Supervisors to consider beefing up penalties for roaming dogs; Three other public hearings on BOS agenda; PC oks Capital Improvement Plan, two CUPs; Mineral TC appoints Chapman as interim mayor
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. 17 through Feb. 22
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).
Tuesday, February 18
Louisa County Board of Supervisors, budget work session, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 4 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 for closed session at 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
Wednesday, February 19
James River Water Authority, Fluvanna County Administration Building, 132 Main Street, Palmyra, 9 am. (agenda packet) (JRWA’s Feb. 12 meeting was postponed to Feb. 19).
Thursday, February 20
Industrial Development Authority, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 8:30 am.
Other meetings/events
Tuesday, February 18
Louisa Town Council, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda)
Wednesday, February 19
Town Hall with Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, Louisa County Library, 881 Davis Highway, Mineral, 6:30 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.
Quote of the week
“It does seem like we spend more and more and more each year. I know we provide a lot of services, and they’re expensive. It’s difficult to do that. But I do wonder sometimes if we need to provide all the services we provide.”
-Planning Commission Chair John Disosway (Mineral) during a discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), a component of the county budget that covers big-ticket items like new school buildings, recreation facilities, emergency service equipment, water and sewer infrastructure and more.
Read more about the planning commission’s discussion of the CIP below.
Supervisors to consider tougher penalties for roaming dogs, hold three other public hearings
With county offices closed Monday in observance of a federal holiday, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors will meet on Tuesday night with a busy agenda, including four public hearings, on tap. Prior to their regular meeting, supervisors will convene at 4 pm for their second work session of the Fiscal Year 2026 budget cycle where they’ll hear from two outside agencies that are requesting county support: the Fluvanna-Louisa Housing Foundation and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging.
Supervisors to consider stiffer penalties for roaming dogs
A criminal conviction could await community members who allow their dogs to roam if the board of supervisors moves forward with a proposed plan to significantly beef up its ordinance governing at-large canines.
Amid repeated complaints from some residents who’ve urged the board to rein roving dogs, supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider amending county code to implement stringent new penalties for dog owners who allow their pets to run at large. A dog is considered running at large when it’s “roaming or running off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner's or custodian's immediate control,” per state and county code. (draft ordinance)
Under the proposal, allowing a dog to run at-large “shall constitute” a Class 4 misdemeanor on the first offense. A second violation within one year of a conviction for the first violation “shall constitute” a Class 2 misdemeanor. A third or subsequent violation within two years of conviction for the second or subsequent violation “shall constitute” a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Current county code is far more lenient. It allows for two written warnings within two years for an owner whose dog roams. A third offense within two years results in a $100 fine. Another offense within two years of the fine results in a court summons for a Class 4 misdemeanor.
The draft ordinance retains a provision in current code that says a roaming canine “may” be taken into the possession of an animal control officer and returned to the owner with a written warning.
In addition, the draft makes it unlawful for a dog’s owner to place a dog in the custody of someone “not physically capable of maintaining effective control of such dog.”
Per state law, the county’s rules for roaming dogs don’t apply to dogs engaged in lawful hunting. The ordinance also exempts dogs training for hunting or engaged in agricultural activity like protecting livestock.
The proposed amendments would apply county-wide except in 24 subdivisions, mostly around Lake Anna, and the Mineral Trailer Park. Those areas bar dogs running at large with violators subject to a fine. The towns of Louisa and Mineral also bar roaming dogs under their own ordinances.
Beyond the ordinance pertaining to roaming dogs, the proposal adds a section to county code that permits animal control officers or other law enforcement officers to impound, at the Louisa County Animal Shelter or another facility, any animal, other than a dog, cat, or wild animal, found running at large in the county.
The proposed addition is apparently aimed at addressing problems with at-large farm animals though the board hasn’t discussed the draft in open session, and the meeting materials don’t include any information explaining it or detailing its rationale.
Over the last few years, supervisors have twice amended the at-large dog ordinance. But the changes haven’t quelled some community members concerns.
In 2022, supervisors prohibited dogs from running at large any time of year and implemented an escalating penalty structure for repeat offenders. Prior to that change, dogs were only barred from running at large in April, May and June. About a year later, the board tweaked the ordinance in an effort to ensure it’s enforceable.
The board has also wrestled with how to address roaming livestock, an issue that sparked significant public debate two years ago when a herd of goats and sheep wandered on to Interstate 64.
In response to that incident, supervisors adopted an emergency ordinance targeting livestock owners who knowingly allow their animals to run at large and considered making permanent changes to county code.
They ultimately let the emergency ordinance lapse and opted not to beef up county regulations amid pushback from farmers, who said cracking down on roaming livestock could unfairly penalize them, and a determination by the county attorney that state code provided the Louisa County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) the tools it needed to address community concerns.
But community members have continued to complain that roving livestock is a problem and LCSO isn’t addressing it.
At the board’s November 4 meeting, Jackson District resident Amy Ware voiced frustration with what she characterized as animal control officers’ refusal to rein in roaming goats, dogs, a donkey and a horse that routinely visit her 87-year-old mother’s home.
Ware said that her mother, who suffers from dementia, had been knocked to the ground by the horse and that the animals have chased and harassed caregivers. She also noted that the animals damaged plants, bird feeders and other items.
Ware said that she has called Animal Control hundreds of times and contacted others in county government for help, but the problems persist.
Board to consider codifying stringent rules for utility-scale solar project siting agreements
Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider codifying stringent new rules for utility-scale solar project siting agreements that could deter developers from pursuing large-scale solar generation facilities in Louisa County.
Siting agreements are essentially deals between localities and solar developers aimed at mitigating the impact of utility-scale solar projects and providing other compensation. Per state code, they can include cash payments for capital needs and broadband deployment, among other items. Utility-scale solar is defined as solar arrays that produce at least two megawatts (MW) of power for the grid.
The board’s solar committee, which includes Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams and Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes, recommended amending the county’s solar ordinance to establish standards for siting agreements, including requiring solar project owners to make hefty annual per-megawatt payments to the county. Their proposed amendments have been slightly revised since they were first introduced in November. (proposed amendments)
Once generally supportive of large-scale solar development, Barnes and Adams have grown increasingly resistant to the use over the last few years, signaling at public meetings that they’d prefer not to green-light any more utility-scale solar facilities.
Most notably, the proposal currently on the table would require owners of utility-scale solar facilities to remit an annual payment to Louisa County equal to between .075 percent and .125 percent of the county’s operating budget per megawatt (MW) of power produced by their project.
The county’s operating budget currently sits at about $156 million. That means a project’s owner would be required to annually pay the county between $117,075 and $195,125 for each megawatt. The owner of a 20 MW project, for example, would be required to pay between $2.34 million and $3.9 million a year.
The proposal further stipulates that 25 percent of funding generated by a siting agreement “should be allocated to housing initiatives within the county.” Beyond that provision, the revenue would be utilized “in accordance with siting agreement fund balance policy,” per the draft amendments.
In addition, the proposal requires utility-scale solar projects to start generating electricity no more than four years after approval. Failure to meet the timeline would require renegotiation of the existing siting agreement, reapplication for a conditional use permit and updating the project’s decommissioning bond to comply with current standards.
The proposal also recommends that the owners of large-scale solar projects provide at least $500 in annual compensation to adjacent property owners in the form of either electric bill abatement or property tax abatement.
The proposal would apply to any utility-scale solar project not yet permitted by the board of supervisors. It’s slightly different from the solar committee’s initial plan, which the board adopted as a policy in November, essentially allowing it to take effect immediately though without the force of law.
The policy requires project owners to make an annual per-megawatt payment at least equal to .1 percent of the county’s operating budget, requires projects to begin producing power within three years of approval and directs 25 percent of siting agreement revenue to affordable housing programs. Like the current proposal, it recommends a $500 annual payment to adjoining property owners to mitigate a project’s impact.
The planning commission reviewed the initial policy at two meetings where it drew pushback from commission members and solar developers.
Several commissioners said that they didn’t understand the basis for some of the provisions, taking issue with the steep per-megawatt payment requirement, the requirement that 25 percent of revenue from siting agreements go to affordable housing and the recommendation that solar developers provide adjoining property owners $500 per year in property tax or electric bill abatement.
Chair John Disosway, who represents the Mineral District, said he couldn’t comprehend the rationale behind mitigation payments to adjoiners when the commission had consistently been told, as it reviewed thousands of acres of solar development eventually approved by the board, that large-scale solar generation facilities don’t lower property values or otherwise harm neighbors.
Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin said that he didn’t understand why affordable housing was chosen as the beneficiary of a quarter of siting agreement revenue when, in his view, there are other more pressing needs in the county.
Mountain Road District Commissioner Gordon Brooks said that the sizable annual per-megawatt payment was out of step with what solar developers are paying in other localities, noting that a siting agreement in Hanover County included a $23,000 per megawatt payment while one in Patrick County charged $19,000 per megawatt each year. Brooks suggested that the committee intended to close the door on solar development and said that he’d prefer “fair” siting agreement standards.
“I know where they are trying to get to, but I think we need to be fair and reasonable with what we are throwing out there and have some justification besides ‘I’m just trying to stop this,’” Brooks said.
Industry representatives also zeroed in on the per-megawatt payments with one telling the commission that the proposal could effectively act as a moratorium on large-scale solar development because it would wipe out any profit for project owners.
Another solar developer said that she appreciated Louisa County’s effort to leverage siting agreements to benefit citizens but contended that the proposed standards are unrealistic.
Citing concerns about transparency and a lack of details, commissioners recommended that supervisors codify only one of the initial policy’s provisions: the three-year window for completion of a large-scale solar project. They noted in their motion that they couldn’t comment on the other proposed amendments because they hadn't been given sufficient information.
Staff has since tweaked the initial proposal, slightly lowering the minimum per-megawatt payment, extending by a year the window for bringing a project online and directing revenue to “housing initiatives” as opposed to “affordable housing programs,” among other initiatives.
In a memo to the board, staff insists that the proposal benefits the county and solar developers.
“These amendments aim to address community concerns, promote affordable housing, and ensure timely project development and accountability; and are designed to achieve a balanced approach, where the benefits of solar energy align with community needs and fair expectations for adjacent residents,” staff writes.
In a separate memo outlining how the imagined revenue windfall would be used, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon says that 25 percent would go to housing initiatives as stated in the proposed amendments while 75 percent would be “distributed among Agricultural Land Protection (Purchase of Development Rights -PDRs), Stream Restoration, and [Harmful Algal Bloom] HAB Mitigation.”
Coon says that, of the 75 percent for the latter programs, 30 percent would go to PDRs to protect farmland while 22.5 percent would go toward mitigating Harmful Algal Blooms on Lake Anna and stream restoration, respectively.
Coon claims that a year’s worth of revenue from a solar project generating between 100 and 150 MW of power would allow the county to repair hundreds of homes, mitigate HAB on as many as 260 acres at Lake Anna, preserve as many as 318 acres of farmland, via one-time payments to landowners, and restore as much as 1.4 miles of streams.
“Utility scale solar projects would help provide significant annual revenue for key community investments. Over 40 years, these funds will protect thousands of acres of farmland, restore critical waterways, and improve housing access. HAB mitigation efforts will help protect Lake Anna, potentially addressing up to 53% of the lake's surface,” Coon writes.
The solar committee’s push to stiffen requirements for siting agreement comes as most county leaders have soured on large-scale solar development, in part, because of the fallout from Dominion Energy’s Belcher Solar Facility off Waldrop Church Road in Barnes’ district. Farmers who adjoin the sprawling 88.2 MW site say that stormwater runoff from the facility has caused severe erosion and flooding on their land.
Supervisors haven’t approved a utility-scale solar project since 2022 when they okayed Energix Renewables’ plan for an up to 118 MW solar array and 50 MW battery storage facility on 1,234 acres between the towns of Louisa and Mineral. The property is mostly owned by the Louisa County Industrial Development Authority.
Prior to that, the board approved six projects, covering about 4,000 acres. They’ve since capped the amount of land that can be used for utility-scale solar generation at two percent of the county’s landmass, or 6,343 acres, and adopted stiff requirements for buffers, erosion and sediment control and decommissioning.
Of the seven utility-scale solar projects okayed by the board, to date, only four have been constructed.
Supervisors to hold public hearing on transferring ownership of Shannon Hill Biz Park to IDA
The Shannon Hill Regional Business Park will soon have a new owner, albeit one that’s essentially controlled by Louisa County and reliant on taxpayer support.
The board will hold a statutorily required public hearing ahead of transferring ownership of the business park from Louisa County to the Louisa County Industrial Development Authority (IDA). The park covers 700 acres off Shannon Hill Road (Route 605) about a half mile north of the Shannon Hill exit off Interstate 64 in the Mountain Road Election District.
The county began developing the site in 2019 with hopes of attracting distribution centers, advanced manufacturing or other large-scale economic development projects that bulk up the tax base and create jobs.
Since then, supervisors have invested more than $27 million to bring public water and sewer infrastructure to the park with about 40 percent of that cost covered by a state grant. They’ve also launched a multi-year, multi-million-dollar plan to build and upgrades roads in and around the facility.
To date, the county hasn’t publicly announced that any business plans to locate in the park. But Economic Development Director Andy Wade said in an email to Engage Louisa last month that the switch in ownership is aimed at landing private sector investment.
“Now that utilities are being constructed to Shannon Hill, interest in that property should increase and the IDA can move quicker in negotiating terms and closing deals with prospective new businesses,” Wade said, noting that state code grants industrial and economic development authorities certain powers that are “beneficial to our new business recruitment/development efforts.”
Wade added that the ownership transfer “won’t change anything related to zoning and proffers previously approved and adopted by the BOS.”
According to the proposed resolution, the ownership shift is contingent on the IDA accepting the property and agreeing to provide any proceeds of its future sale to the county.
Formed in the mid-1980s, the authority is tasked with promoting commercial and industrial development in the county, including drawing new businesses. It’s controlled by a seven-member board of directors appointed by the board of supervisors
For more than three decades, the IDA ran the Louisa County Airport before transferring its ownership to the county last year. It currently owns property around the airport as well as most of the 1234-acre Cooke Rail Park.
The IDA inked a deal with Energix Renewables to develop a 118-megawatt (MW) utility-scale solar array and 50 MW battery storage facility on the Cooke property three years ago. To date, the facility hasn’t been constructed.
Board to consider CUP for cell tower off Charles Lane
Supervisor will hold a public hearing and consider approval of Arcola Towers, LLC’s request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a 197-foot telecommunications tower with a two-foot lightening rod on a 6.49-acre parcel at 79 Charles Lane south of the Town of Louisa in the Patrick Henry Election District (tax map parcel 56-15). The wooded property is zoned agricultural (A-2) and owned by Clarence and Evelyn Washington.
In its land use application, Arcola says it plans to build a Verizon Wireless tower on the property to improve the company’s network services in the area, which it says are “low to marginal.” The applicant also notes that the structure would have the capacity “to support the co-location of antennas and components of additional providers of wireless services.”
In a brief presentation at the planning commission’s January meeting, Stuart Squier, a zoning consultant with Arcola, emphasized the need for the tower and characterized the subject property as an ideal location.
“[Verizon Wireless engineers] have identified coverage issues in this part of Louisa County. There are two existing Verizon towers sites. One is behind the [County Office Building] and that’s our Louisa Courthouse site. A few miles down the road, we have our Butler Store site. This property is about midway between them, so it’s the perfect location to fill in some coverage gaps in the area as well as off-load traffic from the existing Verizon Wireless sites,” Squier said.
Squier said the tower, a monopole structure with no lighting, would be situated more than 500 feet off Charles Lane down a gravel driveway. He noted that the top of the tower would be visible from part of the Charles Lane neighborhood. But, he said, Arcola had worked with an adjoining property owner to address concerns about its visibility.
In its report, Louisa County Community Development Department staff says that the county’s Telecommunication Masterplan, which establishes guidelines for the rational growth and development of wireless facilities, doesn’t propose a tower for the area. But staff says that, since the plan was crafted in 2007, “the demand for wireless services has increased.” Based on that demand, staff determined the proposal complies with the plan.
The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the CUP.
Planning Commission greenlights Capital Improvement Plan, two CUPs
The Louisa County Planning Commission on Thursday night held a pair of public hearings, recommending that the board of supervisors approve the preliminary Fiscal Year 2026 to Fiscal Year 2045 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as well as a conditional use permit (CUP) and proffer amendment for an equipment sales and rental business in eastern Louisa County. The commission also took action on a request for a CUP tabled at its November meeting, recommending that the board permit a construction yard at Trevilians. (meeting materials, video)
With some reservations, PC recommends approval of preliminary CIP
With some reservations, the planning commission voted 5-2 to recommend that the board of supervisors approve the preliminary Fiscal Year 2026 to Fiscal Year 2045 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Adopted each year as part of the county’s budget process, the CIP provides a 20-year roadmap for spending on big-ticket items like new school buildings, fire stations, emergency services equipment, infrastructure projects and more.
The planning commission is tasked with reviewing the CIP to ensure its projects conform with the Comprehensive Plan, a long-range planning document that lays out a vision for future development.
Though supervisors annually adopt a CIP that forecasts spending over two decades, they only appropriate funding for the coming fiscal year. Based on preliminary requests from department heads and other county officials, the preliminary CIP for FY26 tops $20.1 million with much of that money requested for large-scale renovations, recreational facilities and emergency service equipment.
The General Services Department came in with the biggest request: $5.6 million, mostly for renovations and maintenance projects. That includes $1.95 million for an expansion of the Louisa County Animal Shelter and nearly $900,000 for renovations at the county’s circa 1905 courthouse, including adding a second courtroom.
The Fire and EMS Department asked for $4.9 million, mainly for new emergency service vehicles and equipment while the Parks and Recreation Department requested $4.175 million, mostly to save for a multi-purpose rec center and indoor aquatic center.
The board of supervisors at a budget work session in early February tentatively slimmed down next year’s CIP to $16.5 million. The board slashed the Parks and Rec Department’s request by $3.6 million, pushing back funding earmarked for the aquatic center and rec center to FY27 and beyond.
Looking ahead, the CIP includes several other big-ticket items, including a pair of new fire and EMS stations at Zion Crossroads and Ferncliff or Shannon Hill, projected to cost nearly $17 million and tentatively slated for construction in FY28, and a new elementary school, estimated to cost at least $42 million and proposed for construction in FY30. The five-year CIP exceeds $128 million.
While most commissioners backed the plan, several expressed reservations about the county’s spending and the dearth of information about many of the projects in the CIP.
Louisa District Commissioner Matt Kersey said the commission had no role in crafting the plan, adding that he couldn’t support it because the burden of paying for its projects seems to weigh more heavily on taxpayers each year.
“I do have reservations that every year now our taxes continue to rise…We are talking about a 30 percent [increase] over the last three [years], and [the CIP] has a factor in it. On that basis, I am going to vote against this because I think it needs to be carved down,” Kersey said.
Chair and Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway mostly agreed. Though he voted for the CIP, he wondered if the county should cut services to rein in spending.
“It does seem like we spend more and more and more each year. I know we provide a lot of services, and they’re expensive. It’s difficult to do that. But I do wonder sometimes if we need to provide all the services we provide,” Disosway said.
Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles said the commission isn’t given time to do a deep dive into the plan. He suggested that the body add more work sessions in the future if the goal is for the commission to provide “more than just a rubber stamp.”
“We get some explanation, but there needs to be more time, I feel, to jog this thing around and get some better answers,” Quarles said.
The draft CIP was first presented to the commission during a work session prior to its December meeting. The commission held another work session before its January meeting where department heads and other county leaders formally presented their requests. During the work session, commissioners mostly sat quietly, asking few questions.
Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin reminded his colleagues that the commission is tasked with reviewing the CIP to ensure proposed projects are in accord with the Comp Plan, not to weigh in on spending. For that reason, he said he’d support the plan.
“The board of supervisors are the ones that have to respond to the voters about how much money they are spending in any given year and what they are spending it on. We recommend or don’t recommend based on [whether this lines up with] or does anything to disturb the longterm plans of the county,” Goodwin said, adding “I don’t see anything in this plan that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or with the future vision of the county. Is it too much? Not my monkey, not my circus.”
In the end, only Green Springs District Commissioner Jim Dickerson joined Kersey in voting against the CIP though he didn’t cite any specific reason for doing so.
No one from the community weighed in on the plan during the commission’s public hearing.
For a deep dive into the preliminary CIP, read the Dec. 22 edition of Engage Louisa. Check out the preliminary CIP here.
Commission greenlights CUP, proffer amendments for farm equipment biz
Commissioners held a public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend that the board of supervisors approve Amos Equipment Repair, LLC’s request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate an equipment sales and rental business on a 4.26-acre parcel (tax map parcel 93-161) on the south side of Jefferson Highway near its intersection with Spring Wood Road and Ellis Road in the Jackson Election District.
The property, owned by Land Lovers, LLC, is zoned general commercial (C-2). It was previously home to an HVAC shop and carpet store showroom.
Anne Miller of Balzer and Associates, a planner who represented the applicant, told the commission that Amos Equipment plans to use the property to sell and rent farm and garden equipment with incidental storage, maintenance and servicing of such equipment.
Miller noted that the business already serves Louisa County and that its owner, Earnest Amos, “is excited to open his own shop here and have lasting roots.”
Miller said that, based on a conceptual plan, Amos plans to utilize an existing building and parking area at the front of the property and add a second building with associated parking near the property’s rear.
The property would be accessed by an existing commercial entrance off Route 33. Miller said a gravel access road would be added to serve the back of the property. She also noted that the concept plan includes a buffer around the proposed building, comprised of both existing and supplemental vegetation.
Beyond the CUP, the commission also recommended that supervisors approve the applicant’s request to amend five proffers attached to the property’s 1989 rezoning from agricultural to general commercial.
Miller said the changes better align with the property’s proposed use and Louisa County’s current land development regulations. The amendments require the use of dark-sky compliant lighting, mandate that any equipment maintenance or servicing be performed inside and limit the business’ operating hours to between 8 am and 6 pm, Monday through Saturday while barring operation on Sunday, among other provisions.
Kayla Polychrones, an associate planner with Louisa County, noted in her report, that while the property isn’t in a growth area and is designated as “rural” on the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, staff believes it would serve an important function for the surrounding area.
“The business would address the current challenge of diminishing support systems and agricultural supplies in the county,” she said.
Other than Miller, no one spoke for or against the proposal during the public hearing. Amos Equipment’s request next moves to the board of supervisors for a public hearing and final up or down vote.
Commission oks CUP for construction yard
After holding a public hearing and tabling action at its November meeting, the planning commission on Thursday voted unanimously to recommend to the board of supervisors approval of JWC Enterprises/On Demand Concrete’s request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a construction yard on a five-acre parcel on the north side of Louisa Road (Route 22) at its intersection with Spotswood Trail (Route 33) in the Louisa Election District (tax map parcel 24-17-A).
The property, owned by Ronald Reynolds, is zoned General Commercial (C-2) and already home to Haymaker Auto Repair.
According to Renee Mawyer, an associate planner with Louisa County, On Demand Concrete operates a mobile concrete company, using the subject parcel to store gravel, sand and cement—ingredients in concrete—as well as concrete trucks and related equipment. The company loads the material on trucks at the property, but mixes concrete on-demand where it’s needed.
When commissioners considered the application three months ago, they didn’t have concerns about the use, but opted to delay action after Gerald Harlow, president of Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation, raised concerns about the business’s potential impact on adjoining property.
Harlow said that he wanted to ensure that the use was properly buffered to protect the view shed around the foundation’s 400 adjacent acres where, in 1864, Union and Confederate soldiers fought the Battle of Trevilian Station, the largest all-cavalry battle in the Civil War.
In one of six proposed conditions attached to the CUP, the applicant has since agreed to erect a 150-foot long and eight-foot-tall wooden privacy fence “to create a visual screening buffer for adjacent property owners at the intersection of Poindexter Road (RT 613) & Louisa Road (RT 22).”
The board of supervisors will next consider On Demand Concrete’s application.
Mineral Town Council appoints Chapman as interim mayor
The Town of Mineral has a new mayor.
The Mineral Town Council last Monday night appointed Ron Chapman as interim mayor. Chapman, who was elected to council in 2022 and served as vice mayor for the last year, will fill the position vacated by Ed Jarvis. Jarvis stepped down as mayor in early January to take a job out of state. Since then, Chapman has served as acting mayor. (video)
Chapman will lead town government until a special election in November to fill the remainder of Jarvis’ term, which runs through 2026.
“I hope that I will represent you all as council professionally and efficiently. I’m not saying I won’t make mistakes because to err is human. But it will never be from a place of malice or mistrust. That much, I can guarantee you,” Chapman told his colleagues after they voted 4-0 to appoint him as mayor. Council member Dave Hempstead missed the vote.
After selecting Chapman, council appointed Michelle Covert as vice mayor with council member Bernice Kube voting in opposition. Covert was appointed to a vacant seat on council in July 2023. She ran unopposed in a special election that November to retain the seat through 2026.
Following Jarvis’ resignation, council had 45 days to appoint his temporary replacement, per state code. The town advertised the vacancy on its website and at the town hall for about three weeks then held a statutorily required public meeting on Feb. 3 to announce the candidates it was considering for the job.
Chapman, who moved to Mineral in late 2020, was the only resident to throw his hat in the ring. In a letter to council, which included a brief resume, he highlighted his year serving as vice mayor and his professional background in higher education.
Chapman noted that, for the last two decades, he’s worked in private higher ed, helping students manage the enrollment process, and “navigate both state and federal regulations in place for private career focused higher education.” He added that he’d recently moved into an “auditory role, managing the accuracy of enrollment records” across multiple campuses and “preparing each campus for their annual federal audits.”
“I believe that my skills and experience will continue to make me a valuable asset to the town. I am committed to serving our community and would be honored to have the opportunity to do so as mayor,” Chapman wrote.
Chapman elaborated on his interest in the job at the February 3 meeting, noting that serving as acting mayor made him realize he was up for the challenge.
“Being able to hear each one of you in a different light, not as a voting member of council, but as someone who’s [trying to] bring the whole group together, has opened my eyes to some of the dynamics in council and in the town,” Chapman said.
As mayor, Chapman will have limited hard power, but he’ll play an important role in helping council navigate the public business that comes before the body. Under Mineral’s charter, the mayor is tasked with running council meetings but only votes if there’s a tie. The charter also provides that the mayor “shall be recognized as the head of the Town government for all ceremonial purposes, for the purposes of military law and for the service of civil processes.”
Council’s meetings have been tumultuous affairs over the last few years with Chapman embroiled in some of the drama. The most recent commotion came late last year when, in October, council voted to censure Hempstead, alleging, in part, that he’d mistreated town staff.
The body followed that up a month later with a closed-door trial where members voted to expel their colleague, relying on a disciplinary process laid out in Robert’s Rules of Order, the parliamentary procedure that governs how council conducts meetings.
Though that process differs from provisions in state law regarding the removal of a member of a local governing body, Chapman and Jarvis insisted that council had the power to oust Hempstead based on language in the town’s charter and ordinances.
For his part, Hempstead repeatedly insisted he was still a member of council, maintaining that his colleagues’ action was illegal. He was arrested for disorderly conduct at council’s December 19 meeting when he refused to leave as council tried to convene in closed session.
Louisa County Commonwealth’s Attorney Rusty McGuire immediately dropped the charge. McGuire said in a statement that council hadn’t followed state code in its effort to remove a sitting member.
With Chapman serving as acting mayor, council at its January meeting reversed course on Hempstead’s ouster. Chapman told his colleagues that he hoped town leaders could move forward in a spirit of cooperation.
Neither Hempstead nor his wife, Tracy, appear keen on that idea—at least not with Chapman at the helm. Tracy Hempstead was the lone community member to weigh in on the mayoral appointment at the Feb. 3 meeting. She raised concern about Chapman’s fitness for the office, alleging he had left a traffic ticket unpaid as well as other bills.
“I don’t think that speaks well for somebody who wants to be a mayor,” Hempstead said.
Dave Hempstead echoed his wife in a Letter to the Editor in the February 6 edition of The Central Virginian, urging council to hold off on appointing a mayor until other candidates emerged. State code allots council just 45 days to make an appointment.
“There has to be several people in the Town of Mineral who could do a good job being our Mayor. I think the people of the town need to start sending these council people emails and calling them to protest Chapman becoming Mayor, and demand an extended time to allow other interested people to apply,” Hempstead wrote.
Chapman’s ascendance to the mayor’s office leaves his council seat vacant. Council voted on Monday night to accept letters of interest and resumes from town residents interested in filling the vacancy until March 3 at 3 pm. The body will hold a public meeting on March 3 at 6:30 pm to announce the candidates under consideration then appoint someone to the seat on an interim basis at its March 10 meeting. (more information)
Pending circuit court approval, Chapman’s former seat, the council seat currently occupied by Olivia McCarthy and the mayor’s seat will be on the ballot as part of a special election this November.
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.