This week in county government; In busy meeting, BOS to consider rezoning for concrete plant at Ferncliff; Louisa's population on the rise; PC to hold public hearings on shoreline ordinance, CIP
This week in county government; In busy meeting, BOS to consider rezoning for concrete plant at Ferncliff; Louisa's population on the rise; PC to hold public hearings on shoreline ordinance, CIP
Engage Louisa is a nonpartisan newsletter that keeps folks informed about Louisa County government. We believe our community is stronger and our government serves us better when we increase transparency, accessibility, and engagement.
This week in county government: public meetings, Feb. 5 through Feb. 10
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here. (Note: Louisa County occasionally schedules internal committee/work group meetings after publication time. Check the county’s website for the most updated information).
Monday, Feb. 5
Louisa County Board of Supervisors, budget work session, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 3 pm. (agenda, livestream)
Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. The board will convene in closed session at 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
Tuesday, Feb. 6
Louisa County School Board, Central Office Administration Building, 953 Davis Highway, Mineral 7 pm. (agenda, livestream)
Superintendent Doug Straley will present his proposed operations budget for Fiscal Year 2025. The public will have a chance to weigh in on the spending plan during a public hearing following the presentation.
The board is scheduled to adopt the budget at its March meeting then forward it to the Board of Supervisors for consideration as part of the FY25 budget process. At publication time, neither the proposed budget nor a summary of the document were publicly available.
Wednesday, February 7
Cutalong II Community Development Authority, annual meeting, Cutalong Clubhouse, 978 New Bridge Road, Mineral, 11 am.
Neighborhood Meeting, hosted by the Louisa County Community Development Department and Louisa Heights, LLC, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 4 pm.
The Community Development Department will host a neighborhood meeting to provide Louisa Heights, LLC an opportunity to discuss its request to rezone, from general industrial (I-2) to industrial limited (I-1), 3.14 acres on Duke Street in the Louisa Growth Area (tmp 41-187). The applicant plans to establish a mini warehouse and parking facility. The applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit, which is required for the use in I-1 zoning. (land use application)
Thursday, February 8
Louisa County Planning Commission, long-range planning work session, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
Louisa County Planning Commission, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
Additional information about Louisa County’s upcoming public meetings is available here.
Interested in taking your talents to one of the county’s numerous boards and commissions? Find out more here including which boards have vacancies and how to apply.
In busy meeting, supervisors to consider rezonings for concrete plant at Ferncliff, more residential lots on Halls Store Road
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors will be busy on Monday, convening for a pair of meetings.
At 3 pm, the board will hold the first work session of the Fiscal Year 2025 budget cycle. During the session, supervisors and county staff will discuss both the Operations and Maintenance budget and the Capital Improvement Plan. The operating budget funds the county’s day-to-day work—from employees’ salaries to fuel for fire trucks—while the capital budget mostly pays for big ticket items like new school buildings, infrastructure projects and emergency service equipment.
Monday’s work session marks the first time the board will publicly dig into the details of the budget. While Finance Director Wanda Colvin presented what she called a “very, very, very preliminary” overview of the spending plan at supervisors’ January 16 meeting, she’ll likely provide more details about anticipated revenues and expenditures Monday afternoon.
Supervisors are expected to spend much of the work session considering requests from outside agencies—organizations that aren’t officially part of county government, but partner with the locality to provide services. Outside agencies have collectively requested $6.74 million for FY25, about $277,000 more than supervisors appropriated for the current fiscal year.
Over the next few months, the board will continue to craft the budget, deciding what they’ll pay for and setting the local tax rates that fund county services. During the budget process, they’ll hold multiple work sessions and public hearings before adopting a final spending plan in mid-April. The new fiscal year kicks off July 1.
Supervisors will convene the public portion of their regular meeting at 6 pm with a busy agenda, including five public hearings, on tap. While the board’s last several meetings have been relatively low-key affairs, Monday’s gathering could take on a more contentious tone with at least two controversial rezoning requests on the agenda. Check out a meeting preview below.
Supervisors to consider rezoning for concrete plant at Ferncliff: The board will tackle perhaps the most controversial item on its agenda in the first public hearing of the night: Essex Concrete Corporation and KFP1, LLC’s request to rezone, from general commercial (C-2) to general industrial (I-2), parts of two parcels (tmp 67-2-C, 67-2-B), covering 13.8 acres, near the intersection of Routes 250 and 208 in the Patrick Henry Election District. The parcels are in the Ferncliff Growth Area Overlay District and designated for mixed-use development on the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Essex proposes to operate a concrete manufacturing facility on 11.9 acres of one parcel (tmp 67-2-C) while accessing the plant via a shared entrance on the adjoining parcel (tmp 62-7-B), which is currently home to S&N Communications. Essex holds a 10-year lease on the former parcel while KFP1 owns both properties.
In Essex’s land use application, attorney Torrey Williams, who’s representing the company, argues that a concrete plant would fit with the character of the neighborhood and wouldn’t be detrimental, describing the Route 250 corridor as “in large part currently used by industrial owners and occupants.” The corridor is already home to one concrete plant, albeit some six miles west at Zion Crossroads.
Some nearby property owners strongly disagree with Williams’ assessment.
When the Planning Commission held its public hearing in January, several neighbors said that the property is ill-suited for industrial development. Though the Ferncliff Business Park, home to a mix of commercial and light industrial zoning, is just across the street, adjoining property owner Edwin Bailey contended that there aren’t any parcels zoned for more intense industrial use—like a concrete plant—within five miles of Ferncliff. Bailey said that rezoning to general industrial flies in the face of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for the area, which focuses on mixed-use development, not intensive industrial uses.
Neighbors also argued that bringing a concrete plant to Ferncliff would negatively impact air quality, generate excessive noise, threaten their water supply and increase traffic, among other ills.
Neighbor Heidi Shalloway, who lives a short distance from where the facility would operate, told the commission that concrete plants are a major source of air pollution, putting neighbors’ health at risk. She also argued that the plant would guzzle large quantities of water, produce runoff that could contaminate wells and infringe on neighbors with constant noise and truck traffic.
“How many of you would want to live next to a concrete batching plant, exposing yourself to heart and lung disease, contaminated or depleted groundwater and the constant ‘bang, bang, bang’ and vibrations shaking your home?” Shalloway asked the commission.
Commissioners also had reservations about the request, which at the time included a proposal to rezone the entirety of both parcels. The panel voted unanimously to recommend that supervisors deny the rezoning.
Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles, who represents the area, said that he couldn’t support the rezoning unless it included a proffer barring the plant from using an on-site well to source the more than 4,000 gallons of water per day needed to operate the facility. He insisted that the plant should rely solely on public water from the Louisa County Water Authority, which, for now, relies on ultra-deep wells near Zion Crossroads.
Other commissioners expressed concerns about Essex’s refusal to nail down specific hours of operation.
Williams tried to assure the commission that the plant would use public water, but stopped short of offering a proffer prohibiting the property owner from drilling a private well. He also said that while the plant intended to operate from 6 or 6:30 am to 4 or 4:30 pm mostly on weekdays, he couldn’t guarantee specific hours because of “the nature of the business.”
Since the meeting, Williams agreed to a few more concessions. In revised proffers submitted to the Community Development Department last week, the applicant didn’t offer set hours, but agreed to not operate on Sundays. The applicant also agreed that the plant and associated uses would be “solely served by the Louisa County Water Authority” or its successors. Williams also submitted a revised application asking to rezone only parts of the two parcels.
In additional proffers presented at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant agreed to prohibit most uses allowed under general industrial zoning from setting up shop on the property in the future, to maintain existing vegetative buffers and to use dark-sky compliant lighting.
While tweaks to the proffers were enough to convince the county’s professional planning staff to switch its recommendation from denial to approval—staff recommends approval in a report prepared for supervisors—the changes aren’t likely to allay the concerns of neighbors, who’ve been organizing against the rezoning since just before the Planning Commission’s meeting.
In letters and emails to residents at Ferncliff and beyond, Shalloway has sounded the alarm about the plant, reiterating and elaborating on concerns she raised at the commission meeting and urging residents to call board members and speak at Monday’s public hearing.
“If this happens, our community will have to suffer through the air and water pollution, noise, potential depletion of well water and heavier traffic that could lead to more fatalities at the intersection of Courthouse Road and Route 250,” Shalloway wrote in a letter to residents, citing concerns about polluted runoff poisoning waterways and groundwater, air pollution, including harmful dust inundating the surrounding community, and large concrete trucks frequently passing through Ferncliff.
Williams tried to address some of those concerns during his presentation to the commission. He said that the concrete industry is heavily regulated and that the plant must obtain an air quality permit from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. DEQ would annually audit the facility and conduct surprise visits, he said, a process Essex is familiar with as an experienced concrete plant operator.
Williams also noted that the plant would include vegetative buffers that would help dissipate sound. He said that concrete plants typically generate 83 decibels of noise 50 feet away. At the property line some 400 feet away, that noise would decrease to 64 decibels with no vegetation on the property, he said. Louisa County’s noise ordinance limits noise to 65 decibels during the day at the property line of agriculturally zoned parcels, several of which adjoin the subject property.
With respect to wastewater runoff from the plant, Williams said the facility would include a wastewater bin that would collect water for reuse and there would be “no wastewater impact” at the site. Regarding dust, he said the facility is required to include a dust collector to minimize its impact.
Williams said that the plant would have minimal traffic impact, noting that it’s expected to generate just 38 vehicle trips per day—25 from concrete trucks—and that the proposed shared entrance off Route 250 is already served by a turning lane. He also said the facility would have the capacity to produce 15 batches of concrete per day, so it wouldn’t constantly run heavy equipment.
Supervisors to consider rezoning to allow more residential lots on Halls Store Road: To the dismay of some neighbors, a handful of new homes could be coming to Halls Store Road in eastern Louisa County.
Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider whether to approve GK Structures, LLC’s request to rezone, from A-1 to A-2, 21.9 acres at the corner of Halls Store Road and Jefferson Highway (Route 33) in the Jackson Voting District (tmp 73-6-4). The rezoning would allow the developer to divide the property seven times, four more than what’s allowed under its current zoning. (staff report)
According to its land use application, GK Structures intends to divide the property into seven parcels, ranging in size from 1.6 to 6.8 acres. Six of the lots would front Halls Store Road, each with a private entrance. The seventh would have an entrance off Route 33.
The company plans to build a single-family home on each lot with a target sales price between $300,000 and $350,000. As home prices climb in the county, the applicant argues that the rezoning would benefit the community, enabling GK Structures to provide more affordable housing options that meet the needs of young families and empty nesters.
“(The) developer/builder applicant has a history of providing affordable one level living homes targeted at entry level buyers, aging in place buyers, and retirees,” GK Structures representative Larry Giannasi wrote in an email to county staff. “The home buyer who has historically purchased their homes has been of great benefit to the county. They usually are just starting out or empty nesters putting little strain on county resources.”
The applicant contends that the rezoning wouldn’t negatively impact the neighborhood, noting that the property is heavily wooded so it has ample mature vegetation for buffers and that the average lot size would likely exceed the size of many surrounding parcels. The property is surrounded by a handful of smaller lots zoned A-2 and several larger parcels zoned A-1.
The board was scheduled to hold a public hearing on GK Structures’ application at its January 16 meeting, but delayed consideration of the item at the applicant’s request. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the board reject the rezoning in December after the applicant requested a deferral in a email to county staff just hours before the meeting. At its November meeting, the commission delayed consideration of the application at the request of Jackson District Commissioner Cy Weaver, who couldn’t attend.
While representatives of GK Structures haven’t shown up at any of the meetings, neighbors opposed to the rezoning showed up at all three. In comments to the Planning Commission, six residents who live on or near Halls Store Road said that they want the property to retain its current zoning, arguing that more homes in the area would disrupt the community’s rural character and increase traffic on Halls Store Road, a roadway ill-suited to handle it.
“Halls Store Road (is) well-travelled. I know it well by car, bicycle and foot. It’s a typical country road, fairly narrow, unmarked, no shoulders, not seemingly designed for more and more development,” said Virginia Robinson, who lives on a farm adjacent to the subject parcel.
Supes to hold public hearing on code amendments to address nuisance littering: Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider making changes to county code that empower them to crack down on residents who accumulate trash and debris on residential property in agricultural zoning, a problem they can’t currently address due to a change in state law. (draft amendments)
At their October 16 meeting, Cuckoo District resident Jeffrey Bullock told supervisors that, over the last two years, his neighbor has piled mounds of trash in his yard, which Bullock described as an eyesore and potentially an environmental hazard.
Bullock said that he worked with county staff to address the issue and that the county took the landowner to court. After initially ordering the property owner to clean up the yard, the court reversed the decision.
Then-Assistant County Attorney Kyle Eldridge explained that the court reversed course based on a change in state law. Eldridge said that, in 2021, Virginia updated its code to exempt properties used for farming or zoned agricultural from “duty to keep residential property clean” ordinances like one included in Louisa’s code. Though the subject property isn’t used for farming, he said, it is zoned agricultural, so state law ties the county’s hands.
Eldridge noted that most property in the county is zoned either A-1 or A-2, and it’s exempt under state code regardless of whether it’s a farm.
Several supervisors said there are also issues with excessive trash and debris in their districts. They directed staff to explore other ways to address Bullock’s concerns and similar complaints.
The board will consider a proposal crafted by acting County Attorney Dale Mullen on Monday night. During a discussion of the proposal in January, Mullen said that while the county doesn’t have the tools to remedy the complaints under its existing code, it could potentially do so by tweaking two code sections: Sec. 38-1, which addresses public nuisances, and Sec. 62-29, the county’s “duty to keep residential property clean” ordinance.
Drawing on state code, Mullen proposes adding language to the former code section that empowers the board to “maintain an action to compel a responsible party to abate, raze, or remove a public nuisance.” He proposes adding the following sentence to the latter code section: “Any storage, accumulation or dumping of litter, debris, abandoned vehicles, or other waste material, which might endanger the health, safety and wellness of others is declared a nuisance.”
Under Mullen’s proposal, if litter reaches the level of a nuisance regardless of a property’s zoning, supervisors could take the residential property owner to court with a circuit court judge having the final say on whether the county has the power to address the issue. Mullen noted that, in general, agricultural operations can’t be considered a nuisance though that’s not always the case.
To ensure buy-in from the county’s agricultural community, the board sent the draft amendments to the county’s Ag/Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee for review. At its January 17 meeting, the committee recommended that the board adopt the ordinance.
Supervisors to consider resolution formally opposing Deeds’ clean energy bill: Supervisors will consider formally opposing a bill carried by one of the county’s representatives in the General Assembly.
State Senator Creigh Deeds (D-Charlottesville), whose 11th Senate District includes a slice of western Louisa County, is carrying SB 567, a bill that would allow the State Corporation Commission (SCC) to approve some large-scale clean energy generation facilities when those facilities face difficulties in the local approval process.
Deeds’ bill comes as utility-scale solar development faces growing resistance in localities across rural Virginia including Louisa, potentially hindering the state’s ability to meet clean energy goals established in the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), landmark legislation passed by Democrats in 2020 to combat climate change.
The VCEA mandates that the state’s two largest electric providers—Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power—source all their energy from carbon-free source by mid-century. It also sets a goal of deploying at least 16.1 gigawatts of solar generation capacity.
Under the bill, applicants seeking to develop utility-scale solar facilities producing at least 50 MW of power, wind energy facilities generating at least 100 MW or large battery storage facilities could appeal to the SCC for approval in some circumstances.
Developers would have the right to ask the commission to green-light their project if a locality fails to approve or deny an application in a timely manner or if the application complies with SCC requirements, but the host locality denies its approval. Developers could also appeal to the SCC if they’re notified that a locality’s requirements are compatible with commission rules then the locality amends its ordinance to make it more restrictive. If the SCC approves a project, it would be exempt from obtaining approvals or permits under the locality’s regulations and ordinances.
In an email to constituents in late January, Deeds said the bill would “encourage faster development of industrial solar projects,” noting the “hodgepodge” of local regulations that solar developers must navigate.
Supervisors will consider passing a resolution opposing the legislation and a companion bill (HB 636) carried by Democrat Rip Sullivan in the House of Delegates. The proposed resolution says that the bills “would strip localities of the authority to make decisions about their own land and water and could be hazardous to the health and safety of county residents.” It also says that the SCC isn’t equipped to make decisions for individual localities.
In his email, Deeds acknowledged widespread opposition to the legislation, including from local boards of supervisors, Dominion Energy and the Virginia Association of Counties, noting that he has little hope the bill will pass. But he said that clean energy is a statewide issue and Virginians need to start thinking about it that way.
“I think we have at least begun a conversation regarding the development of alternative sources of energy. We are going to have to continue that conversation if we are to meet our goals under the VCEA and transition to a renewable economy,” he said.
At publication time, Deeds’ bill is awaiting a hearing in front of the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, which he chairs. Sullivan’s bill is awaiting a hearing in a House Labor and Commerce subcommittee.
Board to consider approval of new Comp Plan section focused on public facilities: Supervisors will consider adding a new section to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan focused on public facilities.
In 2019, Louisa County updated its Comp Plan, a state-mandated planning document. While the update laid out a broad vision for the county’s future development and stated as its chief goal maintaining the community’s rural character, county officials left some sections of the plan incomplete.
On Monday, the board will take a step toward finishing the document, considering approval of a Public Facilities Plan compiled by staff in cooperation with members of the Planning Commission. Broadly, the plan documents current county facilities across most departments and assesses future needs. Read the draft chapter here.
BOS to hold public hearing on golf carts in Seclusion Shores: Golf carts could soon be coming to roads in the Seclusion Shores subdivision on Lake Anna.
Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider whether to approve the Seclusion Shores Homeowners Association’s request to allow golf carts on three of the subdivision’s roads: Seclusion Shores Drive (Route 1100); Old Farm Hollow (Route 1134); and Elk Court (Route 1135).
Under state law, golf carts are prohibited from operating on state roads unless a locality authorizes the activity via an ordinance passed by its governing body. Prior to making a determination, the body must review the streets proposed for golf cart use to ensure they meet certain safety standards.
The county already authorizes golf carts on public roads in nine subdivisions, eight of which are on Lake Anna.
Supervisors to consider changing April meeting schedule: Supervisors will consider approving a resolution to change their meeting schedule for the month of April. Typically, supervisors meet on the first and third Monday of each month unless those days fall on a holiday. In that case, they meet the following day. The proposed resolution would shift the board’s meetings to the second and fifth Monday in April. Instead of meeting on Monday, April 1 and Monday, April 15, the board would meet on Monday, April 8 and Monday, April 29. The meeting materials don’t provide a reason for the proposed change.
Four discussion items on board’s agenda: The board’s agenda includes four discussion items: “TOD and Solar Workgroup;” “Comprehensive Plan Update;” “Solicitor Ordinance;” and “Procurement for Water/Sewer Infrastructure.” Other than a copy of a solicitor ordinance from Fauquier County, the agenda packet doesn’t include additional information about the items.
Louisa ranks as Virginia’s third fastest-growing locality
As anyone who drives around Louisa County can attest, new homes are going up at a steady clip from Gordonsville to Gum Springs.
But there’s more than anecdotal evidence to suggest that the county’s population is on the rise.
According to the latest estimates from the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Louisa County’s population now exceeds 40,000. At the mid-point of 2023, the county had 40,434 residents, per Weldon Cooper, up from 37,596 in 2020, the year of the last census. From April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2023, the county grew 7.5 percent, making it Virginia’s third-fastest growing locality.
Weldon Cooper provides the state with annual population estimates for localities outside of census years, drawing on a range of sources to compile its data including tax records, new home construction, school enrollment, and birth and death records. The state relies on the estimates to allocate funding and guide its decision-making.
A closer look at Louisa’s estimate shows that while the county’s death rate outpaced its birth rate over the last three years, strong in-migration drove its population upward with 2,981 more people moving to the county than leaving it.
Louisa’s growth is indicative of a larger statewide and national trend in which residents in densely populated urban and suburban areas are flocking to rural and exurban communities. The four counties that notched the highest percentage of population growth over the last three years—New Kent (11.9 percent), Goochland (7.7 percent), Louisa (7.5 percent) and Caroline (7.0 percent)—are all mostly rural localities that lie on the edge of the Richmond metro area.
Demographer Hamilton Lombard, esimates program manager for the center’s Demographics Research Group, said in an email to Engage Louisa that while the population gains some rural areas are experiencing come as a surprise, that’s not the case for Louisa. He pointed to a few factors driving the county’s growth including its proximity to several sizable metropolitan areas, its lower cost of living than nearby cities and a rise in remote work prompted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Based on IRS data, Lombard said that many of Louisa’s new residents are coming from Spotsylvania, Fairfax, Henrico, Albemarle and Orange counties.
“The large share of remote work that is still taking place is likely helping drive some of the migration. Louisa, with its proximity to nearby job centers, likely is attracting a decent share of remote workers who may go into the office occasionally,” Lombard said.
Lake Anna, which has become a haven for retirees, is also contributing to the county’s steady growth, Lombard said. But, he noted, the county is attracting residents of all ages.
“Though Louisa has attracted a decent amount of retirees, it has also attracted younger residents, particularly families with children, which has helped boost its school enrollment even as enrollment declines in most counties around the state,” Lombard said.
According to preliminary public school enrollment projections released by Weldon Cooper in January, Louisa County Public Schools is among 15 school divisions expected to see enrollment climb by more than three percent over the next five years. LCPS currently enrolls 5,046 students in grades K-12, according to Weldon Cooper. That figure is expected to rise to 5,307 by the 2028-29 academic year with much of that growth driven by new elementary school students.
Weldon Cooper projects that enrollment in most of Virginia’s 131 public school divisions will decline in the same timeframe driven, in part, by a steady drop in the state’s birth rate.
Just as Lombard predicts rising enrollment for local schools, he expects the county’s population to continue to grow.
“For Louisa, provided the county has a good number of lots available to be developed or is willing to allow more development, it's position between DC, Richmond and Charlottesville will cause it to continue to grow at a relatively fast pace,” he said.
Grappling with population growth has emerged as one of the key tensions in Louisa County government. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan, approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2019, states that its chief goal is to preserve the county’s rural character. To do that, the board shrunk the county’s designated growth areas and, in a rewrite of the zoning code that followed, increased to 1.5 acres the minimum lot size in most zoning districts.
Still, supervisors have approved two significant mixed-use developments at Zion Crossroads in the last five years—the 300+-unit Crossing Pointe and the 649-unit Zion Town Center—that could draw several thousand new residents once they’re built. The county also has a solid supply of buildable lots in its more rural areas.
In population projections published in July 2022, Weldon Cooper anticipated that Louisa’s population would climb to 41,436 by 2030, a figure that will be easily surpassed if current trends continue.
Planning Commission to hold public hearings on Lake Anna shoreline ordinance, Capital Improvement Plan
The Louisa County Planning Commission on Thursday night will hold a pair of public hearings. In the first, commissioners will consider whether to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the draft Fiscal Year 2025 to Fiscal Year 2044 Capital Improvement Plan. In the second, they’ll consider whether to recommend that supervisors repeal parts of the Lake Anna shoreline ordinance.
Commissioners to hold public hearing on preliminary Capital Improvement Plan: As part of the Fiscal Year 2025 budget process, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and consider whether to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of the draft FY 2025-FY 2044 Capital Improvement Plan, a 20-year road map for spending on long-lived and high-value items for purchase or construction. The preliminary plan covers everything from new cop cars and fire trucks to school additions and public water and sewer infrastructure.
This draft CIP includes nearly $74 million in spending requests for the coming fiscal year, about $32 million more than the capital budget for FY24. Louisa County Public Schools is asking for most of that funding including $26 million for a 500-seat addition to Louisa County Middle School and $25 million for a 54,500-square foot career and technical education center adjacent to Louisa County High School.
The commission held a work session on the draft CIP at its January meeting where department heads and other county officials pitched planners on funding requests for a range of big-ticket items, mostly focusing on FY25. After the commission hears from the public and makes its recommendation on Thursday night, the plan will move to the Board of Supervisors for formal consideration as part of the FY25 budget. Supervisors have the final say on whether an item is included in the long-range CIP and when and if it receives funding.
For a comprehensive overview of the draft CIP, check out the January 14 edition of Engage Louisa. For more information about the county budget process including budget documents, click here.
PC to consider repeal of parts of Lake Anna shoreline ordinance: It could become a little easier to secure permission to build overwater structures on Lake Anna.
After deferring a public hearing on the item at their January meeting, commissioners will consider whether to recommend that the Board of Supervisors repeal parts of the Lake Anna shoreline ordinance. Adopted in 2005, the ordinance lays out development and design standards for overwater structures like docks, boathouses and boardwalks and largely mirrors Dominion Energy’s development guidelines. Dominion owns the lake and its shoreline but allows adjoining property owners to construct overwater structures via individual use agreements.
Louisa County’s professional planning staff has recommended that supervisors repeal two components of the ordinance, which address “Safe navigation” and “Neighbor policies,” because they mostly duplicate Dominion’s regulations. Staff’s recommendation would leave intact a third section related to erosion and sediment control, which isn’t covered in Dominion’s guidelines. A fourth section addressing dredging would refer to Dominion’s rules. A provision that mandates the use of dark-sky compliant lighting on overwater structures would be moved to another section of county code.
Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said during a work session just prior to the commission’s January meeting that county officials met with Dominion and the company asserted that it has control over what’s built on its property. He said the current system of overlapping regulations is causing confusion and eating up staff time even though the county doesn’t have the final say on what can be built on the lake.
“Dominion made it abundantly clear the agreement to build on Dominion easement is between Dominion and the property owner. They are not going to worry about our rules and standards…Because of that statement and that stance that they’ve taken, this is an attempt to try and remove the extra regulation that (people) need to jump through to get an approval to build on Dominion property,” Coon said.
Coon added that, even if the regulations are repealed, property owners would still need to get a building permit from the county after securing Dominion’s approval, but staff wouldn’t apply a duplicative set of regulations.
But several commissioners weren’t ready to consider changes without more information.
Board Chair and Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway asked for an overview of how the county’s rules differ from Dominion’s. He said he couldn’t vote on removing parts of the ordinance without knowing exactly what the county is giving up.
Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow, the board’s liaison to the commission, expressed concern about axing regulations that could protect the county if Dominion permits a structure that local officials find problematic.
Community Development Director Josh Gillespie said that while Louisa’s ordinance, in some cases, includes more detail than Dominion’s, the intent of the repeal is to ensure there aren’t different standards.
“Part of the purpose of this is, if there is some discrepancy, to strike it where the discrepancy doesn’t belong, which is on the county side, given that (the lake is) a corporately maintained and corporately operated resource,” Gillespie said.
The commission agreed to delay consideration of the proposal until this Thursday’s meeting to allow staff time to provide more information. The commission will discuss the ordinance at a 5 pm work session prior to holding a public hearing at its 7 pm meeting. (side by side comparison)
Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.
Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.
Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.
Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.