Supes adopt $187.6 million budget for FY26; At applicant's request, board defers action on proposal for more condos at Lake Anna; BOS to consider wide-ranging agenda; PC to hold two public hearings
Engage Louisa is a nonpartisan newsletter that keeps folks informed about Louisa County government. We believe our community is stronger and our government serves us better when we increase transparency, accessibility, and engagement.
This week in county government: public meetings, May 5 through May 10
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.
Monday, May 5
Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (meeting materials, livestream) The board will convene in closed session at 5 pm.
Tuesday, May 6
Louisa County School Board, Central Office Administration Building, 953 Davis Highway, Mineral, 7 pm. (agenda, livestream)
Thursday, May 8
Louisa County Planning Commission, long-range planning work session, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
Louisa County Planning Commission, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
Quote of the week
“It’s unfortunate that a developer, whomever it may be, has to continually come back to this board for changes—and more, and more, and more, and more—all to feed their pockets…and really the residents of this county gain virtually nothing from them asking for more.”
-Lake Anna resident Phil Winston on LA Resort, LLC’s request to add 18 condos to the 96 already approved in a mixed-use development planned for just west of the Route 208 bridge.
At the applicant’s request, the board at its April 28 meeting deferred action on the proposal. Read more in the article below.
Supes adopt $187.6 million budget for FY26
With little discussion, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday adopted a $187.6 million budget for Fiscal Year 2026 including $174.86 million for operations and maintenance and $12.71 million for capital projects. (meeting materials, video)
The operating budget takes care of the day-to-day costs of running county government, covering everything from employees’ salaries and benefits to fuel for fire trucks and office supplies. The capital budget pays for big-ticket items like new emergency service equipment, school buses and construction projects.
To fund its spending, the board adopted a slate of level tax rates, including a 72-cent per $100 of assessed value rate for real estate, a $2.43 rate for personal property—namely cars, trucks and boats—and a $1.90 rate for business personal property.
While the real estate tax rate has remained steady for a decade, many homeowners have seen their tax bills jump as the assessed value of real estate, excluding new construction and improvements, has climbed an average of 42 percent since 2022. Assessed values, which are determined by the county assessor’s office and based on property’s market value, increased, on average, 8.12 percent this year.
Residents have repeatedly urged the board to cut the tax rate to offset the rise in home values, including at a pair of public hearing this year. But supervisors have resisted those calls.
Though the board’s seven members made few public comments about the tax rate during this year’s budget process, several suggested in previous years that they’re not inclined to lower the rate because of the spiraling cost of county services, which they attribute to inflation and rapid residential growth. They’ve also said that they’d prefer to keep the rate steady, so it doesn’t turn into an annual political fight.
To ease the pain of rising tax bills, the board offered some tax relief on Monday night, okaying a 3.3 percent real estate tax rebate, which will be applied to tax bills due later this year.
The one-time rebate equates to a 2.4-cent reduction in the tax rate, meaning property owners will effectively pay a levy based on a 69.6-cent rate. But, even with that reduction, many homeowners will pay more taxes. The board would’ve had to lower the rate 66.6 cents or offer a 5.4 cent rebate to offset the roughly eight percent jump in assessments.
Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow was the only board member to vote against any component of the spending plan. He opposed maintaining the same tax rates as last year and the capital budget.
Barlow, perhaps the board’s most fiscally conservative member, didn’t offer any comment on those votes during Monday’s meeting. But he’s made clear over the last few years that he’d prefer cutting the tax rate to providing a rebate.
During this year’s budget process, Barlow expressed concern about the capital budget, also known as the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and the county’s $141 million debt load. The four-term incumbent argued that the county needs to focus on funding its core functions, not luxury items.
Though the CIP forecasts 20 years of capital spending, the board only allocates money for big-ticket items on an annual basis. That means an item could be included in the CIP for planning purposes but never come to fruition if the board opts not to fund it.
The county’s draft CIP for FY26, which was based on requests from department heads, included more than $20 million in spending with nearly $4.2 million requested by Parks and Recreation Director James Smith.
Smith asked for $4 million to save for an indoor aquatic center and multi-purpose rec center, arguing the facilities are necessary to meet the needs of the county’s growing population.
But the board opted to push back, at least until FY27, most of the funding for both projects with some board members signaling they’d prefer not to fund the pool at all. Supervisors ended up shaving some $8 million off the capital budget for the coming fiscal year, pushing it just under $13 million.
Those changes didn’t seem to satisfy Barlow, who contended he’d rather not see some items—like the pool—in the long-range CIP.
A closer look at the budget
Next year’s $12.7 million capital budget is significantly slimmer than this year’s when the county funded some $30 million in school construction. It focuses mainly on equipment replacement, renovations and maintenance projects.
The plan earmarks nearly $5 million for the Fire and EMS Department, mostly for new emergency services equipment. It sends $2.7 million to the General Services Department, primarily for renovations and repairs at the county’s circa 1905 courthouse, the County Office Building and the Louisa Medical Center. And it allots $1.7 million for Louisa County Public Schools (LCPS), mostly for new school buses and technology upgrades.
While the steep reduction in capital spending pushed the overall budget some 10 percent lower than the budget for the current fiscal year, the nearly $175 million operating component climbed about $18 million, or 12 percent.
That increase is driven, in part, by staffing costs. The budget funds 10 new full-time county staffers; a three percent pay hike for employees, matching an increase in the state budget; and a 7.5 percent hike in employees’ health insurance costs.
A $5.5 million jump in debt service is also pushing the budget upward. In total the county’s on the hook for $11.4 million in principal and interest payments on borrowed funds in the fiscal year that starts July 1. That’s a consequence of debt recently incurred for school construction and infrastructure projects.
The lion’s share of the county’s operating budget—$97.9 million or 56 percent—goes to LCPS with about half that money drawn from local funds. The school budget is nearly seven percent higher than last year with some of that increase offset by additional state funding.
Public safety accounts for the next largest chunk of the operating budget. Some $26.2 million, or 15 percent, covers the cost of running the Fire and EMS Department and sheriff’s office. Spending on public safety is expected to rise about nine percent in FY26.
To fund its daily operations, the county expects to pull in about $185 million in revenue, leaving a roughly $10 million operating surplus. The spending plan taps that money to help pay for the capital budget. It draws $2.5 million from the county’s long-term capital reserves to cover the rest of those costs.
The county draws its operating revenue from a variety of sources with more than 52 percent generated by general property taxes, 30 percent derived from state and federal sources and 8.8 percent pulled from other local taxes.
Even with the rebate, revenue from general property taxes is expected to increase more than six percent over FY25, and money from other local taxes is expected to rise more than seven percent. That’s driven mostly by increases in sales and business license tax revenue.
Community concerns
This year’s budget process has been a pretty quiet affair with fewer than 20 community members turning out for a pair of public hearings and weighing in on the spending plan.
Most of the speakers urged the board to lower the real estate tax rate in the face of rising assessments. A few complained that their tax bills are becoming unsustainable, and they’re unsure how long they can afford to live in the community.
“You’re trying to push out the lower class and the working man and bring in all this—I’ll say it—Northern Virginia, Lake Anna people and push us little people out,” longtime Louisa resident Ed Heany said during a public hearing in March.
Some community members said the board—comprised of four Republicans and three independents, most of whom brand themselves as fiscal conservatives and ran for office promising to lower taxes—had consistently voted to raise taxes over the last few years by not lowering the rate to counter assessments. They said that any supervisor who didn’t vote to slash the rate this year is supporting another tax hike.
Others criticized the way the county crafts the budget, contending supervisors should cap spending for each department to ensure only essential items are funded. They said slashing spending is the only way the county can deliver meaningful tax relief to citizens.
“We’ve got to curb the growth of the budget at some point. That’s the only way you are going to [be able] to look for ways to reduce the tax rate for us,” Lake Anna resident Bruce Tenney said at a public hearing last month, adding, “We talk about tax relief. I’m going to pay more taxes this year than I did last year based on this budget. That’s not tax relief to me.”
Two community members weighed in on the budget at Monday’s meeting.
Former Green Springs District Supervisor Bob Babyok urged the county to do a deep dive into how the assessor’s office calculates its annual valuations in light of the sharp increase many homeowners have seen in the last few years. Babyok said making that effort would show “how much the board [cares] about facing this issue.”
Louisa District resident Matt Craig had a different concern. He asked the board to reconsider its decision to push back until FY27 a $1.95 million expansion at the Louisa County Animal Shelter. Supervisors made that move to free up money for the tax rebate.
“Since the beginning of the year, the animal shelter has reached critical [capacity] over four times. When the animal shelter reaches critical status, it means that the shelter’s facilities are completely full, which means that any new stray or lost animals brought in by animal control officers, or animals surrendered by owners, or animals confiscated by the county’s animal control division due to suspected abuse or neglect, lack proper housing,” Craig said, noting that the shelter hasn’t been expanded since it was repurposed from an old slaughterhouse 30 years ago.
While Monday night’s meeting lasted only 45 minutes and didn’t produce any fireworks, the board’s decision to adopt the budget—and not to slash the real estate tax rate—unleashed a torrent of criticism on social media.
Dozens of residents sounded off in the 17,000-plus member “Louisa County, VA Residents” Facebook group, calling out board members for repeatedly raising taxes and encouraging their neighbors to, as one commenter put it, “vote them out.”
“Changing our community doesn't start in DC. It starts with local government. Let's get going,” one commenter said.
“These leaders need to go,” another community member said.
If Louisa residents want to change the makeup of the board, they’ll have a prime opportunity this fall when four of seven seats are on the ballot. Voters in the Mineral, Mountain Road, Patrick Henry and Green Springs districts will choose their representatives.
At publication time, Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, a Republican and two-term incumbent, and Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow, an independent who’s served on the board for 16 years and never faced opposition, are the only candidates to file paperwork with the Virginia Department of Elections to run for a board seat.
Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes, an independent who’s served on the board for 28 years, has announced he plans to run for an eighth term. Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones, a Republican serving her first term, is expected to seek reelection but hasn’t made a public announcement.
Candidates have until June 17 to file to run for a four-year post on the board.
To learn more about running for office, click here or call the Louisa County Office of Elections at 540-967-3427.
At applicant’s request, board defers action on proposal for more condos at Lake Anna PUD
Another meeting, another delay.
At the request of the applicant, the board of supervisors on Monday night agreed to defer action on LA Resort, LLC’s (LAR) request to increase, from 96 to 114, the number of condominiums permitted in a high-density development planned for the shores of Lake Anna.
In an email to county staff less than two hours before the meeting, attorney Torrey Williams, who’s representing LAR, requested that supervisors remove the item from their agenda. Williams didn’t say why the applicant asked for the delay or when his client would be prepared to present its request.
LAR has asked the board for permission to add 18 condos to the 96 already approved in a 276,000-square foot, six-story building slated for 15.2 acres fronting Mitchell Creek, just west of the Route 208 bridge.
The board agreed to rezone the property from commercial (C-2) to planned unit development (PUD) two years ago, clearing the way for Prince William County developers Mike Grossman and Mike Garcia to develop a mixed-use complex pairing the residential condo building with a 130-key hotel, a 150-seat restaurant/bar, a marina and other amenities at the county’s primary gateway from Northern Virginia.
In their land use application, the developers say they want to tweak their original plan to ensure the project’s “economic feasibility.” They intend to swap 12 five-bedroom condos for 30 smaller dwellings. Based on market research, they’ve said, the five-bedroom units could prove difficult to sell.
The changes inside the building won’t impact the project’s overall site plan, the developers say, or alter the footprint of 80-foot tall structure.
They also argue that upping the PUD’s density would have minimal impact on county service, like Fire and EMS, and only slightly increase traffic on New Bridge Road (Route 208), adding just 119 vehicle trips per day.
Monday’s request to defer marks the second time in three months the developers asked the board to delay action. The first came in January when Grossman, LAR’s managing partner, pitched the board on a more robust plan, proposing 28 additional condos—upping the total from 96 to 124.
But board members made clear they weren’t interested in increasing the project’s density by nearly 30 percent. They also scoffed at the $56,000 in cash proffers the developers tacked on to sweeten the pot. That money would’ve been split between a pair of local nonprofits: the Fluvanna-Louisa Housing Foundation (FLHF) and the Foundation for Lake Anna Emergency Services (FLAES).
Still, at Grossman’s request, the board agreed to delay its vote, allowing LAR time to craft a more palatable proposal.
LAR’s revised plan chopped the number of additional units by 10 and ramped up the cash proffers. The developers are now offering nearly $130,000. Of that, $100,000 would go to FLHF to help address the community’s affordable housing needs; $20,000 is slated for Louisa County’s Fire and EMS Department to buy defibrillators for cop cars; and $9,000 is earmarked for FLAES, a nonprofit that supports the New Bridge Fire and Rescue Station.
While it’s unclear how board members will respond to the new request, the plan continues to draw criticism from some lake residents.
When LAR initially proposed the PUD more than two years ago, it sparked strong resistance from neighbors, especially property owners along Mitchell Creek, a narrow cove lined with single-family homes.
Mitchell Creek residents packed county meetings to urge supervisors to reject the request, contending that LAR was bringing “Northern Virginia-style” development to their neighborhood, which would ruin its rural charm.
Many residents argued that the Route 208 corridor couldn’t handle the onslaught of traffic that nearly a hundred new dwellings would bring; that more boats along Mitchell Creek would make the already-busy area more dangerous; and that intense, lakefront development would increase runoff and exacerbate the Harmful Algal Blooms that have plagued the upper end of the lake over the last six summers.
But supervisors voted 6-1 to approve the plan. Several insisted the project meshed with the county’s long-range vision for the area, noting the property’s in the Lake Anna Growth Area and designated for mixed-use development on the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
They also said they preferred rezoning the property for a PUD to a previous proposal that could’ve been built by-right, meaning without supervisors’ approval. That plan consisted of a 150-unit condo-hotel, a hybrid concept in which unit owners typically stay in their condos part-time while renting them the remainder of the year.
Two years later, distaste for the project lingers. Though only one neighbor showed up at January’s public hearing and Monday night’s meeting to oppose LAR’s latest asks, others have sounded off on social media.
In response to an April 24 article from Lake Anna Life and Times detailing LAR’s beefed-up cash proffers, more than a dozen commenters urged supervisors to vote against the proposal. Several said the proffers weren’t enough to justify adding more dwellings and demanded that the board side with locals, not out-of-town developers.
Others echoed previous criticism, contending the project would clog traffic on 208 and spoil the community’s rural character.
“Quit making [this] rural, beautiful area like Northern Virginia,” one commenter said.
Mitchell Creek resident Phil Winston, the lone neighbor who showed up in person last Monday, said the developers had pushed for more density since first proposing the project. He wondered if they’d stop at 114 units.
“It’s unfortunate that a developer, whomever it may be, has to continually come back to this board for changes—and more, and more, and more, and more—all to feed their pockets…and really the residents of this county gain virtually nothing from them asking for more,” Winston said.
Other business
Board approves $35,000 in tourism grant funding
Supervisors on Monday night agreed to appropriate $35,000 in grants aimed at increasing overnight visitors to the county and promoting tourism-related economic development.
The funding is drawn from revenue the county receives from its transient occupancy tax (TOT), a seven percent levy tacked on to visitors’ tabs when they stay overnight at a hotel, bed and breakfast or short-term rental. Per state law, about 40 percent of the revenue must be spent on tourism-related initiatives.
The board voted 7-0 to give up to $10,000 to the Louisa Arts Center and up to $5,000 to Lake Anna Jazz. The money will help the organizations bring musical talent to a pair of outdoor concerts.
But a $20,000 request to help the Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation (TSBF) put a new roof on the Charles Goodall Trevilian House, a 19th century home that Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon described as the “centerpiece of the historic battlefield and a tourist draw,” sparked pushback from Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter. The appropriation passed 6-1 with McCotter opposing.
McCotter said he couldn’t justify doling out $20,000 to spruce up a historic building that’s only occasionally open and that the county doesn’t own. He suggested that the board cut the grant in half and encourage TSBF to fundraise to cover the $45,000 needed to replace the roof.
McCotter also said he doubted helping the foundation put a new roof on the structure would generate much overnight tourism.
But other board members defended the allocation. Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones said the battlefield’s trail network is popular with local equestrians. Louisa District Supervisor Manning Woodward argued that investing in the house is a worthy cause, given its historical significance.
“That house was actually there during the Civil War,” Woodward said, adding that Union troops camped in the front yard during the Battle of Trevilian Station, the largest all-cavalry battle in the war. “It is a significant house.”
To receive the grant funding, the organizations must sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the county, requiring them to add the Visit Louisa logo with a link to the bottom of their e-newsletters/website for a minimum of one year, contribute blog posts related to their events and engage in other promotional activities in partnership with Visit Louisa, the county’s official tourism marketing campaign.
Supes to consider wide-ranging agenda
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night (May 5) will convene for its first May meeting with a wide-ranging agenda, including two public hearing on tap. Beyond the public hearings, the board will consider several action items, hear two presentations and take up one discussion item.
Supervisors to consider expanding tax relief available to income-eligible elderly and disabled residents
Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider beefing up a program that offers tax relief to some elderly and disabled residents.
Currently, the program provides real estate tax relief to totally disabled residents and residents 65 years old and over whose income falls at or below $50,000 a year and whose net worth, excluding their home and 10 acres, falls at or below $200,000. But the program caps the amount of relief allowed at $2,000.
Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider upping the limit to $3,000.
The board’s finance committee, comprised of Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, recommended increasing the cap during a public hearing on the Fiscal Year 2026 budget last month. The move is aimed at easing the burden of rising real estate taxes for some of the county’s most vulnerable residents.
Though the board has maintained a level real estate tax rate of 72 cents per $100 of assessed value for nearly a decade, many homeowners have seen their tax bills soar in the face of rising assessments. The assessed value of the county’s real estate, excluding new construction and improvements, has jumped about 42 percent since 2022. It climbed, on average, 8.12 percent this year.
During the last several budget cycles, many residents have urged the board to slash the tax rate to offset the increase in assessments. But supervisors have resisted those calls and instead opted for more modest and targeted tax relief.
In addition to potentially beefing up the relief program, the board voted last week to provide property owners a one-time real estate tax rebate in the coming fiscal year that’s equal to a 2.4-cent reduction in the tax rate. (See article above).
Two years ago, they approved a similar rebate and doubled, from $1,000 to $2,000, the maximum tax break allowed via the relief program. They’ve also broadened eligibility requirements for the program.
In other budget related action, the board will formally appropriate the FY26 budget at Monday’s meeting. The $187.6 million spending plan, which the board adopted last week, includes $174.8 million for operations and maintenance and $12.7 million for capital projects.
The board will also consider a resolution allowing the Louisa County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) to spend up to $580,000 to replace high-mileage vehicles. Supervisors included funding for the vehicles in the FY26 capital budget, but LCSO wants to proceed with the expenditure prior to July 1, the start of the new fiscal year. The proposed resolution notes that the sheriff’s office has experienced delays when ordering new vehicles in the past.
Supes to consider Six-Year Secondary Road Plan
Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider approval of the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Road System Construction in Louisa County.
Developed in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the plan covers road improvements in the secondary system from 2025-26 through 2030-31, earmarking between $202,955 and $241,517 a year for improvements for a total projected allocation of roughly $1.371 million.
The funds are drawn from the state’s Rural Rustic Program, which is specifically aimed at paving unpaved public roads that carry more than 50 vehicles per day, and “telefee” funds, money paid by telecommunications companies that use public right of ways.
The plan earmarks funding to pave parts of several unpaved roads and for the Rural Additions Program, which pays for upgrades to private roads to bring them into the state system, among other initiatives.
The plan includes funding to pave or improve parts of the following roads over the next five years: West Green Springs Road; Harts Mill Road; Poplar Avenue; Albemarle Avenue; Piedmont Avenue; and New Anna Road.
Agricultural/Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee to present recommendations aimed at protecting farms, forestland
The Agricultural, Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee, a citizen-led panel tasked with reviewing the county’s Ag/Forestal Districts and advising the board of supervisors on strategies to protect the county’s rural heritage, will pitch the board on a multi-pronged “Agriculture and Natural Resource Protection” plan on Monday night.
The plan, which was mostly crafted by a group of multi-generational farmers, won a recommendation from the committee at its April 8 meeting. It includes a variety of policy recommendations aimed at conserving farms and forestland in the face of burgeoning residential and industrial growth.
Check out the April 20 edition of Engage Louisa for a deep dive into the proposal.
Board to consider adopting “Move Safely Blue Ridge Comprehensive Safety Action Plan”
Between 2018 and 2022, 306 people were seriously injured or killed in motor vehicles crashes in Louisa County.
In an effort to reduce roadway fatalities by 50 percent by 2040, the board will consider adopting the “Move Safely Blue Ridge Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.”
The plan is a regional collaboration spearheaded by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in cooperation with its six member localities: Louisa, Fluvanna, Albemarle, Nelson and Greene counties and the City of Charlottesville.
The plan works to identify data-driven strategies, prioritize safety improvements, and guide implementation efforts for enhanced roadway safety. Its adoption opens the door to federal funding from the Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All program. The $5 billion initiative, approved as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, is aimed at making roads safer for all users. It could potentially fund a range of projects, from large-scale infrastructure upgrades like a new roundabout to educational programming like special training for first responders.
Other than the proposed resolution, the meeting materials don’t include any information about the plan. Read more on the Move Safely Blue Ridge website.
Agenda includes presentation from Foundation for Lake Anna Emergency Services, discussion about “Tourism Administrative Process Updates”
The meeting agenda includes a presentation from the Foundation for Lake Anna Emergency Services and a discussion of “Tourism Administrative Process Updates.” The meeting materials don’t include any additional information about either item.
PC to revisit proposal regulating retail sales of controlled substances, talk shelter definitions
The Louisa County Planning Commission on Thursday night will gather for a pair of meetings. At 5 pm, the commission will hold a work session. At 7 pm, the panel will convene its regular monthly meeting with two public hearings on tap.
Commission to hold public hearing on revised proposal to regulate retail sales of controlled substances
At their regular monthly meeting, commissioners will hold their second public hearing in a month on a proposed ordinance aimed at regulating where businesses that sell controlled substances can set up shop in the county.
This time, they’ll consider revising language they previously recommended to the board of supervisors for approval amid concerns that it’s too broad.
The commission at its April meeting unanimously recommended that supervisors approve a draft ordinance requiring businesses engaged in the retail sales of controlled substances to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) and only allowing the use in commercial zoning, planned unit developments (PUD) and resort developments (RD).
Acquiring a CUP requires a lengthy public approval process including public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.
The ordinance would apply to any establishment engaged in “the sale or transaction of legally authorized controlled substances directly to consumers, including but not limited to prescription medications, hemp products intended for consumption, a substance containing any percentage of controlled substances, and other regulated substances,” according to a proposed definition of the use. The category includes authorized retail establishments, but excludes alcohol and tobacco sales, and passive agricultural activity.
Existing businesses that sell controlled substances would be grandfathered in and not subject to the new rules.
But the draft proposal okayed by the commission last month sparked concern from some community members including realtor Melanie Lucero, who’s hoping to bring an urgent care center to a commercial parcel near Lake Anna.
In a letter to the board of supervisors and posts on social media, Lucero warned that the county’s proposed definition of retail sales of controlled substances is overly broad and could have unintended consequences, including deterring direly needed medical facilities from coming to the county.
“This ordinance could have long-term consequences. The language used, as it sits, is too broad and too gray and casts a wide net. It risks making Louisa look unwelcoming to healthcare providers and could drive away the very services we’ve fought to bring here,” Lucero said.
In an apparent response to those concerns, commissioners will discuss a revised proposal, which retains the CUP requirement but tweaks the definition of retail sales of controlled substances. The draft adds language stating that the category excludes “facilities lawfully operating under a valid and active registration with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as licensed medical providers.” (draft)
The proposal also removes the definitions of hospital and clinic from county code, adds a definition for a licensed medical facility and changes the definition for medical office. It allows both uses by-right in commercial, industrial and resort development (RD) zoning and prohibits them in agricultural (A-1, A-2) and residential zoning (R-1, R-2) and planned unit developments.
The proposal defines a licensed medical facility as “a healthcare establishment providing patient services under the supervision of licensed healthcare professionals. This category includes, but is not limited to, pharmacies, urgent care centers, hospitals, and medical clinics engaged in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of illness or injury. The facility may provide overnight care, serve as a base for ambulance services, or offer emergency treatment. Facilities dispensing or administering controlled substances must operate under a valid and active registration with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in accordance with federal law.”
The proposal defines medical office as “a facility that provides diagnostic services, minor surgical care, counseling, and outpatient treatment on a routine basis. The facility does not provide overnight care, serve as a base for ambulance services, or primarily offer emergency treatment. Medical offices are operated by doctors, dentists, or similar practitioners licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Medical offices that dispense or administer controlled substances must also meet the requirements of a Licensed Medical Facility.”
According to Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon, the push to regulate the retail sales of controlled substance came at the recommendation of members of the board of supervisors amid concerns that lawmakers in Richmond would set up a retail market for recreational cannabis.
Currently, it’s legal to possess, share and grow a small amount of cannabis, but, outside of licensed medical dispensaries, retail sales are prohibited. The Democratic-controlled General Assembly has twice passed legislation to establish a retail market, but Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin has wielded his veto pen to block measure.
The proposed ordinance also grew out of concerns about shops that have cropped up in the county selling cannabis-related and adjacent products.
Coon said that, since the county doesn’t currently have an ordinance in place dictating where businesses that sell controlled substances can peddle their wares, county officials want to set guardrails on the use ahead of potential action from Richmond.
Commission to hold public hearing on changes to Land Development Regulations
In its other public hearing, commissioners will consider whether to recommend to the board of supervisors approval of a handful of tweaks to the county’s Land Development Regulations that touch on everything from the county’s plat approval process and subdivision requirements to regulations for telecommunications infrastructure and Lake Anna shoreline design standards. (draft amendments)
At work session, commission to talk emergency shelters, homeless shelters
At its 5 pm work session, commissioners will continue a conversation about how to define emergency shelter in county code and whether to add a definition for homeless shelter.
During a work session last month, Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin suggested that the county’s current definition of emergency shelter doesn’t comply with state code and is being confused with homeless shelter.
County code defines emergency shelter as “a facility providing temporary housing for one or more individuals who are temporarily or permanently homeless” and allows the use by-right in some commercial and industrial zoning and with a conditional use permit (CUP) in agricultural zoning (A-2), the county’s dominant zoning designation, and several other zoning districts.
Staff had proposed broadening the definition to allow a religious assembly, the county’s name for churches and other houses of worship, to serve as emergency shelters during a local or state-declared state of emergency without a conditional use permit (CUP).
The proposal is apparently an effort to crack the door open for churches to offer temporary shelter to homeless people in limited circumstances.
Staff proposed the change after the Louisa Homeless Coalition (LHC) shared its plans to partner with churches to temporarily house homeless people in winter. The county mostly derailed that effort when it informed the coalition that, under current code, moving forward with the program required “land use action(s).” That means obtaining a CUP for each church wishing to participate that’s zoned A-2 and a rezoning and CUP for churches in residential zoning (R-1, R-2).
But Goodwin argued that, per state code, emergency shelters must be part of a community’s emergency response plan, and, if the county wants to permit homeless shelters, it should be defined as a separate use.
Regardless of what the county calls the use, LHC has asked local officials to go further. The group wants the county to permit churches to temporarily house homeless people, sans a CUP, during both a state of emergency and when the temperature falls below 40 degrees or, alternatively, between November and March.
“In my opinion, it’s an essential historic practice of the church to provide shelter and, therefore, shouldn’t be subject to community or government approval. But, in our current zoning laws, it requires two public hearings plus two government boards to vote on whether or not a church can do or not do a ministry of the church,” David McWilliams, pastor of Zion United Methodist Church and a volunteer with the coalition, told the commission at its April meeting.
Read more in the April 13 edition of Engage Louisa.
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.