Supes reject RNG unloading station off Poindexter Road; BOS roundup; Louisa vice mayor floats annexation as way to raise revenue; PC to hold public hearing on humanitarian shelters
Engage Louisa is a nonpartisan newsletter that keeps folks informed about Louisa County government. We believe our community is stronger and our government serves us better when we increase transparency, accessibility, and engagement.
This week in county government: public meetings, August 11 through August 16
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.
Monday, August 11
Finance Committee, Administration Conference Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 9 am.
Wednesday, August 13
James River Water Authority, Fluvanna County Administration Building, 132 Main Street, Palmyra, 9 am.
Louisa County Water Authority, 23 Loudin Lane, Louisa, 6 pm.
Thursday, August 14
Louisa County Planning Commission, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
Other meetings/events
Monday, August 11
Mineral Town Council, Mineral Town Hall, 312 Mineral Ave., Mineral, 6:30 pm. (agenda packet)
Quote of the week
“I think [the agricultural development and land conservation coordinator] position needs to be funded. I think we need to move forward. We’ve already advertised for this position. We’ve already received many, many applicants. We’ve already started reviewing those applications. I think we’ve already opened the barn gate on this.”
-Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones expressing her support for the county hiring an agricultural development and land conservation coordinator. Jones’ comments came after Louisa District Supervisor Manning Woodward questioned whether the county should add the position now. The board voted unanimously to move forward with the position.
Read more about the board’s discussion in the article below.
Supervisors reject RNG unloading station off Poindexter Road
Amid concerns about more truck traffic on rural roads, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night voted 7-0 to reject a request for a renewable natural gas (RNG) unloading station off Poindexter Road.
The vote came after nine residents weighed in during a public hearing to oppose the project with most arguing that it wasn’t appropriate for an agricultural area and that Poindexter Road can’t handle the large trucks that would frequently visit the site.
“In the principles of land use, everything about where this site is located is absolutely inconsistent with the resources that the government provides to make things happen in a particular community. Plus, it’s inconsistent with the activities that are there already. I heard people in this room at the beginning of the evening during the public comment period talking about how this board’s primary responsibility was to serve the people of Louisa County. The people of Louisa County are here telling you this is inconsistent with this area,” Patrick Henry District resident Robin Patton said.
Vanguard Renewables SPV, LLC and Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC had asked Louisa County for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct the unloading station on a 5.6-acre agriculturally zoned parcel (tmp 37-44) at the corner of Brickhouse Road (637) and Poindexter Road (613) in the Patrick Henry Election District. The property is owned by Columbia Gas and adjacent to a compressor station that serves its transmission line.
The unloading station would’ve allowed Vanguard to inject renewable natural gas into Columbia’s system for transport and use throughout the region, including at facilities in Louisa.
RNG refers to biogas used as a replacement for fossil fuels, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. It comes from a variety of sources, including livestock farms, landfills and wastewater treatment facilities.
In this case, the RNG would’ve been hauled from a dairy farm in Amelia County two to three times a day, Monday through Saturday, with the option of making as many as five deliveries in a day and 28 per week. Vanguard would’ve delivered the biogas in sealed vessels via trucks with 40-foot trailers.
As a condition of the CUP, the trucks would’ve accessed the site from Brickhouse Road. The vehicles would’ve routinely traveled down Poindexter Road before turning on Brickhouse.
Vanguard representatives said they were working with VDOT on a study to identify safety concerns along Poindexter Road and would put up a $150,000 cash bond to upgrade the road, per the study’s recommendations.
But that didn’t sit well with some board members. Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams asked how Vanguard knew the bond would cover the cost of improving the road since it hadn’t completed the study.
“it’s still something that we are working through,” a Vanguard engineer responded. “Looking at the number of places that could probably need to be improved, based on preliminary conversations, $150,000 should be more than enough. I don’t think that will be a problem. But it’s not something we can say with certainty at this point.”
Some supervisors wondered why Vanguard had chosen a site off a rural road and what other locations were considered. Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams asked if the facility had to be next to a compressor station. After a Columbia representative responded that it didn’t, Williams said he couldn’t support the project.
“I think you have tried to pick the lowest hanging piece of fruit…You have a lease for a nominal fee from Columbia Gas to put your piece there, which benefits them because you are transmitting through their pipeline. You probably felt like you didn’t want to drive into Henrico or a little bigger municipality. Unfortunately, you’re on a small road, and I just don’t think it’s appropriate,” Williams said.
During the public hearing, community members urged the board to reject the request, homing in on the number of large trucks that already travel Poindexter Road and the safety issues they present.
“I have lived on Poindexter Road for almost 25 years. With the advent of GPS, the amount of truck traffic on Poindexter Road has increased dramatically. If you want to meet some revenue goals, try policing the speed on Poindexter Road. It is full of blind curves. We’re routinely run off the road by these trucks,” Poindexter Road resident Charlotte Morford said.
Several speakers pointed to conversations the board had earlier in the evening in which they discussed the importance of maintaining the county’s rural character. If that’s the goal, the speakers said, approving the CUP is a step in the wrong direction.
“We have heard dozens of nods and support for maintaining the rural character of Louisa County tonight on a number of different topics. That is front and center on this issue. Poindexter Road, Route 613, is a scenic byway. The characteristics of a scenic byway are natural beauty, rural charm, agricultural character,” Poindexter Road resident Karen Hulabek said.
Before motioning to reject the request, Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes said he’d heard his constituents’ concerns and chastised Vanguard for not being prepared to present its project. He specifically called out the company’s uncertainty about the cost of road improvements.
“You’ve got to know your business when you speak before local government. You’ve got to. If I give my boy [money] for a pair of shoes, and I give him $75 and the shoes cost $150, he ain’t going to get them shoes,” Barnes said.
BOS roundup: Supes talk dog tags, ok cell towers and more
Aside from voting to reject a request for a conditional use permit for a renewable natural gas unloading station off Poindexter Road, the board of supervisors on Monday night considered other public businesses, okaying CUPs for a pair of cell towers, green-lighting tweaks to a county ordinance governing roaming dogs, agreeing to hold a public hearing on selling lifetime dog tags and more. Check out a meeting roundup below. (meeting materials, video)
Treasurer pitches lifetime dog tags
Supervisors agreed to hold a public hearing and consider changing how much the county charges for dog tags and the frequency with which it issues the tags.
State law requires localities to issue tags for dogs four months old and older. The tags must include the name of the jurisdiction and a serial number or other identifying information.
The county annually charges $4 per tag for spayed and neutered dogs and $10 for intact dogs. It charges $45 a year for kennels with up to 20 dogs and $50 annually for kennels with up to 50 dogs.
The county sends notices to dog owners once a year, reminding them to purchase the tag. The notices are initially triggered when a veterinarian reports that a dog has received its rabies vaccine.
In a presentation to the board Monday night, Treasurer Henry Wash, whose office is tasked with issuing the tags, proposed that the county stop selling annual dog tags and instead offer lifetime tags. Wash noted that the General Assembly in 2017 changed state law to allow lifetime tags for individual dogs and that Hanover, Orange and Goochland have adopted the system.
Wash recommended charging a uniform $10 fee for both fixed and unaltered dogs. The tag would be good for the life of the canine if it remains with the owner who initially licensed it, resides in the county and stays current with its rabies vaccine. Kennel owners would still be charged for tags on a yearly basis as required by state law.
“We feel like it would be less of a burden for the citizens. They could pay a one-time fee, and they don’t have to renew [the tag] every year,” Wash said.
Wash said dog tags generate about $8,000 a year for the county’s general fund. He said the proposed changes would decrease revenue in the long run but likely increase it in the short term as residents with spayed and neutered dogs purchase a lifetime tag at a higher cost. He added that the county would initially save money on the cost of administering the program.
Supervisors reacted favorably to Wash’s recommendation though a couple took issue with the state law that requires localities to sell dog tags.
Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams called the requirement a “dog tax” and noted that the sale of the tag is triggered when a dog owner takes their pet to the vet for a rabies shot. If an owner doesn’t take the animal in for the shot, he said, the county doesn’t know about the dog. Adams also contended that some out-of-county vets don’t report dogs to the locality where they live, so a tag fee is never levied.
“I just want to point out how ridiculous this is,” Adams said.
Wash said that, under state law, vets are supposed to report when a dog gets its rabies vaccine.
Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams echoed Adams, expressing frustration that the state forces the county to sell dog tags. He wondered what the state would do if the county refused.
Wash said with a smile that, as treasurer, he takes an oath to follow state law.
Adams suggested the board discuss the dog tag mandate with the county’s legislators in Richmond and potentially ask them to carry legislation to remove it.
And he wondered if the county is required to issue tags for cats.
Wash said that state law doesn't obligate the county to issue cat tags, but the board could adopt an ordinance requiring them if it wanted to.
Beyond adopting lifetime dog tags, Wash also recommended that the board remove from county code a provision requiring that tags list the sex of the dog. Wash said the change aligns with what state code requires.
Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the changes at an upcoming meeting. If approved, they’d take effect in January.
Supervisors ok changes to roaming dog ordinance
For the second time this year, supervisors held a public hearing and tweaked an ordinance governing roaming dogs.
Most notably, the changes allow citizens to directly bring evidence—like a photograph or video—to a magistrate concerning a dog running at large. The magistrate can then issue a summons or warrant, if necessary, for the dog’s owner.
The board in February toughened the rules for roaming dogs, making it a Class 4 misdemeanor for a dog owner to allow their canine to run at large any time of year and tacking on an escalating penalty structure for repeat offenders.
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.
When the board made those changes, they believed that citizens could enforce the ordinance by bringing evidence to a magistrate on their own sans the involvement of an animal control officer.
But the county’s chief magistrate didn’t agree with that interpretation, prompting the board to add language explicitly stating that a private citizen “shall also have the authority to apply to a magistrate of the jurisdiction for the issuance of a summons or warrant.” Both parties would then be obligated to participate in court proceedings.
“Our chief magistrate was not willing to enforce our ordinance…This seems to now satisfy their concerns,” Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said before voting to support the change.
Beyond adjusting language to allow citizens to directly report violations to a magistrate, the approved amendments remove a code section that lays out specific rules for dogs running at large in two dozen subdivisions and the Mineral Trailer Park. Roaming dogs, regardless of where they are in the county, are now subject to the same rules.
Per state code, rules for roaming canines don’t apply to dogs engaged in lawful hunting. The county’s ordinance also doesn’t apply to dogs in the Towns of Louisa and Mineral, which have their own ordinances.
Board appropriates funding for ag/conservation coordinator position
Louisa County is one step closer to hiring an agricultural development and land conservation coordinator.
The board on Monday night voted 7-0 to appropriate just over $150,000 to fund the position for Fiscal Year 2026. The funding includes $75,000 for salary, $40,000 for a county vehicle and additional money for ancillary expenses.
The county in late July posted the job on its website and began accepting applications. According to the listing, the employee will be responsible for promoting the county’s agricultural and forestal economies and land conservation programs, supporting agricultural marketing and outreach, and engaging with landowners and stakeholders to advance farmland preservation, including administering Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs. The position will be part of the community development department.
The county’s decision to create the job came at the recommendation of its Ag/Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee, part of a multi-pronged Agricultural and Natural Resources Protection Plan that the committee presented to the board in May. The plan offers strategies and tactics for conserving working farms and timberland in the face of burgeoning industrial and residential growth.
Before board members voted to fund the position, Louisa District Supervisor Manning Woodward raised questions about whether the county needs the employee now. Woodward noted that the employee would likely be tasked with running the county’s PDR program, which the board hasn’t set up or funded.
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. Through the acquisition of development rights, the programs essentially conserve farms and forestland in perpetuity, limiting their future uses. PDR programs are typically bankrolled by local funds with some support coming from state and federal sources.
The board hasn’t adopted an ordinance formally establishing the program but some members have expressed support. They’ve suggested the county tap an influx of tax revenue expected from data center development, including two Amazon Web Services (AWS) campuses currently under construction, to support the initiative.
Woodward claimed that the program would cost “tens of millions of dollars” and questioned the availability of those resources with “what we have approved now,” an apparent reference to the two AWS campuses and an EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure data center complex planned for the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park.
Amid strong community opposition, AWS last month withdrew an application for another data center campus, which would’ve included up to 7.2 million square feet of data center buildings just north of the Northeast Creek Reservoir. Company representatives had suggested the campus could generate up to $115 million in tax revenue for county coffers annually but never provided an economic impact analysis specific to Louisa County to back up that number.
“I’m not sure whether we are really to the point of needing [this employee] now. Maybe we needed them a month ago, two months ago,” Woodward said.
But Woodward’s colleagues pushed back, expressing strong support for making the hire as soon as possible.
Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said the employee would be tasked with far more than running a PDR program, reading through a handful of conservation-related initiatives recommended by the Ag/Forestal Committee.
“We have an economic development director who focuses on economic development. This is an ag/conservation manager…while purchase of development rights may be part of [the job]—we all still have to figure that out—that’s just a small part of what this position would do,” Adams said.
Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams pointed out that the money to pay for the position would come from AWS’s building permit fees, which, by state law, must be used by the community development department.
“I don’t think it’s too early to hire [for this position]. In my personal opinion, I think we are probably late hiring it. I wish we’d had money to do this 10 years ago. We didn’t. We have some funding now,” Williams said.
Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones served alongside Woodward for six months on the board’s revenue committee, a panel tasked with drafting a framework for how the county might spend its anticipated data center windfall. Jones said the committee had crafted a spending proposal based on conservative revenue estimates from two AWS data center campuses and the “money was there” to support the hire.
In a presentation to the board in June, Jones and Woodward recommended that the board allot 15 percent of future tax revenue from the two campuses to rural preservation programs. Based on that percentage, county staff projected the board would have $5.47 million for the initiatives in FY31 alone.
“I’m not quite sure why you think the money isn’t there now. We specifically put money aside in our projections for this position,” Jones said to Woodward, adding “I think this position needs to be funded. I think we need to move forward. We’ve already advertised for this position. We’ve already received many, many applicants. We’ve already started reviewing those applications. I think we’ve already opened the barn gate on this.”
Before voting to support the position, Woodward suggested he had a better understanding of its purpose.
“We need to have these discussions. I really had no clue coming into tonight…Y’all have certainly helped me make my decision,” he said.
LCWA asks some customers to conserve water during maintenance project; Board gives authority green light to begin three capital projects
The Louisa County Water Authority (LCWA) is asking customers served by the Northeast Creek Water Treatment Plant to voluntarily conserve water from August 9 through August 24 as contractors complete repairs at the facility.
The plant provides potable water to 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.
In a press release last week, LCWA said that repairs to the plant’s filtration system will begin the week of August 11 and are expected to be finished by August 25. The repairs, which have been planned for several months, are necessary to ensure the facility’s “functionality and regulatory compliance.”
The release notes the repair work will cut the plant’s production capacity by 50 percent. The voluntary conservation measures aim to ensure “uninterrupted service to end users, including businesses critically dependent on water (such as dialysis centers), fire suppression and related emergency needs,” the release says.
LCWA staff will work extra shifts to produce water and backup storage will also be available, per the release.
“This is not an emergency or underlying water supply issue, but rather a production constraint during maintenance which will ensure the ongoing quality and efficiency of our Northeast Creek Water Treatment Plant’s water delivery system,” said LCWA Chairman Judson Foster. “We appreciate our users’ assistance in maintaining sufficient water capacity during this time.”
The authority recommends the following conservation measures:
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;
Beyond ongoing repairs, the board of supervisors on Monday gave the authority the go-ahead to begin $950,000 in capital projects. The allocation, which was included in the Fiscal Year 2026 Capital Improvement Plan, includes $500,000 for substantial repairs to the lagoon at the New Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant near Lake Anna; $250,000 to finalize improvements to the Northeast Creek Water Treatment Plant’s Sludge Vac basin; and $200,000 to replace the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system (SCADA) at the Zion Crossroads Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Supes ok two CUPs for Verizon Wireless towers
Supervisors held public hearings and green-lighted construction of a pair of Verizon cell towers—one adjacent to Jouett Elementary School and the other near Wares Crossroads.
In the first public hearing, the board okayed Verizon Wireless’ request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to build a 195-foot monopole with a four-foot lightening rod on 64.8 acres off Jouett School Road in the Jackson Election District (tmp 83-68).
Lori Schweller, an attorney representing Verizon, said the tower is needed to meet coverage gaps in the area.
The site is home to JES and currently includes a county-owned tower that was built as part of the Louisa County Broadband Authority’s effort to bring wireless high-speed internet to the area.
With that project dead and the county partnering with Firefly Fiber Broadand to meet the community’s high speed internet needs, the existing tower is slated for removal to be replaced by the new Verizon tower.
As a condition of the CUP, Verizon agreed to remove the tower within 12 months of the county requesting its removal. The company also agreed to provide space on the tower, free of charge, to the county for any wireless equipment still in use until Firefly delivers fiber. According to county staff, the Louisa County Animal Shelter and landfill currently rely on the tower for internet service.
Schweller said the tower, which will be owned by Vertical Bridge with space leased to Verizon, will also have room for other telecommunication providers.
In the second public hearing, supervisors voted unanimously to approve Verizon Wireless’ request for a CUP to build a 195-foot tower with a four-foot lighting rod on a 772-acre parcel on the west side of Zachary Taylor Highway (Route 522) near Wares Crossroads in the Mineral Election District (tmp 28-97F).
Schweller said the tower will provide much-needed network capacity in a growing area.
“Verizon is on every tower within four miles. It’s also on the Fire and Rescue Department [infrastructure]. It’s got new antennas directed toward Mineral. Those are at capacity. It’s just a growing area so more capacity is needed as well as coverage,” she said.
Other business
Supes ok pass-through appropriation to Louisa FEMS Department: Supervisors voted unanimously to approve a $39,519 pass-through appropriation to the Fire and EMS Department. Of that, $17,900 will be used to purchase an auto pilot system for a new FEMS boat while $21,619 is earmarked for a new motor for an older rescue boat. The Foundation for Lake Anna Emergency Services donated the money. (resolution)
Board approves pass-through appropriation for LCSO: Supervisors approved a $21,000 pass-through appropriation to the Louisa County Sheriff’s Office for the purchase of automated external defibrillators (AED) for patrol vehicles. Lake Anna Resort, LLC, the developer of a mixed-use complex planned for just west of the Route 208 bridge, chipped in the money with $20,000 coming from a proffer attached to the project and the other $1,000 a donation to the county. (resolution)
Supes approve letter backing unincorporated community sign for Waldrop: Supervisors gave County Administrator Christian Goodwin a green-light to send a letter to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting a highway sign recognizing the unincorporated community of Waldrop. The community is located west of Boswells Tavern and centered around the old Green Springs Elementary School. It was home to a US Post Office from 1888 to 1956 and encompasses St John’s Waldrop Church, an active place of worship. (letter)
Board agrees to contract with TJPDC for help with community engagement in upcoming Comp Plan review: Supervisors voted 7-0 to approve a contract with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for assistance with community engagement during an upcoming review of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, a long-range planning document that lays out a vision for the county’s future development. Per the agreement, the county will pay TJPDC $17,546 to help with messaging and educational materials and to coordinate and facilitate up to eight town halls. (resolution)
Supervisors ok supplemental appropriation under CSA: Supervisors voted unanimously to approve a $190,000 supplemental appropriation to cover cost overruns in Fiscal Year 2025 related to the Children Services Act, a state law that established a single state pool of funds to provide services to at-risk youth and their families. Of the $190,000 allocation, $106,400 will be drawn from state funding while $83,600 will come from local funds. (resolution)
Supes green-light changes to C-PACE ordinance: Supervisors held a public hearing and amended an ordinance governing the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (“C-PACE”) Program, a statewide initiative that allows developers to tap an innovative financing tool to pay for efficiency, renewable energy, resiliency and water management improvements and infrastructure on commercial and multi-family properties. County staff described the amendments as “technical changes.” (amendments)
Supes table action on changes to code related to ROW dedication: At the request of Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, supervisors tabled action on an amendment to county code related to right-of-way dedication. The tweak sought to clarify that “right-of-way dedication shown on a subdivision plat may be to the County of Louisa for public use; or the Commonwealth of Virginia, as may be required by the Virginia Department of Transportation.” The board is expected to consider the item at an upcoming meeting. (proposed amendment)
Board briefed on potential changes to SMART SCALE scoring: Supervisors were briefed on potential changes to the way its SMART SCALE applications are scored. SMART SCALE is a data-driven program administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation that funds major road improvements. The program scores applications submitted by localities every two years to determine which projects garner state support. Currently, Louisa County and other rural areas in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District are scored using a weighted system that prioritizes a proposed project’s impact on safety only slightly more than its impact on economic development. TJPDC recommends that the commission ask the state to utilize a different scoring category that slightly bumps up the emphasis on safety. (more info)
Louisa vice mayor floats annexation as way to raise revenue
The Town of Louisa’s vice mayor told the Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night that town council plans to research annexation as a potential way to raise revenue.
During what she called her “vice mayor update,” Vicky Harte, who’s serving her first term on council, said that she was informing the board that the town “officially” plans to investigate annexation—essentially adding more land to the town that could increase tax revenue.
“We’re telling you up front that we are…officially going to be looking into the [annexation] process because, unfortunately, we have to expand the tax base in town,” Harte said.
Harte said after the meeting that council would form a subcommittee to explore the annexation process. She also discussed annexation at an August 1 town hall, according to The Central Virginian.
But three other town officials say that the current council hasn’t talked about the idea.
Interim Mayor Matt Kersey said in a telephone interview last week that council hasn't discussed looking into annexation. Kersey said that while the item will be on the agenda for council’s August 19 meeting, he doesn’t expect any action. As interim mayor, he has the power to appoint council members to committees and subcommittees.
Kersey suggested that the town has more pressing issues to deal with.
“To be very honest with you, we have enough things that we need to make sure are at their prime operating potential before we would even consider or even [engage in] any deep discussion to take on annexation,” he said.
Kersey added that, as interim mayor, he is authorized to speak on behalf of the town.
“I think [council members] have a right to an opinion, and they have a right to some thoughts, but I do speak for the town in an official capacity and will do so when necessary. But, right now, I think we need to be about our business of managing the town,” he said.
Council members John Purcell and Sylvia Rigsby also said the current council hadn’t delved into annexation.
“Council has not discussed annexation at all since Vicky last brought this up 1-2 years ago. It is also to my surprise that we are planning to set up a subcommittee since this has not been discussed either,” Purcell said in an email to Engage Louisa on Tuesday.
Purcell said that he doesn’t have an opinion on annexation since it hasn’t been a topic among town leaders, but he said he isn’t convinced that “the vague reason” Harte cited in her comments to the board justifies looking into it.
Rigsby said in an email that she hasn’t thought about the topic either.
“I have not thought in any detail regarding annexation at this time as I was not aware of any pending discussion of the topic,” she said.
In the case of a town, annexation essentially refers to a boundary line adjustment where one locality takes in land from another. If the Town of Louisa were to add land from Louisa County, property owners would pay both town and county taxes, be subject to town ordinances, and, presumably, receive town services.
Per state law, annexation typically requires the governing body of a town to pass an ordinance and petition a court to start annexation proceedings. The ordinance must include details about the area the town seeks to annex, “a general statement of the terms and conditions upon which annexation is sought,” and a plan for providing public services to the area, among other information. Annexation usually involves a voluntary agreement between the localities involved though such an agreement doesn’t appear to be required under state law.
Prior to passing the ordinance, a town must engage with Virginia’s Commission on Local Government, which reviews and compiles a report on the proposed annexation. As part of its review, the commission holds oral presentations and public hearings involving the impacted localities.
A special three-judge court, appointed by the Virginia Supreme Court, ultimately decides if annexation is appropriate, basing its decision on a handful of factors including the need for services in the area proposed for annexation, the need for the locality seeking the annexation to “obtain land for industrial or commercial use” and the need for the locality seeking annexation to expand its tax resources, including its real estate and personal property tax base.
Per Virginia law, citizens, under some circumstances, may also petition a court for annexation.
Harte has emphasized that the town is in dire need of new revenue streams, pointing out at her town hall that council tapped reserve funds to balance its $3.5 million budget for Fiscal Year 2026, according to The Central Virginian.
Louisa’s neighbor, Gordonsville, is looking into annexation, proposing to bring in land from Orange County to expand its tax base. In the “Friends of Gordonsville” Facebook group, commenters have sounded off on the proposal, arguing that it would lead to double taxation and increased regulations for residents drawn into the town.
“There are absolutely zero benefits to being annexed into town limits. You'll have to pay town personal property, real estate and other taxes on top of already paying the county. You'll end up with a cheaper water/sewer rate but that won’t outweigh the cost of paying double taxes. You will have to adhere to town code ordinance[s]…meaning you will not be allowed to have any chickens, ducks or pigs on your property. You will not be able to have an old vehicle that isn’t registered on your property unless it’s behind closed doors. A money grab for tax revenue towards the town is all this is,” one Orange resident wrote.
Harte’s push to research annexation comes on the heels of council’s decision at its July meeting to form a subcommittee to investigate the feasibility of establishing a Technology Overlay District (TOD). Louisa County adopted a TOD two years ago to attract lucrative tech sector development then inked a deal with Amazon Web Services to develop two data center campuses.
Council’s discussion of a TOD met some pushback from residents, who’ve expressed concern about data center development in the county.
“We need revenue, so that is why this option is coming up for discussion,” Harte said at the July meeting.
Planning Commission to hold public hearing on humanitarian shelters
After removing the item from its agenda last month, the Louisa County Planning Commission on Thursday night will hold a public hearing and consider whether to recommend that the board of supervisors add a definition for “humanitarian shelter” to county code and require a conditional use permit (CUP) for the use. (proposed amendments)
The public hearing comes after advocates with the Louisa Homeless Coalition (LHC) asked county officials to loosen a provision requiring a CUP to operate a homeless shelter in most zoning designations. Code currently calls a homeless shelter an “emergency shelter.”
LHC wants the county to allow churches to provide temporary shelter to homeless people during the coldest months of the year sans an onerous public approval process. Volunteers have pushed for the change in hopes of launching a program modeled after People and Congregations Engaged in Ministry (PACEM) in Charlottesville, where a rotating group of churches offer overnight shelter to unhoused community members November through March.
LHC launched a pilot program last winter, but members have said their efforts were hampered by the county’s CUP requirement.
The commission has instead opted to move forward with amendments that would remove the definition of “emergency shelter” from code, replace it with a definition for “humanitarian shelter,” which county staff says is more inclusive, and require a CUP for the use anywhere in the county.
Obtaining 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 commission had advertised a public hearing on the item for its July meeting, but, after a half-hour, mid-meeting closed session, removed it from the agenda. Commission Chair John Disosway said the item was removed because the proposed amendments included in the meeting materials didn’t match what commissioners recommended for consideration during a June work session.
The draft up for consideration on Thursday differs somewhat from the proposal advertised for the July meeting and the recommendation from June. But the draft broadly matches both proposals, requiring a CUP for humanitarian shelters and imposing a range of regulations on the use.
“Following legal review and Planning Commission input, [the latest] version incorporated revised language for clarity, softened provisions where flexibility was needed, and refined several requirements to improve legal defensibility,” Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon wrote in a memo to the commission.
The draft ordinance defines “humanitarian shelter” as “a facility that provides temporary shelter and basic services to individuals or families, without requiring leases or occupancy agreements.” The proposal removes the definition of “emergency shelter.”
To obtain and retain a CUP, churches and other entities seeking to shelter unhoused community members or others needing a place to stay on a temporary basis would be required to have an authorized representative on site whenever the shelter is operating; provide written documents detailing intake and screening policies and procedures; provide information about any partnerships with providers of supportive services like mental health care and substance abuse services; provide a narrative explaining how they’d avoid “adverse impacts on surrounding properties and uses;” and provide a point of contact to respond to community concerns, among other requirements.
The proposal would generally allow a humanitarian shelter only as an accessory or ancillary use. But it doesn’t explicitly prohibit standalone shelters, stating that standalone facilities “may raise additional considerations and should be discussed with staff during the application process.”
Commissioners discussed the proposed CUP requirement and related regulations at their June meeting where they met strong pushback from coalition volunteers, most of whom argued that the restrictions infringe on churches’ right to practice their faith.
“It is my belief that, as the pastor of our church, faith is not just something we do by sitting in our pews on Sunday morning. It is something we literally practice 24/7. And yes, I do believe that we are called to care for those in need in our communities…I do consider what we do to care for the poor and, in this case, the homeless to be actually part of what it means to practice our religion…To me, [the CUP process] feels unnecessary and infringes on our beliefs and what it means to be a church,” Allan Smith, pastor at Mechanicsville Baptist Church, said.
A group of coalition supporters attended last month’s meeting, poised to reiterate their concerns. But, because the item was removed from the agenda after public comment, a period at the beginning of each meeting where community members are free to speak about whatever they want as long as the item’s not on the agenda, they didn’t get that opportunity.
The decision to remove the public hearing mid-meeting sparked pushback from David McWilliams, pastor at Zion United Methodist Church at Zion Crossroads, who challenged Disosway just after he adjourned the meeting. McWilliams said he was denied the opportunity to speak.
Disosway responded that removing the public hearing was intended to preserve community members’ ability to speak at the next meeting and make informed arguments to the commission.
“The commission decided to hold this whole thing over until next month, so you could see the actual language ahead of time before the meeting, so that you would understand what we were going to take up, and you would have the opportunity to properly collect your thoughts and make a presentation on the correct language,” Disosway said.
The board of supervisors has the final say on whether to add a definition of “humanitarian shelter” to county code and what restrictions to place on the use.