Supes restore funding for PVCC, adopt revised Lake Anna Shoreline Ordinance; PC says truck stops should be permitted with CUP in some commercial zoning; PC deadlocks on lowering solar cap

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, May 13 through May 18

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, May 13

Board of Supervisors Solar Work Group, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.

Tuesday, May 14

Louisa County Electoral Board, Office of Elections, 103 McDonald St., Louisa, 10 am.

Wednesday, May 15

Community Policy Management Team, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.

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.

---

County asks for feedback on roadside litter

Louisa County is asking residents to fill out a short survey as part of an initiative to address roadside litter. According to a press release issued by the county on Friday, the survey aims “to collect perspectives and sentiments throughout the county” about litter and litter prevention with the results “used by the newly established Litter Work Group to make informed recommendations to the board [of supervisors] on mitigation and prevention strategies.” Participate in the survey here.

---

Supervisors restore funding for PVCC, adopt revised Lake Anna Shoreline Ordinance

For the second week in a row, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors wrapped up public business in short order, opting to restore funding for Piedmont Virginia Community College, appropriating the Fiscal Year 2025 budget, green-lighting revisions to the Lake Anna Shoreline Ordinance and more. (meeting materials, video)

After suspending its funding a week before, supes allocate $5,859 to PVCC in FY25 budget

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night voted unanimously to restore funding to Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) in the Fiscal Year 2025 budget. Just a week before, supervisors withheld the $5,859 that PVCC was set to receive from the county, citing concerns that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) showed a film on campus.

According to its Instagram account, the pro-Palestinian student group screened the film Israelism on April 19. Directed by two Jewish filmmakers, the documentary follows what happens when “two young American Jews raised to unconditionally love Israel witness the brutal way Israel treats Palestinians,” according to its website.

The board’s resolution said that “public funds should not support platforms for antisemitism or discrimination” and that the board was suspending PVCC’s funding “pending an in-person explanation” from the school regarding its stance on antisemitism and discrimination. The resolution didn’t explain why supervisors had concerns that SJP-PVCC is an antisemitic or discriminatory organization.

While a representative from PVCC didn’t appear at Monday’s meeting, Board Chair Duane Adams said before casting his vote that he’d had several conversations with PVCC President Jean Runyon and she had shared the college’s anti-discrimination policy and other documents, which addressed his concerns. He said those documents were also shared with other board members.

“It’s widely known that at the last meeting, the board of supervisors, pending a conversation with PVCC, had delayed the funding for the community college. We had requested a meeting with the community college. That meeting was unfortunately scheduled after the budget vote,” Adams said. “Since that time, I’ve had several conversations and meetings with the president of the community college who forwarded me the community college’s protocols and policies concerning affirmative action, concerning discrimination, concerning antisemitism, and also the protocol that they go through to ensure that every student at the college, regardless of race, religion, background, gender, sexual orientation, is in a safe learning environment.”

Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, the same board member who moved to pull the college’s funding a week before, then motioned to restore the money. Williams said that he had heard from a couple people who were angry about the board’s initial vote but insisted that wasn’t the reason he ultimately decided the college is worthy of county support. 

“I want to be clear just so no one thinks that a couple of untimely phone calls and cussing and ranting at me makes a difference. That’s not why I changed my mind. I didn’t change my mind. We wanted to hear from [PVCC],” Williams said. “I just want to be clear that the best way to deal with these things is to discuss them and educate yourself.”

Supervisors voted to pull the college’s funding with no discussion at their April 29 meeting and without advertising the resolution prior to the meeting. 

At publication time, PVCC hadn’t released a statement in response to the board’s decision to restore its funding. In a statement after supervisors’ initial vote, the college said that it’s “committed to fostering a safe environment for freedom of expression” and that it “condemns any discrimination in the strongest terms.”  The school also emphasized that, since 1972, it has offered affordable and accessible educational programs to thousands of students. 

Adams initially raised concerns about the college allowing SJP-PVCC to show a film on campus in an April 18 Facebook post. He said that he was disappointed that PVCC was allowing “this movie to be shown on campus” and that he’d “reached [out] to the school administration to discuss.” He added that “their timeline to discuss this issue is well past [the] April 19 showing.”

“As an outside entity that receives funding from Louisa County, Virginia, I can not in good conscience support funding for an organization that allows a blatantly antisemitic organization use of their facilities,” Adams said in the post. 

Adams reiterated those comments after the April 29 meeting but sought to clarify that his concern wasn’t about the film, but the student group hosting it. 

“My concern is not particularly about a movie that was shown. But the group that has shown the movie has a history on a national level—this is a local chapter of a national group—of very antisemitic behavior and rhetoric and is behind some of these protests [on college campuses],” Adams said, referencing pro-Palestinian protests at colleges across the country where students are calling for a permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war and pressing schools to divest their endowments from arms suppliers and other companies profiting from the conflict.

There haven’t been any significant protests at PVCC and Adams didn’t provide any specific examples of the student group’s involvement in antisemitic activity on the campus.  

On its Instagram account, the group shared information about events it hosted at PVCC including the film screening and a teach-in about the history of Palestine. It also shared details about its involvement in a successful effort to convince the Charlottesville City Council to pass a resolution calling for a ceasefire and its support of a campus protest at the University of Virginia. 

While Louisa’s roughly $6,000 contribution to PVCC is only a small slice of the college’s annual budget, it funds activities and services that benefit Louisa students. According to a funding request submitted to the county earlier this year, PVCC received about $58,400 from the seven localities in its service region in FY24. Louisa’s contribution is proportional to its 10 percent share of enrollment across the region. 

The request says the school relies on local contributions to support program expenses that aren’t paid for by state funds including “site work expenses (when new construction or renovation of existing buildings is needed), student support activities, operations (parking & safety), and learning opportunities designed to improve access to citizens in our service delivery area (i.e., dual enrollment).”

Board adopts revised Lake Anna Shoreline Ordinance

In an effort to simplify the permitting process for residential docks and boathouses, supervisors voted unanimously to revise the Lake Anna Shoreline Ordinance. 

Adopted in 2005, the ordinance lays out design and development guidelines for overwater and shoreline structures, overlapping with Dominion Energy’s rules. Dominion owns the lake and its shoreline but allows adjoining property owners and developers to build docks, boathouses, boardwalks, boat slips and similar structures via individual use agreements. 

The tweaks adopted on Monday aim to streamline the construction of individual boathouses and docks serving residential and agriculturally zoned parcels by removing Louisa County planning staff’s duplicative review of Dominion’s approval process.

The proposal axes some provisions already governed by Dominion’s regulations related to the size and orientation of residential overwater structures but retains provisions that cap their height. 

“We won’t have our staff go through the requirements that Dominion already has in place. If they have the approval from Dominion, we will take that as approval from Dominion to build there. Our staff would just look [to ensure] that the agreement is for the individual parcel, the roof height is correct whether it’s a pitched or flat roof and construction plans match the Dominion approval notification,” Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said, adding that staff would continue to carry out duties connected to the issuance of building permits and inspections. 

The approved revisions also tweak the county’s guidelines for lighting on newly-constructed overwater structures, requiring the use of dark-sky compliant lighting instead of recommending it.

A proposed provision that would’ve required property owners to submit as-built drawings of their boathouses and docks to the county post-construction was removed from the ordinance prior to adoption.

Beyond residential boathouses, the ordinance retains the county’s rules for commercial areas and subdivision common areas. It also leaves intact sections of the ordinance relating to erosion and sediment control and dredging.

A previous proposal developed by the county’s planning staff had sought to repeal large swaths of the ordinance. Staff had argued that Dominion’s and the county’s overlapping rules cause confusion and eat up staff time even though the company, not the county, ultimately controls what’s built on the lake.

But that version sparked concern from Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter who argued that the county shouldn’t gut its role in regulating what’s built over the water, particularly in commercial and common areas. During a brief discussion of the reworked proposal at the board’s April 29 meeting, McCotter called it a “good compromise.”

“I looked into this and followed the process from the beginning, worked with staff. This is a very good document,” McCotter said. “I think that it keeps Louisa involved in the process. It also eases the burden on staff.”

Though the board voted 7-0 to approve the revised ordinance, the impact of the changes stirred some concern from Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow. Throughout the county’s months-long debate over what to do with the ordinance, Barlow has insisted that it was initially implemented because of concerns that a group of developers planned to build a floating townhome community on the lake.

He claimed on Monday that, when the proposal was initially presented, Dominion didn’t seem too concerned about residential development over the water and that the county’s ordinance acted as a safeguard against the use. 

Barlow said that he wanted assurances that the county wasn’t stripping parts of the ordinance that protect it from unwanted overwater development. 

“I want to make sure that someone can’t come along…and build 15 acres of floating condominiums out there on the lake and us have no purview over it,” Barlow said. “Is that clear in this ordinance that if something like this comes up, it comes to this board, the planning commission and everybody else?”

Interim county attorney Dale Mullen suggested that he isn’t certain existing county code offers that protection, but he said the revisions under consideration Monday night didn’t relate to the issue. 

“To the extent it existed before, it still exists in there today. But I will say that an argument could be made, and the code could be strengthened to indicate that that would not be permitted,” Mullen said. 

County Administrator Christian Goodwin suggested that the board hear directly from Dominion about Barlow’s concerns. Supervisors and staff could then determine if changes to the code are necessary, he said. The board agreed to move forward with the revised ordinance and talk with Dominion representatives at a future meeting. 

Board appropriates FY25 budget, oks reimbursement for school construction

The board formally appropriated the FY25 Operations and Maintenance Budget and Capital Improvement Plan. The $156.2 million operating budget covers the daily cost of running county government while the $51.6 million CIP pays for big-ticket items like school buildings, school buses and emergency service equipment.

While the approved capital budget is technically $51.6 million, the board okayed more than $81 million in capital projects as part of the FY25 budget process. But one of those projects—$29.4 million to construct a 500-seat addition to Louisa County Middle School and an accompanying alternative education center—will get underway in late May, so the board moved the appropriation to FY24.

Though the capital budget includes $29.4 million for the middle school addition, the project is expected to come in significantly under budget. The school board accepted a bid last week from Nielsen Builders out of Harrisonburg to build the addition for just over $21 million. With contingencies and non-construction-related expenses, the project is expected to cost about $25.4 million, according to Superintendent of Schools Doug Straley. 

In appropriating the operating budget, the board made one small tweak. It withheld a $38,000 allotment for the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA), earmarked for the agency’s local Head Start program.

Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams said that the agency had relinquished the federal grants that pay for the program and suspended its operation. He said that the money would remain in the budget, but the county wouldn’t give it to MACAA until it restarted the program. (Read more about MACAA’s suspension of its Head Start program here and here).

In other budget-related action, the board unanimously approved a resolution permitting it to reimburse itself for costs incurred during the early stages of construction of the middle school addition and a $31.6 million career and technical education center, also approved as part of the FY25 budget.

The resolution authorizes the board to pay itself back for cash on hand it expends prior to the arrival of proceeds from up to $62 million in bonds it plans to issue via the Virginia Public School Authority this fall to pay for the projects.

Board accepts unsolicited bid for AWS water and sewer infrastructure

Supervisors voted unanimously to accept an unsolicited bid to design and build water and sewer infrastructure for a pair of data center campuses that Amazon Web Services (AWS) is developing in the county’s Technology Overlay District.

One of the campuses—the Lake Anna Technology Campus (LATC)—is slated for 150 acres at the corner of Kentucky Springs Road and Haley Drive adjacent to the North Anna Nuclear Power Station. The other—the North Creek Technology Campus (NCTC)—is planned for about 830 acres of a 1444-acre tract south of Route 33 and east of Mount Airy Road near the Northeast Creek Reservoir. 

Economic Development Director Andy Wade told the board Monday night that authorizing the bid’s acceptance doesn’t obligate the county to use the bidder. It merely triggers a 45-day advertisement period for the bid, giving other companies a chance to submit competing proposals.

Wade said an internal county committee would review the submissions then choose a firm to complete the project. 

While Wade didn’t name the bidder, information posted on the county’s website indicates the proposal came from Faulconer Construction, Timmons Group and MEB. The firms presented the bid operating as Louisa County Infrastructure, LLC.

Wade said the county is only obligated to advertise the “public portion” of the bid. The rest remains private including “trade secrets, potential cost of the project, company design-build financials and things of that nature.”

According to a water service agreement inked by county officials and AWS last December, the county will build a roughly 11-mile raw waterline to deliver cooling water for data centers at the LATC and a pair of 2,000-foot lines to bring raw and potable water to the NCTC.

The county will also construct a two-headed water pump station to serve the campuses and public sewer infrastructure for the North Creek site. The water and sewer infrastructure for the NCTC is expected to be complete by July 2026 while the LATC’s raw waterline should be done by January 2027. 

AWS will foot the bill for the project, which is projected to cost at least $35 million, with some of that offset by local and state grants. The county will build, maintain, own and operate it. AWS is responsible for 30 percent of the project’s design with the county taking over after that. 

Board oks VDOT six-year secondary road plan

Following a public hearing in which no community member weighed in, supervisors voted unanimously to approve the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Road System Construction in Louisa County.

Developed in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the plan covers road improvements in the secondary system from 2024-25 through 2029-30, earmarking between $166,491 and $256,276 a year for improvements for a total projected allocation of roughly $1.409 million. The funds are drawn from the state’s Rural Rustic Program, which is specifically aimed at paving unpaved public roads that carry more than 50 vehicles per day, and “telefee” funds, money paid by telecommunications companies that use public right of ways. 

The plan earmarks about $812,633 to pave parts of several unpaved roads and $596,676 for the Rural Additions Program, which pays for upgrades to private roads to bring them into the state system. 

Board approves East End Radio Tower land lease agreement

Supervisors voted unanimously to approve a land lease agreement with the Holly Grove Volunteer Fire Department. The county will lease .54 acres off Factory Mill Road from the department where it intends to build a radio communications tower. The tower will “significantly improve radio communications for emergency responders, ensuring better coverage, reliability, and response times during emergencies,” according to the approved resolution. 

---

Planning Commission says truck stops should be permitted with CUP in some commercial zoning

The Louisa County Planning Commission on Thursday night recommended that the board of supervisors require businesses seeking to develop a truck stop in the county to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and to only allow the use in General Commercial zoning in Growth Area Overlay Districts (C-2 GAOD). (work session video) (meeting materials, video)

The commission’s recommendation comes as Love’s Travel Stop, an Oklahoma City-based company that operates some 600 truck stops in 42 states, has asked Louisa County for permission to build a truck stop on about 31 acres of a 51-acre site on the southeast side of the Gum Spring interchange along Interstate 64.

The proposal has sparked strong opposition from neighbors who packed a neighborhood meeting in February to oppose the request, arguing that a truck stop is ill-suited for the quiet Gum Spring community.

Some of those same community members spoke during the planning commission’s public comment period, reiterating that a truck stop isn’t welcome in their neighborhood and contending that it would lead to dangerous roads, increased crime, and light and noise pollution.  

Love’s has asked Louisa County to rezone, from General Agricultural (A-2 GAOD) to General Commercial (C-2 GAOD), parts of three parcels along Route 522 just south of the interstate in the Gum Spring Growth Area Overlay District (tmp 100-87, 100-88, 100-90) where it plans to build a gas station, restaurant and parking facility with accommodations for long-haul truckers and other motorists. 

Based on a zoning determination from Louisa County, issued prior to a rewrite of the zoning code in 2021, Love’s believed that it could establish a truck stop by-right in C-2 zoning. The parcels are split-zoned, with 28 acres in the front zoned C-2 GAOD and about 23 acres in the back zoned A-2 GAOD, necessitating a rezoning only for the back portion. Love’s intended to build most of its truck stop in the front while using the back for additional parking and a wastewater treatment facility.

But Louisa County has since determined that a truck stop isn’t a permitted use in county code, throwing Love’s application in limbo. 

Based on the planning commission’s recommendation, which still requires approval by the board of supervisors, Love’s would now be required to rezone the agricultural portion of its property and acquire a Conditional Use Permit for the parcels to move forward with its plan as currently presented. 

The commission was initially set to consider adding truck stop and 12 other uses to the zoning code’s matrix of uses at Thursday night’s meeting in what Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon described as “an exercise in trying to administratively clean up” the zoning code.

The thirteen uses, which run the gamut from truck stop to tiny houses, are defined in county code but not explicitly permitted in any zoning designation. The matrix identifies which uses are permitted by-right, by-right with restrictions, with a conditional use permit or disallowed in the county’s 19 zoning classifications.

But the commission ultimately decided to address 12 of the uses during an upcoming review of the county’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. They decided to recommend adding truck stop to the matrix essentially because Love’s has submitted an application to the Louisa County and is pursuing the use.

A zoning determination and a zoning code rewrite

According to discussions among county officials during a pre-meeting work session and correspondence with county staff, another business originally approached Louisa County about building a truck stop (or pursuing a similar use) off Interstate 64 at Gum Spring prior to the zoning code rewrite in 2021. At the time, truck stop was neither defined in county code nor permitted in any zoning designation.

But the company received a zoning determination from former Community Development Director Robert Gardener that said that the conglomeration of uses that comprise a truck stop—a gas station, fast food restaurant and parking facility, among others—could be permitted separately and that those uses were allowed by-right in C-2 zoning. That business didn’t move forward with its proposal, but Love’s eventually made plans to establish a truck stop on the subject property. 

With the zoning determination from Louisa County in hand, Love’s began a multi-year due diligence period, including conducting a traffic study and working with VDOT to identify necessary road improvements. In early 2023, the company formally applied to rezone the agricultural portion of the property. It has contract to buy the three parcels from the W.W. Whitlock Agency. 

Love’s held three community meetings over the last year to discuss its plans. At the most recent meeting in February, county staff presented Love’s proposal as by-right in the C-2 section, but requiring a rezoning for the A-2 part. 

In a March 29 email to Engage Louisa, former Community Development Director Josh Gillespie, who left for a job with Goochland County in late April, said that Love’s proposed “use[s] appeared to be permitted individually.” He added that the issue of a truck stop as a “defined term not in the use matrix will be deliberated for clarification as part of a broader code amendment.”  

At some point in early 2024, staff determined that Love’s proposed truck stop wasn’t a permitted use in the county and, unless the use was added to the matrix and explicitly permitted, the path forward for the company to develop a truck stop was to obtain a special exception from the board of supervisors. Gillespie noted in emails to Engage Louisa that while the use was defined in county code but not included in the matrix in the current zoning ordinance, it wasn’t defined in code prior to 2021.

Applicants can pursue special exceptions when a use is defined in code but not explicitly permitted and when a use is in the matrix but disallowed in every zoning designation. 

Commission and community concerns

While the commission ultimately decided to place truck stop in the matrix and permit it with a CUP in C-2 GAOD zoning, some commissioners had concerns about how to move forward. 

Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin said that he’d prefer to contemplate all 13 uses when reviewing the Comprehensive Plan later this year and worried about the legality of singling out a truck stop given that Love’s has a pending application with Louisa County. Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway expressed similar concerns. 

But Coon said that staff felt comfortable bringing the item to the commission because Love’s had applied for a rezoning and technically there was no specific use tied to the application. He said that Love’s could move forward with the rezoning request regardless of what the commission decided. But staff acknowledged that, under current code, the rezoning wouldn’t allow the company to build a truck stop.

Zanas Talley, whose firm Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is acting as county attorney on an interim basis, agreed. Talley also pointed out that Love’s application has not yet been deemed “complete” by county staff. 

Goodwin also worried that the commission was potentially throwing up a roadblock for Love’s application by adding the use to the matrix. 

“I am of the opinion that if we knew nothing about plans for a truck stop, we would not be having this meeting tonight,” he said.

Coon reminded the commission that, without the use explicitly permitted in code, the company would have to seek a special exception from the board of supervisors to establish and operate a truck stop. 

Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow, who serves as the board’s liaison to the commission and represents Gum Spring, added that he wouldn’t support the use as a special exception.

“I can only speak for one person on the board, but I firmly believe that a special exception is for small things that are generally considered a hardship. I would not even consider a special exception for something like this,” he said. 

After about an hour of discussion during the work session, the commission agreed to hold off on placing 12 of the uses in the matrix and only focus on truck stop. 

While a handful of community members weighed in during the meeting’s public comment period to oppose Love’s proposal, only two spoke during the public hearing on where truck stop should land in the matrix. 

Both told the commission that they’d prefer that truck stops and several other uses aren’t permitted in the county. One said that, if they are, there should be a robust public approval process. 

Before voting to require applicants wishing to build a truck stop to obtain a CUP and limiting the use to C-2 GAOD zoning, Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway told the crowd that the commission’s chosen path forward offered residents the greatest protection. He also contended it’s fair to the applicant.

“This does not approve or disapprove any application. What this does is allow the planning commission to be involved in reviewing applications to get to the best result for the applicant and the community,” Disosway said, noting that since a truck stop isn’t explicitly permitted in county code, the applicant’s only path forward would be to seek a special exception from the board of supervisors and that could cut the planning commission out of the process entirely. Requiring a CUP, however, allows the commission to recommend conditions on the use and make a recommendation on whether an application is approved or denied. 

The panel subsequently voted 5-1 to recommend the amendment to the board of supervisors with Louisa District Commissioner Matt Kersey casting the lone no vote.  Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles was absent. 

The board of supervisors has the final say on any amendment to county code. 

---

PC deadlocks on whether to recommend lowering solar cap

The Planning Commission couldn’t agree if the board of supervisors should tighten the screws on utility-scale solar development, deadlocking 3-3 on whether to recommend that supervsors lower the cap on the amount of land in the county that can be used for large-scale solar generation from three percent to two percent. 

The county’s current three percent cap limits utility-scale solar development to 9800 acres, but the proposed change would lower the cap to 6,343 acres. That figure is slightly less than the 6.534 acres that comprise two percent of the county’s total acreage because it excludes Lake Anna, a tweak made just prior to the commission’s meeting. 

The board has already approved seven utility-scale solar projects covering 5,211 acres. Only two of those projects—Dominion’s 20-megawatt (MW) Whitehouse facility off Davis Highway and 88.2 MW Belcher project off Waldrop Church Road—are fully constructed and providing power to the grid.

If the cap is lowered to two percent, it would mean only a few more solar facilities could be approved in the county, narrowing the window of opportunity for landowners to lease their property to solar companies and for developers to pursue the use.

The board’s solar committee, which includes Board Chair and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams and Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes, proposed reducing the cap at supervisors’ April 8 meeting, sending the recommendation to the planning commission for a public hearing before it heads back to the board for a second public hearing and a final vote. 

While neither Barnes nor Adams publicly discussed their recommendation at the meeting, the proposal comes amid growing resistance to large-scale solar development in Louisa County and across rural Virginia.

Louisa residents have repeatedly spoken out at public meetings and on social media against the use, arguing that it’s threatening the county’s rural character by turning farms and forests into vast industrial landscapes covered in glass and steel. They’ve also contended that the use poses a threat to water quality and adjoining property, pointing to problems at the Belcher site where stormwater runoff has caused significant erosion and flooding on neighboring farms. 

The fallout from Belcher prompted the board two years ago to revise its solar ordinance. The revamped ordinance codified the three percent cap, beefed up development standards to address runoff, mandated a 300-foot buffer around utility-scale solar facilities to screen them from view and required that the facilities locate no more than a mile from high-transmission power lines, among other provisions. 

Since adopting the ordinance, the board hasn’t approved any large-scale solar sites, most recently rejecting a 5 MW shared solar array just outside the Town of Gordonsville.

In a presentation to the commission during a pre-meeting work session, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said that the 6,343 cap still provides space for the board to approve the three utility-scale solar projects working their way through the public approval process: the 5 megawatt, 60-acre Green Boot facility off Peach Grove Road; the 20 MW, 304-acre Horsepen site near Buckner; and the 15.6 MW, 247.6-acre Turkey facility off Route 15 in northwestern Louisa County. The Planning Commission recommended that the board reject all three proposals. 

But the cap could shut out developers who’ve been working on projects but haven’t formally applied for a Conditional Use Permit from the county. Solar developers typically spend several years performing studies and other due diligence before moving ahead with the public approval process. 

Commissioners briefly deliberated the cap at the work session before holding a public hearing and voting on a recommendation to the board at their regular meeting.

Mountain Road District Commissioner Gordon Brooks said that he didn’t see a need to lower the cap, noting that the county had a strong ordinance in place yet no projects had been approved to test it.

“I don’t understand the reduction of three percent to two percent on a good ordinance that hasn’t been tried yet,” Brooks said. 

Brooks then motioned to recommend that the board of supervisors reject the solar committee’s proposal. 

Before voting on the motion, Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin asked Coon why the solar committee recommended lowering the cap. 

Coon said that the board has heard from residents who live near proposed solar facilities and “they are not something they are interested in for the county.” But he added that he couldn’t “speak to the exact reason [the committee] chose this recommendation.”

The commission deadlocked 3-3 on Brooks’ motion with Jackson District Commissioner Cy Weaver and Green Springs District Commissioner Jim Dickerson joining Brooks in rejecting the two percent cap and Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway, Louisa District Commissioner Matt Kersey and Goodwin supporting the reduction.  Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles was absent. 

The proposal now moves to the board of supervisors without a recommendation from the commission.

While county officials have repeatedly heard from residents who don’t want more solar development, commissioners got a different perspective Thursday night. Four people weighed in during the public hearing—three of whom live in Louisa County—in opposition to lowering the cap.

They argued that solar projects benefit the county by generating significant tax revenue while only minimally impacting county services and that solar projects should be considered on their own merits instead of being barred by an arbitrary cap.

Jackson District resident Dudley Delbridge, the local liaison for the solar developer Invenergy, said that his company has been working for several years to develop a “quality project that will bring benefits to the community.” He said further restricting the cap puts years of investment at risk and “prevents landowners from using their land as they see fit.”

Delbridge urged county officials to review projects on their own merits, arguing that would yield the best results for the community. 

“Currently, the board of supervisors has the authority to approve or deny a project. The lowering of the cap does nothing to strengthen the authority that the planning commission and the board of supervisors already have and could inadvertently force projects to be rushed through the design and setbacks process to race to fit under the cap,” he said. 

Skyler Zunk, speaking on behalf of Energy Right, a conservative group that supports clean energy generation, made a similar argument. He said that the county has a model solar ordinance and should use it to evaluate projects individually. He also contended that lowering the cap could have unintended consequences. 

Zunk said that localities across the state are considering bans on solar or extensive restrictions, giving lawmakers in Richmond little choice but to usurp local authority over land use decisions so the state can meet its clean energy goals. He pointed to bills introduced during the 2024 legislative session that sought to limit localities’ control over solar development. 

“As a conservative organization, we do not ever want to see local control of siting and zoning decisions taken away from localities. This is the room where these decisions should be made,” Zunk said, adding, “We are on a pathway for the state to have to act in some form or fashion in the future.”

Attorney Zanas Talley, whose firm Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is functioning as Louisa’s county attorney on an interim basis, also touched on state government’s role in the decision before the commission during its work session.

Talley said that while several localities other than Louisa have implemented a solar cap, it’s unclear if local governments have the authority to limit the use because Virginia is a Dillion Rule state. Under the Dillon Rule, localities can only wield powers explicitly authorized to them by the state.  

“The question here is whether a locality has been given the authority to place these caps [on solar]. So, it’s untested. There hasn’t been a determination yet in the courts on whether or not this is a lawful activity,” Talley said.  

Goodwin shrugged off Talley’s legal concerns. 

“We are already, at three percent, at risk of being tested in court. Going to two percent is just another step,” he said with a chuckle. 

---

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.