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, August 17 through August 22
For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.
Wednesday, August 19
Community Policy Management Team, Executive Board Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.
Other meetings/events
Monday, August 17
Mineral Town Council, special meeting. Mineral Town Hall, 312 Mineral Ave., Mineral, 6:30 pm. (agenda)
Tuesday, August 18
Louisa Town Council, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda)
Quote of the week
“If you take action to maintain the rural nature of the county and slow residential growth, there are going to be increased costs whether that is driveways [or] electricity…It’s going to happen.”
-Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon in response to concerns about how a proposed 250-foot setback requirement for new homes in the county’s rural areas would impact affordability. Read more about proposed changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth and preserving the county’s rural character in the article below.
PC ready for public hearing on zoning changes aimed at slowing residential growth, preserving rural land; TDR program needs more work
The Louisa County Planning Commission on Thursday night signaled it’s ready to hold a public hearing at its October meeting on sweeping changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth, especially outside the county’s eight designated growth areas, and preserving farms and forestland.
Most notably, the changes would raise the minimum lot size for new parcel creation from 1.5 acres to 15 acres in agricultural zoning (A-1, A-2) outside of growth areas, increase road frontage requirements for new lots on existing state roads or federal highways to at least 450 feet and up setback requirements for new homes to a minimum of 250 feet.
County staff and several members of the commission have touted the changes as a way to temper residential development in the county’s rural areas by limiting how many times property owners can divide their land.
They say the proposed changes would reduce the fragmentation of rural working land, helping sustain farming and timber operations. They also contend the moves would help preserve rural character by pushing the development that does occur farther apart and off the road.
At a work session on Thursday, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon hit on points he’s repeatedly made—the county is growing at a steady clip, adding about 1,000 residents a year, and, according to UVA’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, ranks among the five fastest growing localities in the state.
Coon said the county is adding more than 430 new homes annually with nearly half being built outside its growth areas. That development, he said, is growing the county’s budget, due to the increased demand for services, and eating up farm and forestland.
The proposed changes are part of a larger growth management and rural preservation package that commissioners and county staff have been working on for the last six months.
After multiple work sessions, the commission appeared on track to consider the package at a public hearing in September, but opted to delay consideration for a month to give staff and a couple commissioners more time to work on one of its key components—a transfer of development rights initiative (TDR) that’s been described as the “carrot” to the proposed zoning code changes’ “stick.”
While the plan’s goal is to slow growth and protect agricultural land, it would dramatically impact rights that property owners currently have by restricting their ability to break up rural tracts and sell off pieces for residential development.
Enter the TDR program.
The program would take a market-based approach to preservation, allowing landowners who lose development rights due to zoning code changes—and those who own rural land with divisions rights still intact—to sell them to developers working on projects in growth areas.
If a property owner lost three division rights because of the increase in the minimum lot size or road frontage requirements, for example, they could still transfer those rights to a developer looking to increase the density of a project in a growth area and receive cash in return. Similarly, a property owner could opt to sell their rights to divide their farm, instead of holding on to them for potential development in the future.
Via the transfers, the rights would be extinguished forever regardless of whether the county changed its zoning code in the future. Hence, the program would preserve rural land in perpetuity while channeling growth to areas where the county wants it.
That is, if it works.
The program looked to be on life support as recently as two weeks ago when the workgroup that’s been crafting it—Coon, Agricultural Development and Land Conservation Coordinator Maggie Brakeville, Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks and Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin—recommended not advancing it—at least for now. (Read more about the program here and here).
At an August 6 meeting of the Agricultural Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee, Coon and Brakeville expressed doubts that the program would be successful, mostly because state code requires the transfers to occur via parcel to parcel transactions, instead of allowing the county to buy and bank the rights then sell them developers later. Under the former model, TDR programs have found little success elsewhere in the state.
Staff said the arrangement would mean that folks wishing to sell their development rights would likely have to spend a couple thousand dollars on due diligence, like surveys and title searches, without knowing if there’s a buyer and how much their TDRs are worth.
“I don’t think that many people are going to spend any money or time to enter into a TDR library with the county, not knowing when or if a developer is going to call, not being able to develop their property and not knowing how much, if any, money is ever going to come of it,” Coon said.
If few landowners participate, there’d be little product on the shelf for developers to buy.
To increase its chances of success, the workgroup recommended lobbying the General Assembly for changes in state law.
But Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, the board’s liaison to the Ag. Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee and a strong proponent of the initiative, pushed back, saying that he doesn't want to hear why the program won’t work, he wants staff to figure out ways to ensure that it will. The workgroup agreed to continue work on the draft ordinance over the next month.
Coon and Brakeville have also been working on what they call a “termed” purchase of development rights program (PDR), in which the county would offer preservation payments to landowners who enroll in Agricultural and Forestal Districts and agree not to develop their land for at least 10 years.
Brakeville has argued the program could serve as a bridge to permanent conservation easements. The PDR program isn’t part of the package that’s expected to be the subject of a public hearing in October. (Read more about the program here).
Here’s a look at the proposed changes to the zoning code and an update on where the TDR program stands.
Proposed zoning code changes
With an eye toward protecting working farmland and preserving the county’s rural character, the proposed revisions to the zoning code include three interconnected measures: increasing the minimum lot size for new parcel creation; increasing the amount of road frontage necessary to create a new lot; and increasing setback requirements for new homes. The measures would only apply to agriculturally zoned property (A-1, A-2) outside of the county’s eight designated growth areas.
The amendments propose upping, from 1.5 acres to 15 acres, the minimum acreage required to create a new lot. Property owners would still be allowed to utilize parcels smaller than 15 acres that existed before the code changed, but they’d be barred from dividing property into lots smaller than 15 acres after the effective date.
County code currently allows parent parcels in A-1 zoning to be divided into three pieces and parent parcels in A-2 zoning to be divided into seven pieces, provided the parcels meet minimum acreage requirements and other standards. Increasing the minimum lot size would limit parcel creation and leave more open space between new development.
For example, a property owner with a 30-acre parcel that’s zoned A-2 could currently divide it into seven new lots, assuming all other criteria are met. If the minimum lot size was hiked to 15 acres, they could split it into two pieces. A parcel that’s smaller than 30 acres couldn’t be divided.
The proposal couples larger lots with an increase in road frontage requirements. County code currently permits property owners in A-1 and A-2 zoning to create two lots from a parent parcel if they front an existing state/federal road for a minimum of 200 feet. Beyond that, each permitted lot must have 300 feet of road frontage. The draft rules up the minimum requirement to 450-550 feet, depending on context.
The plan would increase setback requirements, or how far a home must be built off a road. Currently, homes must be at least 50 to 60 feet from a primary or secondary road. Under the proposal, that would increase to 250 feet.
The proposed amendments would also tweak width and depth requirements for new lots on agriculturally zoned land outside of growth areas and change some road frontage, setback and related requirements for new internal subdivision roads.
In addition, the amendments would change the county’s family subdivision ordinance Under current code, landowners can subdivide property zoned agricultural and residential into two or more parts for the purpose of sale or gift to a member of their immediate family. In most circumstances, the person to whom the property is sold or gifted must retain it for at least five years before it can be sold unless it’s subject to “an involuntary transfer such as foreclosure, death, divorce, judicial sale, condemnation or bankruptcy.”
State law permits an individual to receive one family subdivision parcel per locality during their lifetime. Family divisions don’t count against a parent parcel’s by-right divisions and are exempt from road frontage requirements because they can be accessed off an easement or private lane.
The draft code provision retain the minimum lot size of 1.5 acres for family divisions while establishing a combined ownership and retention period of at least 15 years with a requirement that the property’s under the same ownership for at least five years before its eligible for a family division.
If a property owner creates a family division on a parcel she’s owned for five to nine years, the recipient of the parcel would be required to hold onto it for a minimum of 10 years before it could be sold. For property that’s been under the same ownership for a decade or more, recipients would be subject to a five-year retention period.
The draft revisions also prohibit the use of private lanes as a mechanism to create an additional lot when road frontage requirements aren’t met. The proposed rule doesn’t apply to family divisions.
To facilitate the TDR program, the zoning code revisions would lower by-right density thresholds in growth areas to compel developers to buy division rights. A property owner with R-2 zoned land in a growth area that lacks access to public water and sewer, for example, can divide their land into 1.5-acre lots now. Under the proposed changes, the minimum lot size would be 2.5 acres, but the developer would be able to lower it to 1.5 through the purchase of TDRs.
The rules for residential land with access to public utilities in growth areas and Planned Unit Developments (PUD) would work similarly, albeit with different density thresholds. On A-1 and A-2 zoned land in growth areas, acquiring TDRs would allow a property owner to double the property’s by-right density while maintaining a 1.5-acre minimum lot size.
The proposed code revisions would also mandate that PUDs include commercial space and establish rules to ensure that the commercial component is delivered in a timely manner. Aside from purchasing TDRs, residential density in a PUD could be increased by offering community benefits like workforce housing or infrastructure improvements.
Before agreeing to advance the plan to a public hearing, a few commissioners shared their thoughts.
Jackson District Commissioner Troy Painting expressed concern about the 250-foot setback requirement, noting that it could make building a home more expensive. He pointed to the increased cost of the driveway and to run electricity to the dwelling.
Coon reiterated a point he’s made throughout the code revision process: slowing growth and preserving rural character will raise the cost of housing.
“If you take action to maintain the rural nature of the county and slow residential growth, there are going to be increased costs whether that is driveways [or] electricity…It’s going to happen,” he said, emphasizing that while building homes along the roadside is cheaper, it doesn’t protect rural view sheds.
Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin suggested that when it comes to curbing growth, some people will be “slowed”—be it a prospective homebuyer in search of affordability or a property owner hoping to divide their land. He made clear he’s eager to move forward with the proposal.
Finding a path forward for TDR
While the proposed zoning code overhaul includes changes designed to facilitate the TDR initiative, the workgroup acknowledged during Thursday’s work session that the program isn’t ready for primetime.
At the Ag/Forestal Committee meeting earlier this month, Coon and Brakeville emphasized that state code presents several hurdles for the program—namely it doesn’t permit the county to buy development rights and bank them, which would allow landowners to immediately realize economic value from their TDRs instead of having to wait for a developer to come along.
They said the program has found the most success in states that allow TDR banks, like Maryland. Under its system, Virginia has struggled.
Brakeville noted that state code does allow localities to extinguish development rights through tax abatements, which occur over a set number of years. With the help of that mechanism, she said, a few counties have been able to establish functional TDR programs, but the option wouldn’t work in Louisa because of the way the county approaches and evaluates land division.
Brakeville, who isn’t a licensed attorney in Virginia but holds a law degree from the University of Kansas, has also argued that, as a party to TDR transactions, the county must ensure ample due diligence is performed before a transfer occurs to protect itself from potential liability.
But Williams has countered that staff should take a “buyer beware” approach in crafting the TDR ordinance, essentially arguing that the county’s chief role is determining if a parcel is eligible for the program and has division rights to sell. The rest, he suggested, should be left up to the private sector.
With that in mind, Hicks and Coon said they’re focused on revising the draft ordinance. They’re likely to nix an initial proposal that required the county to certify TDRs for sale and place them on a county-maintained list that would be distributed to those interested in buying them.
Hicks said the program could rely, at least in part, on private TDR brokers who connect buyers with sellers, keeping the transactions out of the county’s hands until participants are ready to close a deal. He suggested the change could limit the county’s legal exposure.
But Brakeville seemed to take a different view.
“So the county will still have to do some due diligence as it is a party to the transaction. It will just be that the buyer and the seller will connect themselves and then come to the county having already done title searches, surveys and that type of thing,” Brakeville said. “It doesn’t necessarily negate any of the county’s due diligence. It just shifts when the due diligence would happen.”
Brakeville acknowledged that, by its nature, the TDR program is complicated. But, she said that staff is doing its best to “uncomplicate it.”
“We are trying to figure out a system that will be the easiest for buyers, sellers and county residents to understand,” Brakeville said.
Hicks added that he’d like for the county to keep a list of TDR transactions—all of which would be public record and recorded at the courthouse—so buyers and sellers could easily see what the rights are trading for.
“That is to prevent Louisa citizens from being taken advantage of,” Hicks said.
Beyond the mechanics of the transaction itself, Hicks emphasized the program’s interdependence with the proposed zoning code changes. The workgroup proposes decreasing by-right density in growth areas to compel developers to buy TDRs so they can increase density and ensure their projects are financially viable. The transfer of those rights from rural areas to growth areas curbs residential development on farms and forestland and channels it to where the county wants it.
Folks developing land for single-family dwellings in growth areas would likely use some TDRs, Hicks said. But he argued that the biggest opportunity for preservation comes from dense developments featuring apartments and townhomes—projects that could gobble up dozens or even hundreds of TDRs at a time. Hicks suggested the county must be committed to that sort of development in areas with the infrastructure to support it for the program to thrive.
“I see [Planned Unit Developments] as the greatest complement to the TDR system because [they open the door to] the greatest [opportunity for] preservation throughout the county. It gets more citizens’ selling {development rights]. That’s our true win over time. But that brings up the conversation of our growth areas. What are we inviting into our growth areas?” Hicks said.
Next steps
Any changes to the zoning code as well as the adoption of a TDR program requires public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.
As things currently stand, the planning commission will hold a work session to review the proposed TDR program at its September meeting. Assuming commissioners agree to advance the initiative, they’ll hold two public hearings on the growth management and rural preservation package in October: one on the proposed changes to the zoning code and another on the TDR ordinance.
Provided the commission doesn’t table the items and opts to make a recommendation to the board for approval or denial, supervisors could consider the package as soon as November.
PC roundup: Commission tables action on campground regs, oks commercial rezoning at Wares Crossroads
Aside from discussing the growth management and rural preservation package, the planning commission last Thursday took up a few other items. (work session materials, video) (regular meeting materials, video)
Planning Commission tables action on new rules for campgrounds
The planning commission on Thursday night voted 5-0 to table action on new regulations for campgrounds that would tweak the county’s definition of the use and differentiate between large and small facilities, allowing the latter by-right under some circumstances.
Instead of voting on whether to recommend that the board of supervisors approve or reject the proposed rules, commissioners instead opted to direct staff to continue working on how to address campgrounds in code, including potentially axing the proposed provisions for smaller campgrounds while adding provisions for temporary workforce housing.
The commission plans to discuss the item at a work session in September. Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles and Louisa District Commissioner Matt Kersey missed the meeting.
Amid concerns about a proliferation of unauthorized campgrounds cropping up around the county—mostly in the form of a few RVs parked on private land—the board of supervisors earlier this year directed the commission to consider revisions to code to clarify how the county defines a campground and establish guardrails for the use.
The discussion appears to have been sparked, at least in part, by the surge of temporary workers coming to the county and in need of temporary housing.
For years, the county has drawn workers for periodic refueling outages at Dominion Energy’s North Anna Nuclear Power Station. But the influx seems to have escalated in recent months, a potential consequence of large-scale construction projects like data center development.
In addition, Dominion is in the process of implementing more than $2 billion in upgrades at North Anna, including replacing condensers and other equipment. Those projects are expected to bring nearly 3,000 temporary workers to the plant during a pair of three-month maintenance outages this fall and next spring, according to the company.
After discussion at multiple work sessions, the commission was set to make a recommendation to the board on proposed amendments that would define campgrounds, in part, as “an area or parcel of land, managed as a unit, providing accommodations…for recreational shelters (tents, tent trailers, travel trailers, recreational vehicles and campers, etc.).” The definition establishes two categories for the use: “campground, major” and “campground, minor.”
The former refers to larger facilities that include three or more campsites. Among other requirements, they must be sited on at least 10 acres and include a 200-foot buffer. The latter encompasses smaller venues with a maximum of two campsites, situated on at least three acres with a 100-foot buffer. Both would be required to comply with Virginia Department of Health regulations and other relevant state rules.
The proposed rules would permit major campground with a conditional use permit (CUP) in agricultural and commercial zoning while barring the use in most zoning designations. Minor campgrounds would be permitted by-right, albeit with restrictions, in agricultural zoning but barred elsewhere. Both uses would be allowed by-right in resort developments.
Current county code doesn’t differentiate between large and small campgrounds, broadly defining the use and allowing it by-right in resort developments and with a CUP in agricultural areas.
Allowing minor campgrounds by-right with restrictions in agricultural zoning is apparently an effort to sanction temporary workforce housing on a limited basis while establishing guardrails for the use.
A few commissioners took issue with that approach, suggesting that campgrounds and workforce housing shouldn’t be blended, and staff needs to reevaluate the proposal.
Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin was the most vocal critic, vehemently opposing the minor campground provision.
Goodwin said that permitting property owners to rent a couple RVs for indeterminate stays doesn’t comport with the traditional idea of a campground and flies in the face of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for the county. He contended the proposal would only exacerbate the proliferation of temporary dwellings, instead of reining in the problem.
“The Comprehensive Plan addresses preserving the rural nature of the county. This will not be doing that. This will be creating the rural nature of the Appalachian part of the state, as we stereotypically know it,” Goodwin said.
Goodwin also expressed concern that neighbors wouldn’t get a say in what’s happening next door if the facilities are allowed by-right, meaning without a public approval process.
“By-right means that neighbors don’t get a chance to state their concerns or their support. They don’t get to talk about privacy. They don’t get to talk about neighborhood safety. They don’t get to talk about what it does to the value of their property next door. All valid topics that neighbors ought to have a chance to talk about,” Goodwin said.
Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway, a retired electrical engineer at Dominion, said that he’s never been able to wrap his mind around the idea of minor campgrounds and suggested that he’d like to see the definition of major campground tweaked if the goal is to accommodate workforce housing.
Specifically, he suggested that the 10-acre minimum wouldn’t be necessary because RVs could be placed close together as temporary workers tend to use the vehicles mostly for sleeping, not as a means of relaxing in nature.
Alternatively, Disosway said, the commission could consider adopting definitions for campgrounds and workforce housing, instead of combining the uses.
A few community members weighed in during the public hearing, expressing mixed views on the proposal.
In an email to the commission, Louisa District resident Joshua Turner seemed to support the concept of minor campgrounds but raised concerns about the minimum acreage and buffer requirements. He suggested those rules shouldn’t necessarily apply to property owners who have multiple contiguous parcels.
Turner said in a previous email to the commission that his family had offered “workforce campers” to temporary workers on multiple parcels for about six years before the county received an anonymous complaint and shut them down for violating the zoning code.
He said that each site was served by an approved drain field, well and electricity and his family wants to comply with code to provide much-needed temporary housing again.
“Workforce camper accommodations have existed in Louisa County for many years and serve an important role in housing workers who contribute to the local economy. The issue before the County is not whether these uses exist, but how they can be reasonably regulated and brought into compliance,” Turner wrote.
Sammy Kelley, who operates Christopher Run Campground on Lake Anna, shared a different view. As the proprietor of one of the county’s largest campgrounds, he said he’s concerned that allowing a by-right carveout for small venues could negatively impact his business and that of similar establishments.
“I’m concerned that if these new campground definitions and requirements are accepted, people will be led to believe that having a minor campground is a simple way to make money…I understand why people in the county would want to start a minor campground. With taxes, groceries and other expenses going up every year, it seems to be an easy way to bring in additional income without a lot of work. However, [it could] take revenue away from existing campgrounds that had to put in more time and effort to establish their business,” Kelley said.
Kelley also raised questions about the proposal’s compliance with state law.
In the end, the commission agreed to go back to the drawing board, directing staff to evaluate whether “campground, minor” should be eliminated as a proposed use; whether “workforce housing” should be added as a use, and how it should be defined and regulated; and how the county should regulate major campgrounds.
Commission recommends approval of commercial rezoning at Wares Crossroads
Commissioners held a public hearing and voted 5-0 to recommend to the board of supervisors approval of Matthew and Wayne Byrd’s request to rezone, from agricultural (A-2 GOAD) to General Commercial (C-2 GAOD), three acres on the east side of Zachary Taylor Highway (Route 522) just south of its intersection with New Bridge Road (Route 208) (tax map parcel 28-109) in the Mineral Election District.
The rezoning would clear the way for the Byrds to use the property for a range of commercial endeavors. In his land use application, Matthew Byrd said he plans to use existing structures—a single-family dwelling and non-residential building—for retail and office space.
The property is in the Lake Anna Growth Area Overlay District and designated for mixed-use development on the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It’s surrounded by property zoned commercial, agricultural and for a Planned Unit Development.
In proffers attached to the request, the Byrds agree to prohibit about 50 uses on the property, which are permitted by-right in C-2 GAOD zoning, including a funeral home, automobile dealership, dance hall and pawn shop. That leaves the applicant with a wide array of other potential uses, from a restaurant and grocery store to a bank and gas station.
Ian Cole, an associate planner with Louisa County’s Community Development Department, told the commission that the rezoning aligns with the character of the neighborhood and conforms with the Comp Plan’s goals and vision.
“The proposal mirrors the plan’s objective of broadening the county’s tax base through the establishment of new businesses,” Cole said. “On a broader scale, the property is situated between three major projects: the commercial gateway project to the west, the Planned Unit Development of Wares Crossroads to the south and the Cutalong Resort Development to the east.”
Commissioners reacted favorably to the request, only asking a couple questions.
Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks asked if the applicant would be able to erect new structures on the property if the existing buildings didn’t meet its needs. Cole said yes.
Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin noted that the property adjoins Reef Capital Partners’ Tributer Resort, a PUD and resort development that’s already home to a golf course and, at full buildout, will feature a second course, about 1,000 dwellings and a range of high-end resort amenities. Goodwin wondered how the property’s developer had responded to the Byrds’ plan. Matthew Byrd said that his cousin, Wayne Byrd, had talked with Reef and their conversations had gone “very well.”
No one weighed in for or against the rezoning during the public hearing.
The board of supervisors will hold a public hearing on the request at its September 8 meeting.
Planning Commission rejects request to tweak electronic sign rules
Commissioners opted not to consider changes to an ordinance restricting the use of electronic signs on agriculturally and residentially zoned property, arguing that limiting the signage supports their goal of preserving the county’s rural character.
The board of supervisors in July asked the commission to evaluate potential tweaks to the ordinance after Gregory Wyatt, the chairman of the Board of Trustees at Mt. Olivet Baptist Church in eastern Louisa, raised concerns about the regulations. Wyatt said his church wanted to replace an existing sign with an electronic sign, noting that many of the church’s members are elderly, and it’s easier for them to change the message on an electronic sign.
The board adopted the regulations last year amid concerns that bright lights from electronic signs present safety concerns for motorists and detract from the community’s rural character. Churches and other entities that already have electronic signs aren’t barred from using them, but the ordinance prohibits new electronic signs.
A draft amendment included in the meeting materials would allow churches to pursue a special exception from the board of supervisors to install an electronic sign.
After some discussion, commissioners decided that elderly church-goers struggling to change a sign’s message wasn’t a compelling reason to recommend changes to the ordinance.
“I don’t think electronic signs enhance the rural character of the county, particularly not at night. In a rural area, you appreciate a dark sky,” Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway said.
Commission recommends approval of expanding AFDs
The planning commission on Thursday night held public hearings and voted unanimously to recommend that the board of supervisors add a combined 3,660 acres to six Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
AFDs are a conservation tool that allow landowners engaged in farming or forestry to voluntarily prohibit develop on their land for 10-year periods. In exchange, participating parcels are ensured enrollment in “land use” taxation and afforded limited protections from government’s ability to encroach on agricultural activity.
The commission recommended that the board of supervisors add 360 acres to the Patrick Henry AFD, 638.5 acres to the Gold Mine Creek AFD, about 1,000 acres to the Ellisville AFD and roughly 675 acres to the Trevilian Station AFD, all in central and western Louisa. Commissioners also recommended expanding the Indian Creek AFD by 340 acres and adding 646 acres to the South Anna AFD in southeastern and south-central Louisa, respectively.
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.