Supervisors toughen penalties for roaming dogs, ok rules aimed at shutting down utility-scale solar development; Real estate assessments rise again in Louisa County; News roundup

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. 24 through March 1

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, February 24

Dry Cask Storage Committee, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.

Wednesday, February 26

Finance Committee, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 2 pm.

Friday, February 28

Water/Sewer Committee, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 10 am.

Industrial Development Authority, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 11 am.

Revenue Work Group, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 2 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

“If I was the developer of…the Belcher Solar Facility, the [Department of Environmental Quality] would’ve had me in prison, sir. I would’ve been in prison, and I would be broke and bankrupt, and they would have everything I own. But it wasn’t me. It was Dominion Energy.”

-Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams referencing a troubled Dominion-owned solar facility off Waldrop Church Road during a discussion of amendments to county code aimed at shutting down utility-scale solar development in Louisa County.

Read more about changes to county code related to utility-scale solar development below.

---

BOS roundup: Supes toughen penalties for roaming dogs, ok rules aimed at shutting down utility-scale solar development

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday night held four public hearings, okaying tough new rules for roaming dogs, implementing stringent standards for utility-scale solar siting agreements and more. (meeting materials, video)

Supervisors toughen penalties for roaming dogs

Dog owners who allow their canines to roam could be subject to a criminal conviction under tough new rules approved by the board of supervisors on Tuesday night.

The board held a public hearing and voted unanimously to amend county code to address ongoing issues with dogs running 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,” according to state and county code.

Under the new rules, 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.

A Class 4 misdemeanor is punishable by a maximum $250 fine. A Class 2 misdemeanor is punishable by up to six months in jail and/or up to a $1,000 fine while a Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a maximum $2,500 fine, per state code.

The amendments also 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.”

The board added a clause allowing for a warning notice on the first offense when an animal control officer deems it “more suitable.”

Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams suggested including the clause, which wasn’t in the draft proposal, amid concerns that the rules were too punitive for residents whose dogs accidentally escape.

“There is such a thing as officer discretion, which we see. I’m not worried about today. I’m worried about 10 years from now if it’s not built into the code [allowing] that discretion,” Adams said.

Aside from that tweak, board members embraced the beefed-up ordinance, a notable change from their position three years ago when they rejected similar penalties for roaming dogs in favor of more lenient rules that allowed for two written warnings before levying a $100 fine. The rules didn’t introduce a criminal penalty until the fourth offense. The board slightly tweaked the ordinance’s language a year later after local magistrates refused to enforce it because it lacked clarity.

Both Adams and county staff said the new amendments are necessary because the previous ordinance continued to raise questions with some local magistrates, preventing the county from addressing issues with residents who repeatedly allow their dogs to roam.

“When animal control has been put in a situation where they impound those dogs, [sometimes] the magistrate does not [enforce] our code because they don’t think it’s clear enough, but [another] magistrate would. This is an attempt to clean that up, but, at the same time, give a lot of discretion for people who are responsible dog owners,” Adams said.

County Administrator Christian Goodwin and County Attorney Patricia Smith said that making the initial and subsequent violations misdemeanors empowers animal control officers to move forward with the process of securing a criminal conviction rather than having to use the magistrate’s office.

In addition, residents who have an issue with a roaming dog when law enforcement isn’t present can go to the magistrate to pursue charges, Smith said.

“What can happen is the person who actually sees a [dog] in their yard and takes a picture, they can actually enforce this themselves with their pictures. It’s written that it’s a violation, [so] they can actually go to the court themselves on this,” Smith said, adding, “This [ordinance] makes it clear what a violation is, what a conviction is. The other one was vague on that.”

In addition to tightening rules for roaming dogs, the board also added a section to county code aimed at addressing concerns about roving farm animals. The section 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.

Roving livestock have been a persistent problem in the county, gaining considerable attention two and a half years ago when a herd of goats and sheep wandered onto 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 and a determination by the then-county attorney that state code provided animal control the tools it needed to address community concerns.

Though board members pointed to ongoing issues—especially with roving dogs—as the impetus for the amendments, they didn’t offer any specific examples, and only one community member weighed in during the public hearing.

Jackson District resident Amy Ware told the board that she mostly supported the changes, recalling that roaming dogs and farm animals had repeatedly visited her 87-year old mother’s home. Ware said her mother, who suffers from dementia, was knocked to the ground by a horse. She said her family recently invested in a privacy fence to keep the animals at bay, but a donkey and horse knocked down the fence.

The amendments take effect immediately. The dog ordinance applies 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.

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.

Board adopts stringent new rules aimed at shutting down utility-scale solar development

The board of supervisors voted unanimously to adopt stringent new rules for utility-scale solar project siting agreements, aimed at shutting down large-scale solar development in Louisa County.

The new rules, now formally part of the county’s solar ordinance, apply to any utility-scale solar facility not yet permitted by the board. The rules require solar developers to make annual payments to Louisa County equal to between .075 percent and .125 percent of the county’s operating budget, which currently sits at about $156 million, for every megawatt of power produced by their projects. They also mandate that solar facilities begin generating electricity within five years of approval and recommend that project owners provide adjoining landowners with $500 in annual compensation for electric bill or property tax abatement.

The amendments, which were twice tweaked during the public approval process and initially directed 25 percent of siting agreement revenue to affordable housing initiatives, drew pushback from representatives of the solar industry. Developers said the sizable per-megawatt payments would effectively wipe out profits for project owners and suggested the provision could shut the door on solar development in Louisa.

Still, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon repeatedly insisted that the provisions were designed to benefit the community and solar developers by providing a consistent framework to help mitigate the impacts of solar projects and meet community needs.

And when the board adopted an initial version of the proposal as a policy at its November 18 meeting—essentially allowing it to take effect immediately so it would apply to solar projects working their way through the public approval process—Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes and Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones claimed the board was, as Jones put it, “showing a commitment” to addressing the community’s affordable housing needs.

But supervisors pushed aside those pretenses at Tuesday’s meeting and made clear that their intentions weren’t to generate money for any of the county’s capital needs or mitigate the impact of solar development, as solar siting agreements are designed to do under state code. Instead, they aimed to close the door on large-scale solar amid fears that lawmakers in Richmond would usurp local control over the siting of solar generation facilities as the state faces a burgeoning demand for power and strives to meet its clean energy goals.

“We’ve had enough. We’re done. If this kills it, if this does it, I’m all in. It may not hold up in court. We may get sued. But, you know what? We won’t know until we go to court,” Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams said.

In approving the amendments, the board axed the provision that would’ve set aside 25 percent of the revenue the county would theoretically receive from siting agreements. They also set aside a draft memo from Coon suggesting the county could use siting agreement revenue to fund several other initiatives including Harmful Algal Bloom mitigation at Lake Anna, a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program aimed at preserving farmland and stream restoration efforts.

“It seems like [this] could grow government rather than lessen it. I think a lot of us want to lessen government influence,” Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter said of Coon’s draft revenue framework.

The adopted amendments state that revenue would be allocated to a “fund balance.”

The board’s solar committee initially recommended implementing siting agreement standards. The committee, which includes Barnes and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, previously led successful efforts to toughen the county’s solar ordinance and cap at two percent, or 6,343 acres, the amount of land that can be used for large-scale solar generation.

Once generally supportive of utility-scale solar, Barnes and Adams have since soured on the use as the political winds in rural Virginia have shifted—especially among Adams’ Republican base—and in the wake of problems at Dominion Energy’s Belcher Solar Facility off Waldrop Church Road in Barnes’ district. At Belcher, neighboring farmers say that runoff from the sprawling 1,300-acre facility has caused severe flooding and erosion on their property.

Since 2015, the board has approved seven utility-scale solar projects, covering almost 5,200 acres, but only four have been constructed. Supervisors haven’t approved a large-scale solar facility since early 2022.

A couple supervisors suggested that the problems at Belcher were, at least in part, the impetus for their action. Williams expressed disgust with how the project has been handled.

“If I was the developer of…the Belcher Solar Facility, the [Department of Environmental Quality] would’ve had me in prison, sir. I would’ve been in prison, and I would be broke and bankrupt, and they would have everything I own. But it wasn’t me. It was Dominion Energy,” Williams said, noting that Dominion only received a $50,000 fine for damage it caused to a creek running through the property.

Others insisted that the county does plenty to produce energy for the state and would continue to do its part with the potential development of small modular reactors (SMR) at Dominion’s North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Dominion has said it hopes to bring a commercial SMR online by the early 2030s. To date, the technology hasn’t been deployed for commercial power generation in the western hemisphere.

“Louisa County is one of the top producing energy counties of the state. When is another county going to step up? How much more do you want to take off of our backs and take off of our homeowners and landowners here in our community? How much more do you want to take away? And we are still moving forward with power. We still have small modular reactors coming. We still have solar that’s already in the works,” Jones said.

Though community members have taken to social media to decry large-scale solar development and occasionally expressed opposition at public meetings when a project was proposed near their home, no one from Louisa County weighed in during the public hearing for or against the amendments. One community member suggested that the board use money from siting agreements to hire a county engineer.

Two people with ties to the solar industry spoke in opposition.

Telly Manos, a senior development manager with the solar developer, Urban Grid, said the per-megawatt payment requirement would ensure that solar project owners wouldn’t get any return on their investment. Under the amendments, project owners would be required to pay the county as much as $195,000 per megawatt per year.

“A solar facility makes about $120,000 to $140,000 per megawatt per year in Virginia. So, the proposed dollar value is more than the facility even makes in revenue, and that’s before taxes and operational expenses are taken out,” Manos said.

Skyer Zunk, representing Energy Right, a conservative group that supports large-scale solar, said that he feared Louisa’s decision to impose exorbitantly high taxes on solar facilities could set a bad precedent and compel the General Assembly to wrest control over the siting of clean energy generation facilities from localities.

“As a small-government, conservative organization, we absolutely respect local control. But that arrangement absolutely requires that localities work in good faith with folks trying to bring new energy to the grid,” Zunk said.

But board members brushed off that concern.

“The reason I am going to support these changes [is because] it sends exactly the message I want to send about solar in Louisa County,” Adams said, adding “I think we are going to see the heavy hand of the state government trying to come into play and override local zoning ordinances, anyway. At least, we have something in place that, when that happens, we can point to the ordinance that we have in place.”

Zunk countered that, if the state usurps local control, it could cap how much localities can tax solar projects.

Proposed PDR program sparks discussion

In his draft revenue framework, Coon floated the idea of using millions of dollars in imagined revenue from utility-scale solar siting agreements on a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program aimed at preserving farmland.

While the board disassociated itself with the memo in approving the siting agreement standards, the PDR proposal sparked some debate among board members that could be a preview of conversations to come.

Adams suggested that a PDR program could be one beneficiary of revenue from future economic development, an apparent reference to a windfall the county expects to receive from a pair of Amazon Web Services data center campuses. The campuses, set to be built over the next 15 years, could include as many as 36 data centers with each generating a little over $2 million a year for county coffers, officials have said at previous meetings.

Adams said that establishing a PDR program is something that’s been on his mind for the past seven years, contending that it could be an important tool in preserving the county’s rural character.

“We invest in economic development to attract business and economic growth here, which is what is going to spur our ability to have funding to probably purchase these developmental rights or at least consider it, if the board wants to do that,” Adams said.

Generally, PDR programs enable landowners to sell residential and industrial development rights on farm and forestland to a locality while maintaining ownership and continuing to use the land. Neighboring Albemarle County has an active PDR program.

In his memo, Coon proposes that the county could buy development rights on farmland for more than $27,000 per acre. He doesn’t explain how he derived that figure or offer any other details about what the program could look like.

Louisa District Supervisor Manning Woodward bristled at the idea of setting up a PDR program but agreed to continue discussing the issue.

“At this point, I have no appetite to take tax money and buy development rights from people. My opinion could change on that, but that’s the way my opinion is right now,” Woodward said.

Along with Adams, Williams expressed interest in the program.

“I personally think [a PDR program] probably has some merits. I haven’t fleshed it out, but I am willing to have discussions,” he said.

While Tuesday’s meeting marked the first time the board has publicly discussed a PDR program, some county officials have talked about the idea in the past. In 2021, the Ag, Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee, a panel tasked with identifying, researching, and promoting programs to preserve Louisa’s rural character, heard a detailed presentation from Ray Pickering, who runs Fauquier County’s PDR program, one of the most successful in the state.

Since starting the program in 2002, Fauquier has preserved more than 13,000 acres of working farmland, according to its website. The county pays property owners for residential and industrial development rights, ensuring that land remains agricultural and rural in perpetuity.

Pickering said that Fauquier’s program has played a key role in maintaining and expanding the county’s agricultural economy, which encompasses a diverse array of farming operations including equine, beef and dairy.

Jim Riddell, chair of the Ag, Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee and a cattle farmer, expressed interest in advocating for a PDR program in Louisa after Pickering’s presentation, but the initiative never gained traction.

As the county grapples with burgeoning residential and industrial growth, with the latter poised to bring significant revenue, a PDR program might finally be ready for primetime.

Riddell said in an email this week that members of the agricultural community are working on plans to preserve the county’s farm and forestland and intend to bring them to county officials soon.

“Several ag leaders have been discussing the future of [ag/forestal] lands [and] family farms in Louisa and are working to provide proposal(s) very soon to [the] county to support and protect these disappearing resources,” Riddell wrote.

LCWA ask customers to conserve water during upgrade at Northeast Creek Water Treatment Plant

The Louisa County Water Authority is asking customers who get potable water from the Northeast Creek Reservoir to adopt voluntary conservation practices starting this week. The reservoir serves residents and businesses along Davis Highway (Route 22), and Jefferson Highway (Route 33) in central Louisa as well as the Towns of Louisa and Mineral.

County Administrator Christian Goodwin told the board that the authority is asking customers to limit their water use as it upgrades a Sludge Vac system at the Northeast Creek Water Treatment Plant. Goodwin said the plant’s capacity will be cut “pretty significantly” during the upgrade.

In a press release, LCWA said that staff will work extra shifts to produce water during the overhaul and additional storage has been brought online to help ensure adequate supply.

Work will begin this week. It’s expected to last about 30 days.

The authority recommends numerous ways to conserve water. Those include:

• Sweep your driveway instead of washing it.

• Wash your car, truck, trailer, or any other type of mobile equipment at a commercial carwash (most recycle water).

• Check for and fix leaks.

• Rinse fruits and vegetables in a bowl of water instead of under running water.

• Store a pitcher of water in the refrigerator instead of running water until it is cold.

• Wash full loads of laundry with cold water.

• Wash full (rather than partial) loads in the dishwasher.

• Flush toilets only when necessary.

• Take shorter showers.

• Turn off the faucet when brushing teeth or shaving.

Supervisors ok transfer of Shannon Hill Biz Park to IDA

The Shannon Hill Regional Business Park will soon have a new owner, but it’s not a private sector investor.

The board of supervisors held a public hearing and agreed to transfer ownership of the park from Louisa County to the Louisa County Industrial Development Authority (IDA), a county-affiliated entity run by a seven-member board of directors appointed by the board of supervisors. The authority is tasked with promoting industrial and commercial development in the county.

The county began developing the 700-acre park in 2019 in hopes of drawing major industry to bulk up the tax base and creates jobs. Since then, the board has spent about $20 million in local taxpayer money developing the site but hasn’t officially lured any business.

Economic Development Director Andy Wade said the ownership shift would better position the county for private sector investment, noting that state code provides industrial and economic development authorities with certain powers not granted to local governing bodies. Those include the ability to sell land without a public approval process.

“It allows the IDA to move much faster when we are marketing to potential users of the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park and to close those deals. That’s a competitive advantage whereas if we had to go through public hearings with this body to sell to permitted uses that we already established that we want in the park, that could be a disadvantage in our marketing and recruiting efforts,” Wade said.

Wade said that the board would be kept in the loop about any businesses the IDA considers bringing to the park and that any use that isn’t by-right, as defined by the property’s 2019 rezoning, would require public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors with final approval by the board.

Wade added that the ownership switch is historically consistent with the ownership of other business parks in the county. The IDA owns the Cooke Industrial Rail Park and property in the Louisa Industrial Air Park. It previously owned the Louisa Airport before transferring ownership to the county last year.

Though the board approved the ownership transfer, it’s contingent on the IDA accepting the property and agreeing to give any proceeds from future sales to the county. Wade said the authority would consider the transfer and its related terms at its next meeting.

Supes clear way for cell tower on Charles Lane

Motorists traveling along Route 208 south of the Town of Louisa might have fewer dropped calls after the board of supervisors cleared the way for construction of a new cell tower.

The board held a public hearing and voted unanimously to approve 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 off Courthouse Road (Route 208) 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. 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.”

Jonathan Yates, a representative of Arcola Towers, told the board that Verizon aims to fill the deficit of wireless coverage around Charles Lane, noting that the company has no wireless infrastructure between its Louisa Courthouse tower in the Town of Louisa and its Butler Store tower a few miles south.

“That area in Charles Lane is left out. That’s what we call ‘the deficit area.’ It’s what we call ‘the donut hole,’ and what I call ‘not fair to the folks that live out there,’” Yates said. “Why’s it not fair? Throughout most of the state of Virginia, if I’m in Fairfax County or Henrico County, I can use a phone anywhere. It’s not fair in Louisa that people are getting left out and that is [the problem] Verizon is definitely trying to solve here.”

Yates added that the monopole Arcola plans to build won’t require lighting and would be tucked away off Charles Lane. He said that should the board approve the CUP, the company would likely build the tower by early 2026.

Supervisors responded favorably to the request. Before motioning for approval, Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes, who represents the area, said that he’s eager for improved cell coverage along the Route 208 corridor.

“It’s been dead there forever, coming down that dip on 208,” Barnes said.

Community Development Department returns to County Office Building

Following months of renovations, Louisa County’s Community Development Department has returned to its offices on the main floor of the Louisa County Office Building, County Administrator Christian Goodwin told the board during his report.

The department, which handles planning and zoning issues and provides other land use-related services, had temporarily decamped to another county-owned building during the renovations. Staff moved back to its revamped home in mid-February.

“It’s great to have [the Community Development Department] back in the building. The space looks great,” Goodwin said.

---

Real estate assessments rise again in Louisa County

Many Louisa County residents could see their real estate tax bills rise again this year.

Finance Director Wanda Colvin told the board of supervisors during a budget work session on Tuesday that the assessed value of real estate, excluding new construction and improvements, jumped 8.1 percent this year. She said the assessed value of all property, including just-built homes, is up about 10.3 percent.

The jump in assessments means many homeowners will see an increase in their real estate tax bills, assuming the board of supervisors adopts a flat tax rate of 72 cents per $100 of assessed value during the Fiscal Year 2026 budget process.

The board hasn’t advertised the rate for the coming fiscal year, but the proposed budget is built on a 72-cent rate, the same levy the county’s had since 2015. Real estate taxes are calculated by multiplying a property’s assessed value by the tax rate.

As the 8.1 percent jump essentially represents the average increase, some homeowners will see their assessments increase more and others less. The county will mail reassessment notices in early March.

A homeowner with a property valued at $400,000 would see their tax bill rise about $230 based on an eight percent increase and a level tax rate.

The jump in assessments continues a multi-year uptick in the value of real estate in Louisa County. Real estate tax assessments, excluding new construction and improvements, rose 7.83 percent last year. They jumped 12 percent in 2022 and 14 percent in 2023.

Assessments are handled by the County’s Assessor’s Office, which operates independently from the board of supervisors. Its determinations are based on a property’s market value.

The coinciding rise in many homeowners’ tax bills over the last few years has sparked pushback from some community members, who’ve urged the board to lower the tax rate to offset the increase in assessments.

But supervisors have resisted those calls. They’ve pointed to the need for more revenue to meet the growing demand for services and noted that the county’s real estate tax rate is one of the lowest in the area.

The rise in assessments means more money for county coffers, assuming the board keeps the same rate. Colvin said that she adjusted her revenue estimates upward for the coming fiscal year based on the assessment data. But she didn’t publicly share how much. Those adjustments could help the board balance the budget without dipping into the county’s reserves.

According to a preliminary budget presentation in January, the county’s operating expenses for FY26 are expected to top $174.6 million with its revenues projected to reach nearly $184 million. The preliminary Capital Improvement Plan initially came in at $20.1 million, but the board’s finance committee recommended slimming the plan down to $16.5 million. Assuming the board moves forward with that plan, the total budget could top $191 million.

Supervisors will hold their third work session of the FY26 budget cycle prior to their March 3 meeting. The finance committee will meet on February 26 at 2 pm. Both meetings are open to the public.

---

News roundup: Three Louisa firefighters injured while battling Feb. 16 blaze

Engage Louisa focuses on Louisa County government. We recognize we can’t cover everything, and there’s plenty of other news in our neck of the woods. With that in mind, we occasionally include a roundup of links to the work of other journalists and organizations covering noteworthy events and issues that impact our community.

• Three Louisa firefighters injured while battling Feb. 16 blaze -Stafford Daily Voice

• Hamilton Road Bridge closed to traffic -VDOT (press release)

• Louisa County 8th grader awarded in state writing competition -29 News

---

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.