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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
DECEMBER 3, 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; Linda Buckler, Zoning Administrator; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; 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 December 3, 2007 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Gentry led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Sheriff Fortune said he had enjoyed working with the Board and looked forward to working with them another four years.  

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD

Mr. Garland Nuckols, Louisa District, stated he received a report from the State office of EMS, which showed the number of reportable calls from each rescue squad in Louisa County from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007.  Mr. Nuckols indicated that the following were the number of reported calls from each squad.

      ·        Holly Grove Rescue 613 calls
·        Lake Anna Rescue 280 calls (Lake Annas number was off by about 75 calls)
·        Louisa Rescue 609 calls
·        Mineral Rescue 747 calls
·        Trevilians Rescue 129 calls
·        Zion Crossroads 76 calls

Mr. Nuckols stated the career staff had 1,349 reportable calls to the State and the volunteers had 2,454 calls.  Mr. Nuckols added he would have a presentation to the Board sometime in the spring.    

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Lintecum stated discussion of the Longevity House needed to be removed from the agenda.  

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the December 3, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

VDOT Monthly Update
- Jamie Glass, Resident Administrator, provided an update of VDOT activities, which included the following:

Maintenance:

Construction: Land Use: Traffic Engineering:

Mr. Glass said at the November 19, 2007 Board meeting, the Board voted to move Bowlers Mill Road (Route 603) up on the priority list for the Secondary Six-Year Plan.  Mr. Glass added the Board also approved to allocate $50,000 to the project for stone to assist in rebuilding the road.  Mr. Glass requested that the Board amend the resolution to include transferring $58,000 to Lewis Hill Road (Route 673) because it was the next qualifying project on the Six-Year Plan.  Mr. Glass also requested that the resolution include transferring $39,000 to Jones Lane (Route 760) to cover a construction deficit that had existed since 2001.  Mr. Glass indicated that these funds would come from the remaining balance after construction of Rising Sun Road (Route 775).  

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution transferring funds and amending priorities for the Six-Year Plan for secondary roads in Louisa County for fiscal years 2008-2013.

Mr. Gentry questioned what the schedule was for the Six-Year Plan.  Mr. Glass stated after the new Board took place in January, he was going to request to meet with the Board to review in detail the Six-Year Plan because there were some projects listed that VDOT felt didnt need to be included.  

Mr. Barnes stated Mr. Wood was supposed to send him an update on
Byrd Mill Road (Route 649).

NEW BUSINESS

Discussion - Appropriation for Revenue Recovery program and approval of job description

Mr. McLeod said since the Board approved the Revenue Recovery ordinance, the Revenue Recovery Committee had met to discuss the next steps of the process.  Mr. McLeod stated the County had two options regarding selecting a vendor to be its billing agent.  Mr. McLeod said the County could conduct a formal RFP process, which would take a minimum of three months, or it could use an existing contract by another county that had already undergone a formal competitive bid process.  

Mr. McLeod indicated that most localities in the State have elected to successfully use a form of the contract negotiated by Fairfax County; therefore, the Committee interviewed Gary Matthews, the Vice President from the Fairfaxs billing agent, Diversified Ambulance Billing (DAB), on Wednesday, November 28, 2007.  Mr. McLeod noted that going though an entire RFP process would most likely delay meeting the tentative target date of July 2008, whereas selecting DAB off the Fairfax contract would keep the County in line with the current project schedule.  Mr. McLeod said the main question presented to the DAB representative was whether or not the details of the Fairfax contract could be modified to meet the needs of Louisa County.  

Mr. McLeod stated the Committee decided to select DAB and piggyback off of the Fairfax contract, but they wanted something in writing from Mr. Morgan to answer the question on whether the County could negotiate the contract details.  Mr. McLeod indicated that Mr. Morgan answered yes to the Committees question and it had been emailed to the members.  Mr. McLeod said he was hopeful that the Committee could start working with DAB on a contract to bring back to the Board for approval.  

Mr. McLeod stated the hardware/software sub-committee had one meeting so far to discuss the type of hardware and software options.  Mr. McLeod said the sub-committee needed to review the options and make a purchase in order for testing to begin.  Mr. McLeod added the project schedule was to have field-testing for two months.

Mr. McLeod stated he was requesting that the Board approve to hire a full-time employee to administer the Revenue Recovery project.  Mr. McLeod said as discussed, this person would be the publics contact person.  Mr. McLeod said assuming that the County would enter into a contract with DAB, this person should be hired in January, in order to play an active role in setting up the program. Mr. McLeod stated there was a lot of time consuming tasks associated with the initial setup, which included the following:

      ·        The County will be required to complete an application with Medicare and Medicaid, a process that entails extensive coordination between the selected billing company          and the County.  These applications take approximately 60 to 90 days to complete and require information from all licensed rescue providers.
·        The County will be required to register with private insurance companies, such as Anthem.
·        Contracts for drug box exchanges will need to be enacted and there will need to be extensive education and training programs for all EMS providers. Any person wishing          to run rescue will need to submit detailed copies of their Revenue Recovery Program training for legal purposes.
·        Public education campaigns will need to be ongoing and far-reaching.
·        The Committee has discussed asking Gina Lombardi, the woman that spoke during the public hearing, to serve on the Committee to provide a citizens perspective with          regards to the public education campaign.

Mr. McLeod stated the Committee was asking the Board to appropriate $110,000 for this project in FY 08 from the general fund balance.  Mr. McLeod said a separate fund would be set up in the general ledger to track revenues and expenditures associated with this program.  Mr. McLeod indicated that all funds expended in FY 08 would be replaced by future revenue generated by the program.  Mr. McLeod noted for FY 09, he would plan to submit a budget for the program.  Mr. McLeod added, at this time, he anticipate the following needs:

      ·        16 Toughbooks $64,000
·        1 FTE with benefits $26,600
·        Software $15,000
·        Educational/Miscellaneous $ 4,400

Mr. Harper questioned who currently paid for the drug boxes.  Mr. McLeod said the hospital actually charged the patient for any drugs used.  Mr. McLeod said what would happen is the ambulance would drop their drug box off at the hospital and would receive a new box.  Mr. McLeod added the County would be charged for any drugs that were used during the transport.  

Mr. Harper said Mr. McLeod stated that any monies expended in FY 08 would be replaced in future years.  Mr. McLeod said if $110,000 was allocated, another fund would be set up to easily identify money spent and as revenue was collected, that fund would expand.  Mr. McLeod added the idea was that the money that was spent in FY 08 would be transferred from that fund back to the general fund.    

Mr. Barnes questioned if the funds that arrived from the Revenue Recovery Program would be self-supporting.  Mr. McLeod said yes, currently, the Committee had estimated a recovery of about $700,000 per year.

Mr. Gentry questioned if there were vendors that would do everything to avoid having to hire a full-time employee.  Mr. McLeod indicated that vendors would do a lot, but not everything.  Mr. McLeod said the new employee would be administering the subscription program and would answer calls regarding questions and concerns from citizens.  Mr. Gentry said initially, the biggest job would be education and answering a lot of calls, but he hoped that would decrease and meanwhile, there would be a position that may not be justifiable; therefore, if there was a vendor that would do it all, then that may be the Countys best option.
 

Mr. Havasy questioned if anyone currently on staff could step in and take over this program.  Mr. McLeod said no.  Mr. Havasy questioned if a new person was hired and their workload decreased in years to come, would they assume other responsibilities.  Mr. McLeod said they would be given additional responsibilities to keep busy.  

Mr. Barnes stated when citizens called the County, he wanted to make sure they could talk to an actual person instead of a voicemail.  

Mr. Wright said it appeared to him that in the first six months, 80 to 90 percent of the new employees job would be answering questions and concerns from citizens.  Mr. Wright questioned why Mr. McLeod didnt explain to the Board that the salary was a six-month figure, but the other expenses were 12-month figures.  Mr. McLeod said he thought it was known that FY 08 would be January to July.  

Mr. Wright said he was told that DAB would do everything the new employee would be hired to do at no charge.  Mr. Havasy said one of the biggest reasons for hiring a County employee was not so much to answer inquires about a bill, but to listen to citizens when it came to discussing compassionate billing because that was something that he wanted a real person in Louisa County to handle.  Mr. Havasy added a good part of this persons job would be to deal directly with the public over sensitive issues that citizens would come upon.  Mr. Barnes agreed and said there would be some delicate situations where people would have to discuss their financial situations and privacy would be needed in talking about citizens economic situations.  Mr. Barnes added he wouldnt want to discuss his private information with a stranger; he would rather speak with a local employee.  Mr. Wright questioned if that required a full-time position.  Mr. McLeod said if the position were part-time, he would still have to work it a fair amount of hours to get everything done.  Mr. McLeod added citizens would also only be able to call and talk to someone part-time.    


Mr. Purcell stated he thought the request was spelled out fine and everything was needed; however, the problem he had was that he had already gone on record that he was against anymore FTEs.  

Mr. Wright questioned if the Committee was 100 percent certain that DAB was the contractor they were going to work with because if not, if software was purchased would it be compatible with another billing company.  Mr. McLeod said DAB stated that they could work with any piece of software.


Mr. Gentry questioned how the Committee knew that DAB was the best vendor in the State.  Mr. McLeod indicated that 14 counties have gone through the Fairfax bid process.  Mr. McLeod added Fairfax had already gone out and negotiated an RFP to get the best-qualified vendor.  Mr. McLeod said the counties that have piggybacked get DAB to work out their own contract with individual services they wanted.  Mr. Gentry questioned if other counties have been checked with to see what kind of reputation DAB had.  Mr. McLeod said yes.  Mr. Havasy added that all of the counties that surround Louisa used DAB.  


Mr. Harper questioned what self-supporting meant.  Mr. McLeod said self-supporting meant that the expenses of the program were less than the revenue that was collected.  Mr. Harper questioned what was included in the expenses of the program.  Mr. McLeod said for FY 09, expenses would include funds for the billing agent, funds for a new employee and funds for the drug boxes.  Mr. McLeod said the volunteers stated that for two years, they wanted to see the revenue that was collected then they would like to come to the Board and ask for something for the volunteers.  Mr. Harper indicated that the three items Mr. McLeod named werent current expenses and questioned what the County would be recovering.  Mr. McLeod said $700,000 was a conservative estimate of what the Committee had projected would be collected in the first year.  

Mr. Havasy stated he would like to make the motion to approve the request for an appropriation in FY 08 of $110,000 for the Revenue Recovery Program to hire a full-time employee, to cover the startup costs associated with the program and to follow the Committees recommendation to use DAB as the billing company.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.  

PRESENTVOTE
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. No
Willie L. Harper No
Richad A. Havasy Yes
Allen B. Jennings Yes
Eric F. Purcell No
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes

With the votes reflecting 4-3, the Board approved the request for an appropriation in FY 08 of $110,000 for the Revenue Recovery Program to hire a full-time employee, to cover the startup costs associated with the program and to follow the Committees recommendation to use DAB as the billing company.

Resolution - To request that the General Assembly and Governor of Virginia take action to prevent exploitative payday lending practices in the Commonwealth


Mr. Lintecum stated it was requested that the Board consider taking action on this resolution.  Mr. Purcell questioned what exploitative payday lending practices were.  Mr. Lintecum said if someone was running short on money, they would pledge their paycheck and in two weeks, they would have to turn their paycheck in and pay a very high interest rate until the loan was paid off.  Mr. Gentry questioned if there was a problem in Louisa County.  Mr. Wright indicated that Louisa County citizens may be employed through another locality and may use these services.  Mr. Barnes stated these types of programs take advantage of people who arent economically astute about finances.  

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting that the General Assembly and Governor of Virginia take action to prevent exploitative payday lending practices in the Commonwealth.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Gentry stated Mr. Lintecum, Mr. Pauley, Mr. McLeod and himself met with Jamie Glass and Mark Wood to discuss the new elementary schools entrance on Courthouse Road (Route 208).  Mr. Gentry said the meeting was to try to get the process and procedures in place in order for the County to stay in step with their responsibility of building the entrances and getting ready for the revenue sharing process.  Mr. Gentry said the meeting went very well and he would report back to the Board once they got further into the process.

Mr. Havasy stated the Clean Community Commission has taken it upon themselves to try to promote a clean Louisa and part of project would be to involve the entire County in a clean up day.  Mr. Havasy said the Committee was requesting the Boards support for this project.


        
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution supporting the Louisa County Clean Up Day.  

Mr. Wright said on December 10, 2007 there would be an official ribbon cutting on the One Stop Employment Center in Charlottesville.


BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Gentry stated he would like to re-appoint Rosie Hughes to the Affordable Housing Committee, Claudia Chisholm to the Clean Community Commission and Jack Speer to the Planning Commission.  

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Ms. Hughes to the Affordable Housing Committee, Ms. Chisholm to the Clean Community Commission and Mr. Speer to the Planning Commission.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum said at the November 19, 2007 meeting, the Board presented the Scholastic Bowl Team with a resolution recognizing them for their Battle of the Brains achievement; however, the Board did not take a formal vote and an official vote needed to be taken before the resolution could be finalized.

        On motion of Messrs Barnes, Gentry, Harper, Havasy, Jennings, Purcell and Wright, seconded by Messrs Barnes, Gentry, Harper, Havasy, Jennings, Purcell and Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing the Louisa County High School Scholastic Bowl Team.

Mr. Lintecum said the swearing in ceremony for newly elected officials would be held on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in the Circuit Court.  Mr. Lintecum said any officials unable to attend this ceremony need to make special arrangements with the Clerk of the Court.  Mr. Lintecum added Judge Sanners office would be mailing information about the swearing in ceremony in the near future.

Mr. Lintecum reminded the Board that they would be holding public hearings for six cases on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Louisa County Middle School Forum.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - To approve a supplemental appropriation for money recovered from HAZMAT spill in Mineral

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving a supplemental appropriation for money recovered from HAZMAT spill in Mineral.

Resolution - To approve a supplemental appropriation for storm damages

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

Resolution - To approve a supplemental appropriation for the Sheriffs Department for the Marine Unit

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving a supplemental appropriation for the Sheriffs Department for the Marine Unit.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Lintecum stated included in the Board packet was recognition from Mr. Davies that he received the Countys input for the Six-Year Primary Plan.  


APPROVAL OF BILLS

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of November 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $864,957.53.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the November 19, 2007 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:08 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 6:59 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, 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 3rd day of December 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 3rd day of December 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

To consider amending the Louisa County Code Section 14.41, Dogs Running at large in Certain Subdivisions; penalty for violation, to add Orchid Lake Estates, Inc., Mountain Road District, Louisa County, Virginia.

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

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to amend the Louisa County Code Section 14.41, Dogs Running at large in Certain Subdivisions; penalty for violation, to add Orchid Lake Estates, Inc., Mountain Road District, Louisa County, Virginia.

REZ12-07; James E. Culley, Sr. and Alice S. Culley & Francis A. and Marie Yates, Applicants/Owners; request rezoning of approximately 48.26 acres from Agricultural (A-1) to Agricultural (A-2).  The property is located on the east side of Route 661, approximately 0.3 mile north of Route 610 (Holly Grove Drive).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 99-7, in the Mountain Road Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential.

The applicants have indicated that there is no development currently planned for the property.  However, there have been no proffers submitted that would limit and/or restrict development if rezoned to Agricultural (A-2).  

In the preliminary meeting that was held with the applicant, there was discussion about the proffers that could be accepted by the County and if this property were rezoned to A-2 as a parent parcel, under the current regulations, it would be a maximum of 7 lots allowed access by a State road.    

No one, other than the applicants were present at the Neighborhood Meeting held on October 10, 2007.  

The Development Review Committee met on October 24, 2007 to review the requested rezoning application.  The Committee stated their general concerns of rezoning property without a stated purpose.  There were also concerns expressed about the general affects of rezoning property, which would allow for development and how that development impacts County services.

After some dialogue with the applicant, the Committee voted (6-0) to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission on the requested rezoning.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2007 at which no one was present to speak for or against the application, except the applicants.  After the Development Review Committee report, the Planning Commission voted (7-0) to forward a recommendation of approval to the Louisa County Board of Supervisors on the requested rezoning.

An important determination with any rezoning request is whether or not it is spot zoning?  Spot zoning is defined as the reclassifying of one or more tracts of land and the sole purpose is to serve the private interests of one or more land owners instead of furthering the welfare of the entire community as part of an overall zoning plan.

There must be valid reasons for any zoning amendment, which is substantially related to the public welfare and necessity.  It is not sufficient that an applicant merely show that there is no neighborhood objection to the requested amendment.  

(a)        Is the change contrary to the established land-use pattern?  No, the existing area consists of agricultural and single family residential parcels.

(b)        Is the change in conformance with the comprehensive plan?  Yes, the 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential.

(c)        Would the change create an isolated district unrelated to similar districts (i.e., is this spot zoning?) No, the majority of the surrounding parcels are currently zoned Agricultural (A-2).

The application appears to conform to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan designation for this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential and in conformance with the surrounding uses and A-2 zoning.  

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.
 

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the request for rezoning of approximately 48.26 acres from Agricultural (A-1) to Agricultural (A-2).

REZ13-07; James Allen Poore and A. Pierce Stone, Applicants; Dymacek Family Limited Partnership and Jessie Y. Poore Family Limited Partnership, Owners; request rezoning of approximately 78 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Residential General (R-2).  The property is located on the east side of Route 665 (Kennon Road), north of Route 33 (Jefferson Highway).  The property is further identified as a portion of Tax Map Parcel 58-39, in the Mineral Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Mixed Use in the Town of Mineral Designated Growth Area.

The adjoining parcels as well as the surrounding area is a mixture of mostly Agricultural (A-2) parcels and Residential General (R-2) zoned parcels to the north adjoining this parcel and along Route 665 (Kennon Road).  

The subject property is identified within the Stormwater Management Ordinance on the Water Resources Area Map as Area “B” within a Water Protection Area.  The development of this property must be in accordance with Chapter 39. Stormwater Management of the Louisa County Code and the adopted Technical Guideline Manual supporting document.

Proposed revised proffers submitted to date are summarized as follows:

            -        The maximum number of lots within the subdivision will be 27.

-        
There will be a 75 natural buffer along Kennon Road, south of the subdivision road entrance.

-        
There will be a sight easement as required by VDOT along Kennon Road, north of the subdivision road.

-        
There will be a 30 natural buffer along the northerly boundaries of the property, beginning at the subdivision road entrance on Kennon Road and continuing along Kennon Road and along common boundary lines with adjacent properties. EXCEPT (a) in the area of the VDOT-required sight easement where it lies within the 30 buffer along Kennon Road, and (b) where existing utilities lie within thirty feet of the common boundary lines with adjacent properties.

-        
There will be a 150 buffer along the tributary of Northeast Creek (the creek buffer) that is the southeasterly boundary of property, running southwesterly from the northeasterly property line to the area adjacent to Lot 2 where it will narrow to a width of not less than 100 feet.  Adjacent to Lot 1, the creek buffer will be of variable width not less than 100 feet and will extend westerly to the area adjacent to Kennon Road that will be conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia as part of the improvements that will be made to Kennon Road by the applicant.  A portion of the creek buffer area will be included in the acreage of lots fronting on the buffer area and each such lot will have the exclusive right to use that buffer area for limited recreational purposes on terms to be set out in the restrictive covenants for the subdivision and recited in deed restrictions.  Measured from the center of the creek, within 50 feet of the creek no structures will be allowed and ground disturbance will be allowed only for implementation of erosion and sedimentation controls; within the balance of the buffer area improvements may be made and the terms of the restrictive covenants applicable to ground disturbance will require mitigation and the creation and maintenance of erosion and sedimentation controls where any ground is disturbed within the balance of the buffer area.  The erosion and sedimentation controls would include similar mitigation tools to those used in areas covered by The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, such as terracing, rip-rap, mulch beds and other structures and materials designed to prevent erosion into the creek.  

-        
The right of way of Kennon Road adjacent to the property will be dedicated to public use and conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia.  The area that would be conveyed is forty feet wide adjacent to the Hardy tract, being the entirety of the original thirty foot wide right of way plus ten additional feet on the east side (the Hardy property runs to the west side of the thirty foot right of way and not to the center).  Other than adjacent to the Hardy tract, the area that would be conveyed is twenty-five feet wide, being fifteen feet of the original thirty foot wide right of way plus ten additional feet on the east side.

-        
In the area where Kennon Road crosses the creek, the road will be realigned and the drainage system will be improved and reconfigured at the expense of the applicants. Land adjacent to Lot 1 (in addition to the right of way dedicated to public use) will be conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the maintenance of the reconfigured road and the drainage system where Kennon Road crosses the creek.

-        
Cash proffer of $4,362.00 per lot, to be paid at the time a building permit is issued for a lot.

The applicant also submitted a revised conceptual plan for the rezoning that shows an increase in the buffer area along Lot 1 to 100 feet.  

Only the applicant and their agent were present at the Neighborhood Meeting held on October 10, 2007.

The Development Review Committee met on October 24, 2007 to review this application.  There was a lot of discussion between the Committee, the applicant and their agent regarding the proposed buffers and protection of the creek along the back of the lots.  There were questions regarding who would own the riparian buffer area and clarification provided by the agent on the proffers submitted at the Committee meeting, which, addressed the following items:

            -        Maximum of 27 lots
-        75-foot natural buffer along Kennon Road, south of the subdivision entrance
-        Sight easement along Kennon Road, as required by VDOT
-        30-foot natural buffer along the northerly boundaries of the property, except as noted
-        Minimum 100-foot buffer along the creek that is the southeasterly boundary, except as noted
-        Necessary right-of-way conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia for road improvements
-        Improvements to Kennon Road where it crosses the creek and conveyance of additional right-of-way in this area to the Commonwealth of Virginia
-        Cash proffer of $4,362.00 per lot to be paid at the time the building permit is issued

The DRC expressed concerns about the general affects of rezoning property, which would allow for residential development and how that development affects County services.  It was also questioned how this request furthered public welfare and necessity.

After much discussion and questions of the applicant and agent, the Committee voted to forward no recommendation to the Planning Commission.  It was strongly suggested to the applicant to have the following information available at the Planning Commission meeting:

-        Who would own the buffers shown?

-        Consistent width of the buffers.

-        Who would have authority over enforcement of the buffer areas?

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2007 at which only the applicants agent spoke regarding the request.  Eight revised proffers, dated 11-8-07, were submitted to the Planning Commission.  

The Development Review Committee report was given and Planning Commission members echoed the DRC concerns of protecting water quality and the proposed buffer along the Northeast Creek tributary.  It was noted that the revised proffers appeared to somewhat address the concerns expressed by the DRC.

After much discussion with the agent, the Commission voted 4-3 (with Ms. Price, Mr. Winston and Mr. Barlow against) to forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of Supervisors on the requested rezoning.  

The Planning Commission based the recommendation of denial on the concerns of water quality and the uncertainty of protecting the tributary buffer flowing into the Northeast Creek Reservoir.  The Planning Commission also asked that the applicant have clarification on the size of the buffer on Lot 1 prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting.

The area consists of both agricultural and residential zoned parcels.  One of the concerns with all rezoning requests is whether or not it constitutes spot zoning.  Spot zoning is defined as the reclassifying of one or more tracts of land and the sole purpose is to serve the private interests of one or more land owners instead of furthering the welfare of the entire community as part of an overall zoning plan.

There must be valid reasons for any zoning amendment, which is substantially related to the public welfare and necessity.  It is not sufficient that an applicant merely show that there is no neighborhood objection to the requested amendment.  
        
(a)        Is the change contrary to the established land-use pattern? No, there is residential zoning adjoining the subject parcel to the north.
                
(b)        Is the change in conformance with the comprehensive plan? The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Mixed Use within the Town of Mineral Designated Growth Area.  R-2 may be an appropriate zoning in this area.

(c)        Would the change create an isolated district unrelated to similar districts (i.e., is this spot zoning?) No, there is Residential General (R-2) zoning adjoining the subject parcels to the north.

The application appears to conform to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan designation for this area of Louisa County as Mixed Use and in conformance with the surrounding uses and zoning.
 

The Board may wish to consider this proposed rezoning possible impacts as well as any potential precedent that the rezoning might set.  Do the proffers add value to the overall project and do they adequately mitigate those adverse impacts that the development may cause including, but not limited to, stormwater, traffic generation, schools, and public safety?

Mr. James Lillie, Agent, stated the major concern at the Planning Commission meeting was the 50-foot buffer in the area of Lot 1.  Mr. Lillie said physical measurements had been taken at the site to determine that a 100-foot buffer was available, which the revised conceptual plan now reflects.
 
Mr. Lillie said one of the things he would like to point out about the proffers was the work that was going to be done on Kennon Road.  Mr. Lillie said the road was a steep, straight shot from the top of the hill to the creek.  Mr. Lillie said the ditches on both sides of the road had nothing to slow any of the water that ran down and given enough time, the top of the hill would get to the bottom and it would be flat.  Mr. Lillie added he knew there had been a lot of talk over the years about fixing that part of the road to stop the erosion.
 
Mr. Lillie indicated that a conservative estimate would be about $100,000 that would be put into this project by the developers for realignment of the road and for the improvement of the drainage for the creek.  Mr. Lillie added there had been some discussion that if VDOT could provide rip-rap on the west side of road, the contractor would then create berms and silt traps down the hill to control some things there.
   
Mr. Lillie stated there had been some concerns about this being a residential development.  Mr. Bar Delk, General Manager for the Water Authority, stated the uses for Agricultural zoned land would be worse on a reservoir than a well-done subdivision.  Mr. Delk added there were other residential areas that have grown up a little around the reservoir and havent seemed to impact it.
 
Mr. Lillie said with the proffers, the applicants have severely restricted what could be done in the first 50 feet off of the creek.
 

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

Mr. Purcell said he fully intended to vote on this matter; however, he needed to disclose that he had a relation with two of the partners.

Mr. Harper stated he would like to make the motion to approve the request for rezoning of approximately 78 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Residential General (R-2).  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

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

With the votes reflecting 7-0, the Board voted to approve the request for rezoning of approximately 78 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Residential General (R-2).

REZ14-07; W. W. Whitlock Agency, Inc., Applicant/Owner; requests conditional rezoning of approximately 57.21 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Residential Limited (R-1).  The property is located on the south side of Route 600 (Campbell Road), at the end of Deer View Road and Happy Valley Road, off of Green Springs Road.  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 34-(3)-7, in the Green Springs Voting District. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Low Density Residential in the Zion Crossroads Designated Growth Area.

The adjoining parcels as well as the surrounding area is a mixture of mostly Agricultural (A-2) parcels with several A-1 zoned parcels in the area.  Development around this property is also a mixture of mostly large agricultural parcels and agricultural subdivisions.

This parcel is the residual acreage from the original Green Springs Estates Subdivision approved in 1993 and was developed in phases.  Only three of the five original phases were developed and this request is to develop the remaining acreage in a manner that compliments the existing development.  The applicant has indicated that the existing subdivision streets were designed and constructed to accommodate the additional traffic that the new lots would generate.  Rezoning to the R-1 classification would provide the developer with the ability to obtain approximately 28 lots, which is closer to the original 1993 plan, than the seven lots allowed under the current A-2 zoning.

Proposed revised proffers submitted to date are summarized as follows:

            -        Cash proffer of $4,362.00 per lot.  Proffer will be paid from Lot Sale Settlement Proceeds at the time of lot sale.
-        Twenty (20) foot buffer will be provided around delineated wetlands.  In addition a 50-foot buffer will be created along the creek that originates out from the wetlands located in Common Area “A” between lots 57 and 58 and continues to Common Area “B” between lots 25 and 26.
-        Fifty (50) foot undisturbed natural vegetative buffer will be provided around the perimeter of the adjacent properties that are not part of the proposed subdivision.  Buffer is not being provided adjacent to the original phases I, II, and V of the existing subdivision.
-        A Common Area “B” with playground equipment is being provided for the use of all lot owners in Phases I-V of Green Springs Estates.  This common area is located in what used to be lot 26.
-        A Common Area “A” with a pavilion and picnic area is being provided for the use of all lot owners in Phases I-V of Green Springs Estates.  This common area will be located in what used to be lot 59.
-        A walking path will be provided within the 20-foot buffer connecting the two common areas.
-        R-1 zoning with yard line setbacks which conform to A-2 zoning
-        Elimination of one lot based on the increased buffer area (identified in the second proffer mentioned above)

There were eleven people present at the Neighborhood Meeting held on October 10, 2007.  Stated concerns, comments and questions included the following:

            -        Increase in dwelling square footage requirements
-        Subdivision signage
-        Option to join new/revised Home Owners Association
-        Value of new dwellings at the same price or above current homes
-        Increased traffic in the neighborhood
-        Targeted price range
-        Number of total lots
-        Specific builder or builders being considered

The Development Review Committee met on October 24, 2007 to review this application.  The one concern raised by the Committee was the size of the buffer proposed around the delineated wetlands and the applicant was asked to strongly consider increasing the size of the buffer.

With this being the only concern raised, the Committee voted (5-0-1, with Moore abstaining) to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission on the requested rezoning.

The Louisa County Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2007 at which seven (7) people spoke during the public hearing.  Concerns expressed mirrored the comments at the Neighborhood Meeting, including additional traffic on the existing subdivision streets, water issues, notification of the request and the fiscal impact on the County.  The applicant explained to the Planning Commission that the roads in the existing subdivision were built to accommodate the additional lots, additional buffers around the wetlands had been provided and that in addition to the County notification, a separate notice had been sent to all lot owners in the existing subdivision.

After further discussion, the Planning Commission voted (6-1, with Mr. Speer voting against) to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors on the requested rezoning with a suggestion that the proffer language regarding the 50-foot buffer around the perimeter of the property be tightened by amending the language in proffer number 3 to read “vegetative” buffer.

The area consists of agriculturally zoned parcels.  One of the concerns with all rezoning requests is whether or not it constitutes spot zoning.  Spot zoning is defined as the reclassifying of one or more tracts of land and the sole purpose is to serve the private interests of one or more land owners instead of furthering the welfare of the entire community as part of an overall zoning plan.

There must be valid reasons for any zoning amendment, which is substantially related to the public welfare and necessity.  It is not sufficient that an applicant merely show that there is no neighborhood objection to the requested amendment.  
        
(a)        Is the change contrary to the established land-use pattern?  The rezoning would be a more intensive residential development than would be allowed under the current A-2 zoning; however, it would not be incompatible with the remainder of the Green Springs Estates Subdivision in terms of lot size and density.
                

(b)        Is the change in conformance with the comprehensive plan? Yes, the 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Low Density Residential within the Zion Crossroads Designated Growth Area.

(c)        Would the change create an isolated district unrelated to similar districts (i.e., is this spot zoning?) No, the proposed Residential Limited (R-1) zoning district would be compatible with the existing Green Springs Estates Subdivision.  In addition, buffers are proposed around the perimeter of the adjacent properties not part of the subdivision.

The Board of Supervisors may wish to consider the possible impacts of this rezoning, as well as any potential precedent that the rezoning might set.  Do the proffers add value to the overall project and do they adequately mitigate those adverse impacts that the development may cause including, but not limited to, stormwater, traffic generation, schools, and public safety?  

Ms. Mary Johnson, Agent, stated this project was part of a multi-phased development in the 1990s and was developed under the A-2 subdivision.  Ms. Johnson said what they did to update this particular project was they revised some of the lots because there were originally 31 lots left in the original plat that was done and all of the roads were designed for full build out.  Ms. Johnson said a portion of one of the lots was turned into a common area, some lots were made larger and a lot was converted into another common area.  Ms. Johnson indicated that the lots would be developed under the A-2 standards to have consistency throughout the neighborhood even though they were requesting the R-1 zoning.  Ms. Johnson added they were meeting all of the A-2 guidelines as far as setbacks and square footage.  Ms. Johnson noted that all of the lots were at least 1.5 acres with the average lot being 1.7 acres, as it was intended in the beginning.    

Ms. Johnson said proposed in the proffers was a 20 foot natural vegetative buffer for the wetlands protection and a 50 foot permanent natural vegetative buffer along the perimeter.  Ms. Johnson said also being proposed were additional buffers of 50 feet to be created by the creek, where possible.  Ms. Johnson added there was a total of about eight acres being preserved in the buffers as currently proposed.  

Mr. Havasy questioned why proffers 4 and 5 used the term “is being provided” instead of “will be provided.”  Ms. Johnson indicated that Mr. Whitlock would change the final plat for proffers 4 and 5 to read “will be provided.”

Mr. Wright opened the public hearing.  

Ms. Kim Shiflett, Green Springs District, stated she was trying to figure out where her property was in relation to this request and how she would potentially be affected.  

Mr. Robert Shiflett, Green Springs District, stated he thought there needed to be more of a buffer in the subdivision to try to maintain the rural character and try to keep wildlife from getting into peoples yards.  Mr. Shiflett said he bought 22 acres for the purpose of not developing it and keeping it wooded.  Mr. Shiflett said he felt that the subdivision needed to allow more space around and throughout to maintain the rural integrity of Louisa County.  Mr. Shiflett indicated that he wasnt against the developers building additional homes, but he would like to see a revision to the plan to allow for more space for the green areas.  

Ms. Johnson stated she agreed with Mr. Shifletts comment as far as preserving the rural character of the County.  Ms. Johnson said they felt that preserving the wetlands and providing the buffer would go a long way in helping to achieve what Mr. Shiflett was trying to achieve and this project represented a start in that direction.  

Mr. Shiflett questioned what kind of timeframe was being looked at as far as starting to put the roads in.  Mr. Whitlock said he had looked at starting the process as soon as the weather broke this winter.  

Mr. Havasy questioned if the 50-foot buffer around the perimeter of the subdivision would be deeded.  Mr. Whitlock indicated that it would be put on the plat and the deed and would be an undisturbed vegetative buffer.

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

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the request for conditional rezoning of approximately 57.21 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Residential Limited (R-1).

RECESS

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the December 3, 2007 meeting at 7:49 p.m. until December 12, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


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