additional lots wouldnt help.  Mr. Harlow stated the County would have no control over the lots and suggested the Board to heed the recommendation of the Planning Commission.  

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

Mr. Purcell agreed with Mr. Harlow and said the main problem he saw was that there was a problem with controlling the affordable housing lots.  Mr. Purcell said he thought the Board made a mistake when they approved eighteen lots; however, the mistake was corrected when it was reduced to seven lots.  

Mr. Purcell stated that the Planning Commission needed to get on same page with the Board or decide what it wanted to do because the signals that they were sending were that they didnt want to grow anywhere, which wasnt the plan that the Board and the citizens adopted when they fashioned the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Purcell said the compromise was to have growth areas and direct the growth there, to not grow in the non-growth areas and as we decided to grow more in the growth areas, we were going to take growth rights and by rights away in the A-2 non-growth areas.  Mr. Purcell added right now, he saw part of the County government structure not honoring one side of the compromise.  Mr. Purcell indicated that this would be difficult to enforce, but he hoped that the Board would continue their efforts in trying to find reasonable affordable housing, whether it was in a growth area or not.    

Mr. Gentry said he thought the initiative of adding three lots was to resolve the affordable housing issue.  Mr. Gentry said he agreed with the three gentlemen that spoke because by adding three by rights would affect the growth in the rural areas.  Mr. Gentry said in his opinion, there had been no indication that the affordable housing lots were going to happen and hearing the comments of other public hearings, he wasnt very optimistic that it would be a good thing.  Mr. Gentry said he thought if the County continued with the PUD process, the affordable housing initiative would be taken care of in those areas, only if it was possible that it could be taken care of at all.  

Mr. Barnes said he would always err on the side of property rights and he wasnt going to apologize to anyone for thinking about those people that wanted to own a home.  Mr. Barnes said we could not live in a society that was so selfish that we didnt keep reminding ourselves that there were some people struggling everyday to own their first home.    

Mr. Jennings stated he had long been a proponent of affordable housing and he thought the definition presented was in order.  Mr. Jennings said there was still a need for affordable housing within the County and he thought there were many ways that it could be done.    

Mr. Wright said he thought the administration of it would be virtually impossible.  


Mr. Purcell said if you were going to have affordable housing in the growth areas and not in the non-growth areas, that probably meant that they would be based on public infrastructure; therefore, it would run up the costs.  Mr. Purcell added cheaper affordable housing would be located in the rural areas rather than in the growth areas and he hoped the Board would consider that on future negotiations of affordable housing.    

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to amend Chapter 66. Subdivisions (Section 66-2) and Chapter 86. Zoning (Sections 86-2) of the Louisa County Code.

Mr. Barnes even though he understood the complexity of the proposed amendment, he was going to abstain because of how he felt about homeownership.  

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Havasy, with Mr. Barnes abstaining and Mr. Purcell voting against, which carried by a vote of 5-1-1, the Board denied a resolution to amend Chapter 86. Zoning (86-66.3) of the Louisa County Code.

REZ09-07; Spring Creek Land Development, LLC and Crossroads Land and Development, LLC, Applicants/Owners request an amendment to proffer number 3b. approved under REZ01-01 on June 4, 2001.  The proposed amendment addresses road construction standards and reclassification of some future roads as private instead of public in the Business Park section of the development.  The property is located on the west side of Route 15, north of the I-64 Interchange.  The property is further identified as tax map parcels 51-(5)-1, 51-(5)-2, and 51-55, in the Green Springs Magisterial District and Green Springs Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Regional Service and Mixed Use within the Zion Crossroads Designated Growth Area.

The applicant is requesting that a portion of one proffer approved with the Spring Creek project in 2001 be amended to help facilitate development of the internal roads within the Business Park section of the development.   The uses allowed on the property will not change; however, the amendment would allow the developer flexibility in the road design on interior roads within the Business Park.

The portion of Existing Proffer 3b. “To construct an internal public road system in the business park and town center areas to VDOT standards.”

The proposed Amendment to Proffer 3b. “Within the Business Park (Town Center), Spring Creek Parkway from Station 10+50 to station 25+50 and Timber Ridge Avenue from station 25+50 to 35+00 are to be public and constructed to VDOT standards as provided for on plans approved by VDOT and prepared by Dewberry dated 7/29/05 and revised 11/8/05.  All other roads may be private with specifications to be governed by the Agreement for Roadway Plan Review and Inspection Services for Spring Creek Development dated 1/4/07.”

All other original provisions in Proffer B are to remain unchanged.

The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.

The proposed proffer amendment should have minimal impact to the general public.  If approved, the proffer amendment would shift responsibility of a portion of the road maintenance within the Business Park (Town Center) to the developer, Spring Creek, instead of VDOT.

Mr. Harper said in the original proposal, the private roads were going to be part of the Property Owners Association and questioned where it would be recorded that these were private roads maintained by the association.  

Mr. Pete Bradshaw, Applicant, stated part of the business park was already a private road, but in discussions with Mr. Coffey, he felt uncomfortable with continuing with that without a proffer amendment.  Mr. Bradshaw said to answer Mr. Harpers question, there was a landowners association that took care of road maintenance at the business park.    

Mr. Gentry questioned how many private roads Mr. Bradshaw was referring to were built to state specs.  Mr. Bradshaw said to his knowledge, all of the private roads were constructive to VDOT standards.  


Mr. Wright opened the public hearing.  

Mr. Lawrence Levine, Green Springs District, stated on a matter of principle, he would have to ask the Board that when developers agreed to proffers, they hold them to those proffers.  Mr. Levine said he could only assume that developers would want to amend a proffer because of some kind of economic disadvantage from the agreement that they originally made.  Mr. Levine said with the Comprehensive Plan in place and the development that we know is coming in the Zion Crossroads area, he would want to be assured that any roadways that were put into place were all at the highest grade possible because the volume was going to increase dramatically in terms of the road traffic.  

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

Mr. Havasy said he wanted to clarify that the roads being discussed were all located inside of the Spring Creek Subdivision.  Mr. Havasy stated everything in Spring Creek was first class and he was very proud of the developers and the Development.  Mr. Barnes agreed and questioned how much money to date had been spent on infrastructure in Spring Creek.  Mr. Bradshaw said about $25 million.  

Mr. Wright said he was under the impression that the flexibility was more in the design area and not the quality of construction.  Mr. Wright said overall, he thought approving this request would save taxpayers some money because the taxpayers were the people that financed the operations of VDOT.  
   

        On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the request for an amendment to proffer number 3b. approved under REZ01-01 on June 4, 2001.  

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum said December was going to be a heavy month for public hearings; therefore, five public hearings have been scheduled for December 3, 2007.  Mr. Lintecum said a meeting has also been scheduled for December 12, 2007 at the Middle School to discuss the Industrial Zoning Classification and what he was proposing was to schedule the remaining four public hearings that same night.  The Board approved.

Mr. Lintecum questioned if the Board wanted to hold a Board Retreat to work on establishing goals and objectives for the FY 09 budget and, if so, he would like to know when.  After discussion, it was consensus of the Board to schedule a Board Retreat for December 1, 2007.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that he would work out the details.  


CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for vehicle sale

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

Resolution - For a supplement to the County Administrators Department for employee recognition

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplement to the County Administrators Department for employee recognition.

Resolution - Requesting that Lasley Lane (Route 633) be designated as a rural rustic road

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting that Lasley Lane (Route 633) be designated as a rural rustic road.

Resolution - Requesting a traffic speed/safety study on Windyknight Road (Route 631)

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0,
the Board adopted a resolution requesting a traffic speed/safety study on Windyknight Road (Route 631).

Resolution - Recognizing Hopeful Baptist Church for their 200th anniversary

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing Hopeful Baptist Church for their 200th anniversary.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Wright said the Board received an email regarding CSA guidelines and it requested a response from the Board by the beginning of November.  Mr. Wright suggested the Board email their comments to Mr. Lintecum.    

APPROVAL OF BILLS

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Messrs Gentry, Jennings and Wright abstaining on bills pertaining to them, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of October 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $358,249.07.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the October 1, 2007 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the October 15, 2007 meeting at 8:04 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


________________________________
JACKSON T. WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA