This week in county government; Board to discuss redistricting, James River Water Project, and more; Planners okay CIP, changes to small-scale solar regulations
Engage Louisa is a community newsletter aimed at keeping folks informed about Louisa County government. It’s free, non-partisan, and powered by volunteers. 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. 14 through Feb. 19
Monday, Feb. 14
Louisa County Board of Supervisors, budget work session, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Administration Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 3 pm. (livestream) The board will discuss the Fiscal Year 2023 budget. Click here for budget information.
Louisa County Board of Supervisors, regular meeting, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Administration Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda packet, livestream) The board will convene for closed session at 5 pm.
After delaying its first February meeting for a week, the board will convene Monday night to consider an agenda that includes one main action item and four discussion items. See below for more information.
Thursday, Feb. 17
Louisa County Industrial Development Authority, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Administration Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 8:30 am. (public notice) At publication time, an agenda is not publicly available.
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.
Supervisors to discuss redistricting, James River Water Project, and more; Board to consider incentive plan for FEMS volunteers
After delaying its first February meeting for a week, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors will convene Monday night to consider an agenda that includes four discussion items and one main action item.
Agenda highlights
Redistricting committee expected to present proposed map: At supervisors’ January 18 meeting, board chair Duane Adams appointed Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes and Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams to a redistricting working group tasked with collaborating with county staff on the decennial redistricting process. The committee will provide an update Monday night where its expected to present a proposed map for the county’s seven voting districts. (See below for the proposed map shared with Engage Louisa).
Like localities across the country, Louisa is required to draw new voting districts every 10 years based on results from the latest census. The proposed map realigns the districts based, in part, on population criteria. Each district’s population must be substantially the same, meaning they can’t deviate more than +/- five percent from the ideal district population.
Louisa County has 37,596 residents, according to the 2020 census, so each district has an ideal population of roughly 5,371. The proposed districts range in population from 5,600 residents in Green Springs to 5,116 residents in Jackson.
The seven districts correspond with the seven seats on the Board of Supervisors and School Board. The new map doesn’t appear to draw any incumbents out of their current districts so, if they choose to seek re-election, they could run for the same seat.
Because of significant growth in the western end of the county and somewhat slower growth on the eastern end, the draft map pushes several districts westward. It also consolidates nearly all of Lake Anna into the Mineral and Cuckoo Districts. Under current maps, the Mineral, Louisa, Jackson, and Cuckoo districts include slices of the lake. The Jackson District still touches an edge of the lake but appears to include few lake voters.
The draft map doesn’t include voting precincts, which make up the larger districts, but the board is also tasked with drawing those lines. Under a recently-enacted Virginia law, precincts must be wholly contained in state legislative and congressional districts. That provision prompted county officials to wait for the state to draw its maps before beginning the local redistricting process.
Maps approved by the Virginia Supreme Court in late December split the county between two new state Senate and House of Delegates districts, moving the current Green Springs District and the southern part of the Patrick Henry District into different state legislative districts from the rest of the county.
The move complicates local map-drawing. The proposed Louisa District, for example, grabs a slice of the current Green Springs District near Gordonsville. Because the current Green Springs District will be in different state legislative districts, the portion drawn into the Louisa District is required to constitute its own precinct. The state has a waiver process for areas that contain few residents.
Due to delays in the delivery of census data, new maps weren’t in place for last year’s local and state elections, sparking speculation that officials elected in 2021 under current maps may be compelled to run on new maps in 2022. A federal lawsuit filed against Virginia’s Board of Elections specifically requests elections for the House of Delegates under new maps. It argues that population deviations in the current districts run afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The suit is currently pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
To date, the county’s redistricting process has been a closed-door affair, providing little room for public input. But, the proposed voting districts require a public hearing prior to final approval. The board is expected to lay out a timeline for completing the redistricting process at Monday’s meeting.
To read some of Engage Louisa’s previous coverage of the local and state redistricting process, click here and here.
Supes to hear status update on James River Water Project as decision on pump station site nears: At their November 1 meeting, AquaLaw’s Justin Curtis briefed supervisors on the James River Water Authority’s efforts to draw water from the river to meet Louisa and Fluvanna counties long-term needs. While the authority’s pipeline to the river is largely complete, where it will site a critical water pump station remains in question. But, a final decision on the pump station’s location could happen soon. The board will get a status update on the nearly-decade long project Monday night.
Curtis, who is guiding the authority through an extensive permitting process, told the board in November that there are two paths forward to complete the project.
The authority could plow ahead with plans to construct the final pieces of its waterline’s infrastructure, including the pump station and a submerged water intake, at a site originally chosen in 2013. That location is believed to be Rassawek, the ancestral capital of the Monacan Indian Nation.
The federally-recognized tribe strongly opposes building the pump station at Rassawek, citing the destruction of a place of profound cultural and historical importance, and the likelihood that it’s home to a burial ground. Under pressure from the tribe and its allies, JRWA paused its Army Corps of Engineers permit application for the site last year.
The other, and potentially far simpler, path is to move the project roughly 2.3 miles upriver to a site dubbed the 1C Forsyth alternative and reroute a yet-to-be constructed portion of the pipeline to connect to it. In a January 2021 letter, the Monacan agreed to support that location if certain conditions are met including that archeological field work doesn’t confirm or strongly indicate the presence of human remains.
At its monthly meeting last Wednesday, Curtis told JRWA board members, including Louisa District Supervisor Eric Purcell and County Administrator Christian Goodwin, that he and his team are still awaiting the final draft of a Phase One archeological study for the Forsyth location. While preliminary findings show no “red flags,” according to consulting archeologist Jonathan Glenn, the final report needs to be reviewed by the Monacan and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Glenn said that archeologists from Gray and Pape, a firm chosen by the Monacan to conduct the study, found fewer artifacts than expected and no evidence of human remains. He first briefed the authority on the study’s findings at JRWA’s December meeting.
According to Curtis, a vote to formally begin the permitting process at the Forsyth site could take place at the authority’s March meeting.
“We are trying to make sure that all potential and foreseeable obstacles are removed from the glidepath going forward,” Curtis said.
He noted that, once the archeological report is in hand and reviewed by relevant parties, he hopes to get written assurances from the Monacan “confirming that we are on the path that we agreed to and everything’s good to move forward.”
Cultural Heritage Partners’ Marion Werkheiser, the Monacans’ attorney, told the authority that the tribe intends to stand by the commitments laid out in its January 2021 letter, provided its conditions are met. But she also emphasized that, should the authority elect to move forward at Rassawek, the Monacan would use every tool at their disposal to oppose the project.
“Despite a lot of challenges early in our relationship with you, we’ve been able to work past those and we feel like we have a very collaborative relationship with Mr. Curtis. We are regularly exchanging information so our confidence level has increased that we will be able to work together to get this done. That said, should you decide to stay at the initial location, I also wanted to reiterate that the Monacans will oppose that in every available forum including litigation that will take years to resolve,” Werkheiser said. “We are glad that it looks like we may not have to go down that path but we are looking forward to actually reviewing the written report and making sure that that comports with our current understanding of the progress at the site.”
Curtis said that the authority already has permits from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the state’s Marine Resources Commission for the original site and he and his team expect they will only require modification if the project is moved. He said the authority still needs to obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers but that should be a less strenuous process than the permitting process required for Rassawek.
Board to discuss short-term rentals: The board will discuss “short term rentals,” which include rooms and dwellings offered as lodging for less than 30 consecutive days in exchange for payment. Such accommodations are typically offered on platforms like Airbnb.
According to a memo drafted by county planning staff, Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry shared several emails from constituents raising concerns about short-term rentals (STR), particularly around Lake Anna.
The residents expressed frustration with over-occupancy, loud parties late at night, trash left on lawns, and “strangers constantly coming and going,” among other concerns. Residents also complained that many of the newer short-term rentals are water-access not waterfront homes and that they constitute businesses operating in residential districts.
Louisa County currently has no ordinances governing short-term rentals. Staff’s memo notes that state code allows localities to adopt STR registries and other regulations. An accompanying memo lays out STR rules in nearby localities and provides additional background information. According to that memo, Louisa County has at least 105 short-term rentals based on transient occupancy tax data.
Supervisors to discuss amendments to dogs at large ordinance: Supervisors will discuss potentially amending Louisa County’s “dogs at large” ordinance, which bars dogs from roaming off leash and out of the control of their owner only in the months of April, May, and June. The policy applies county-wide except in the towns of Louisa and Mineral and about 20 subdivisions, mostly around Lake Anna. Those areas bar dogs at large year-round.
In a memo to the board, county attorney Helen Phillips notes that state code, amended in 2019, provides that “any locality may by ordinance prohibit the running at large of all or any category of dogs, except dogs used for hunting.” Phillips recommends that the county clarify its ordinance by adding a specific exclusion for hunting dogs.
Phillips also points out that state code permits localities to levy a $100 civil fine to dog owners whose dog is “found running at large in a pack,” meaning, “if it is running at large in the company of one or more other dogs that are also running at large.”
At the board’s January 18 meeting, Mineral District resident Jennifer Carter expressed concerns about packs of dogs running on her property and urged the county to implement a “dogs at large” ordinance like that adopted by Spotsylvania County. Spotsylvania prohibits dogs at large any time of year and violators are subject to criminal penalties.
Supervisors to consider new incentive plan for FEMS volunteers: Louisa County officials are hoping to recruit and retain more volunteers in their Fire and EMS ranks.
As part of that effort, supervisors will consider approving a new incentive plan for FEMS volunteers Monday night. The incentive proposal notes that a significant benefit of having more volunteer staff on hand to answer calls is a decrease in emergency call response times.
The county’s Management and Oversight Group (MOG), a combination of local officials and FEMS volunteers that serves as an advisory body for emergency service-related matters, approved the plan last May.
The plan provides that volunteers who complete at least 288 duty crew hours in a calendar year, minus the number of calls ran, will receive $595 while volunteers who complete 144 hours, under the same provisions, will receive $300. In addition, leadership, limited to three per station, will receive $175.
The plan includes several guidelines and other criteria. For example, duty crew hour credit is only awarded for hours physically in a station. Volunteer can receive credit for hours at any station within Louisa County but will only qualify for one incentive. If a volunteer fills a career staff opening, they will receive double hours for that shift, with a minimum of 12 hours coverage.
The incentive plan comes as the county moves toward more paid FEMS staff and struggles to fill volunteer slots. Late last year, the board authorized the dissolution of the Zion Crossroads Volunteer Fire Department at its request. The move sparked concern from Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow.
“I really hate to see one of our longtime volunteer organizations go defunct,” Barlow said, adding that the county “is getting closer and closer” to a full career staff. “It’s disheartening and I think it’s going to get extremely expensive. I just want to make sure we are doing everything possible to keep our volunteers afloat.”
Coupled with an enhanced incentive package, the FEMS department won a roughly $500,000 federal grant last year aimed at volunteer recruitment and retention. FEMS Chief Robert Dube told the board in December that the department is searching for a part-time volunteer coordinator as part of the grant.
Planners approve CIP, changes to small-scale solar regs, and more; Planners discuss retention period for family subdivision lots
The Louisa County Planning Commission held four public hearings Thursday night, approving the county’s preliminary Capital Improvement Plan, green-lighting amendments to small-scale solar regulations, okaying a Conditional Use Permit to allow agricultural activity on property zoned residential, and approving an amendment to a CUP for a telecommunications tower. Commissioners also discussed potential changes to the retention period for family subdivision parcels, agreeing to hold a public hearing on that topic at their March meeting. (meeting materials, video)
Meeting highlights
Planners green-light CIP: As part of the Fiscal Year 2023 budget process, commissioners held a public hearing and unanimously green-lighted the county’s Capital Improvement Plan, a 20-year road map for local government’s projected capital spending. Planners are charged with reviewing the CIP to ensure that projects conform with the Comprehensive Plan. They then forward their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
During a work session in mid-January, department heads and other officials pitched planners on their capital investment priorities, defined as high-cost and long-lasting, tangible assets for purchase or construction. County officials focused specifically on projects they hope to undertake in FY23 and FY24.
The preliminary FY23 plan tops $14 million. Big ticket requests include:
A $1.8 million ask from Economic Development Director Andy Wade to begin construction of an elevated water storage tank for the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park;
A nearly $1.4 million ask from Parks and Recreation Director James Smith to develop and upgrade county parks, save toward construction of an indoor aquatic center, and begin planning for construction of a sports complex;
A pair of $500,000 requests from Louisa County Public Schools to upgrade the spectator area at its baseball and softball complex and to begin planning for construction of a 36,000-sqaure foot career and technical education center;
A nearly $3 million ask for Firefly’s Regional Internet Service Expansion (RISE) project, part of the county’s plan to deliver universal broadband access by 2025. The Board of Supervisors formally committed about $9 million to the RISE project last September but hasn’t appropriated the funding. Two more roughly $3 million requests are slated for FY24 and FY25;
Two $700,000 asks from Louisa County Fire and EMS for the purchase of fire apparatus units and the replacement of a Lifepak Cardiac Monitor. FEMS is also asking for $500,000 to construct an addition for living quarters at the Louisa Volunteer Fire Department;
FY24 asks reach nearly $50 million due largely to construction projects for Louisa County Public Schools. Among other projects, requests include:
About $15 million for construction of an addition to Louisa County Middle School that would accommodate some 400 students;
Nearly $14 million for construction of Louisa County Public Schools’ career and technical education center. The division is also asking for $700,000 to construct a parking area for the facility;
$1.35 million for completion of water storage infrastructure at the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park;
$8.2 million to complete construction of a multi-purpose sports complex and another $400,000 toward construction of an indoor aquatic center, currently slated for FY26;
$1.4 million for the purchase of fire apparatus units;
A second installment of nearly $3 million for Firefly’s RISE project;
A project’s inclusion in the CIP doesn’t guarantee it will receive funding. The Board of Supervisors reviews and approves the plan as part of its annual budget process and appropriates funding for projects as it deems necessary and appropriate.
The plan prompted limited discussion Thursday night, but a couple items did attract the attention of commissioners and residents.
Patrick Henry District resident Robin Patton submitted written comment for the public hearing, raising concerns about where the county might site the proposed sports complex, mentioned in the plan for FY23 and FY24.
At the commission’s January work session, Smith touted the facility as a potential destination for “sports tourism” and told planners that the county is considering building the complex near Zion Crossroads, making it easily accessible off Interstate 64. He mentioned the possibility of using county-owned land currently home to ultra-deep wells that provide water to the area. The county owns a 140-acre and 50-acre parcel (tmp 36 22, 36 22A) along James Madison Highway (Route 15) just north of Zion. The properties are located in the Green Springs National Historic Landmark District.
Patton told the commission that the property is ill-suited for such development.
“I can’t imagine a more incompatible use in the middle of a heavy agricultural area under historic preservation conservation easements that contains source wells for water supply,” she wrote.
Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes told Engage Louisa just after the work session that the Green Springs property is one of several under consideration for the proposed complex. He said the county has a “shortage of fields” for youth sports and he and his colleagues are considering various ways to finance the project including a bond referendum.
Finance Director Wanda Colvin, who presented the CIP to planners Thursday night, emphasized that the county has not decided where it would build the facility if the board prioritized funding it.
Patrick Henry District Planner Ellis Quarles questioned spending $15 million on an addition to Louisa County Middle School, currently slated for FY24. He said the county would be better off building a new middle school.
“I would personally like to see a new middle school to cut the numbers of students per classroom. I think spending $15 million on an addition to a middle school is kind of like putting a band-aid on a problem,” he said.
Quarles pressed Superintendent Doug Straley about the need for a second middle school during the CIP work session, suggesting that packing some 1600 students into one school could limit opportunities to participate in academic programs and sports.
Straley contended that an addition to the middle school is the right course, in part, because he worries that splitting students into two schools would create an “us versus them” mentality.
To read Engage Louisa’s previous coverage of the CIP, click here and here. Click here to watch the work session. Click here to review the preliminary Capital Improvement Plan, which includes departmental requests but does not include County Administrator Christian Goodwin’s recommendations.
Planners approve changes to small-scale solar regulations: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of several amendments to regulations governing ground-mounted, small-scale solar facilities. Such facilities typically serve individual residences.
Community Development Director Robert Gardner requested the changes, which would raise the power generation cap on small-scale solar facilities from 15kW to 30 kW and grant the Zoning Administrator power to determine appropriate buffering on a case-by-case basis. The administrator would consider the size of the parcel, its topography, distance from neighbors, adequacy of existing mature vegetation, and any planned plantings. Currently, the ordinance requires the installation of a 30-foot opaque buffer.
The amendments would also eliminate unnecessary setback text and alter the standards for installing any required evergreen buffering, reducing the distance between trees from 20 feet to 12 feet, reducing the trees’ size at installation from five feet to three feet, and allowing for single rows of trees.
Gardner told commissioners that the county adopted new regulations for small-scale solar facilities last year. Since then, the Community Development Department has received three applications to install ground-mounted panels, which reveal the need to revisit the regulations.
Of the three applications, two exceed the current 15 kW cap. A third application proposes to install panels on property already surrounded by mature evergreens, negating the need for additional buffering.
The three residents hoping to install solar panels near their homes spoke at the public hearing, urging planners to adopt the changes.
Wayne Snoots plans to install a 16 kW array, one kW over the current cap, adjacent to his Courthouse Road home. He asked the board for increased flexibility in the regulations and noted that he wants to plant thick evergreen bushes around his panels instead of trees, which would block several hours of sun.
Joseph Parrish plans to install a 7.5 kW array on his farm along Byrd Mill Road where he says buffering is unnecessary and impractical.
“I’d like get rid of the whole (buffer) because the only ones who can see (the panels) are me and my cows,” he said.
Planners okay CUP for agricultural activity in residential zoning: Following a public hearing, commissioners voted 6-1 to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of Nathan and Chelsea Newcomb’s request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish an agricultural operation on three adjoining parcels zoned General Residential (R-2). The Newcombs own the parcels via Farmhouse 5 LLC.
The properties (tmp 97 68A, 97 68 B, and 97 68 C) cover about 8.2 acres located along Owens Creek Road in the Mountain Road Voting District and lie adjacent to a larger parcel owned by the Newcombs. The land is surrounded by properties zoned Agricultural (A-1, A-2) and General Residential (R-2).
When the commission first considered the application at its December meeting, the Newcombs said that they plan to establish a farmette with a garden and some livestock. They told the commission that they aren’t looking to run an extensive livestock operation but want to get their three children involved in 4-H.
Louisa County’s land development regulations allow for passive agricultural activity on property zoned residential by-right including the cultivation of crops and silviculture. But, keeping and raising farm animals and fowl is specifically excluded, requiring a CUP on R-2-zoned property.
At the December meeting, Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin asked the Newcombs if they’d be willing to cap the number of animals they’d raise and consider setbacks for goats and sheep to control odor. After consulting with the county’s agricultural extension office, the Newcombs returned Thursday night, agreeing to cap chickens to 50 per acre, goats and sheep to five per acre, and horses to one per acre. In addition, they agreed to cap heifer/calf units to one per two acres.
Goodwin raised concerns about placing sheep and goats on a residentially-zoned parcel with no setbacks, but the Newcombs said they were hesitant to agree to setbacks because it would cut into their already limited space.
Planners suggested that, instead of a setback, they cut the number of goats and sheep they’d raise. The Newcombs agreed to lower the cap on goats and sheep to two and a half per acre on one parcel. They noted that a neighbor directly adjoining part of their property spoke in support of the CUP during the public hearing.
At planners’ suggestion, the Newcombs also agreed to alter the provision regarding cattle from one heifer/calf unit per two acres to one head of cattle per one acre and add the word “or” between each animal limit.
Under a condition recommended by county planning staff, the CUP would prohibit the Newcombs from raising swine, apalcas or llamas on their residentially-zoned property.
Goodwin was the only commissioner to oppose the CUP request.
Commission amends CUP for telecommunications tower: Planners held a public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit issued in 2006 that allowed National Communications Towers LLC to construct a telecommunications tower at 7383 Zachary Taylor Highway (tmp 16-7) in the Mineral Voting District. Samuel and Jean Bazzanella own the 141-acre agriculturally zoned (A-1) parcel.
The proposed amendment would remove the CUP’s 12th condition, which states that “the permit is not transferable to another applicant or tower owner and the tower shall be removed by the applicant/owner within six months from the date of the sale.”
According to a report compiled by county planning staff, NCT plans to sell the 199-foot tower to SBA Communications Corporation, but the sale has been delayed due to Condition 12. Senior Planner Tom Egeland told the commission that, over the last four years, similar conditions have not been included in other CUPs and it’s unclear why such a condition was included in this permit.
Commissioners discuss retention period for family subdivision parcels, plan public hearing: At the request of Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, the commission discussed Louisa County’s 10-year retention period for family subdivision parcels and agreed to hold a public hearing at their March meeting to consider whether the county should lower or maintain the retention period.
State code requires that localities provide reasonable provisions for family subdivisions. According to Louisa County’s land development regulations, landowners are permitted to subdivide properties in the agricultural (A-1), agricultural (A-2), residential limited (R-1), or residential general (R-2) zoning districts into two or more parts for the purpose of sale or gift to a member of their immediate family.
Family divisions don’t count against the total number of lots allowed on a particular parcel and the family member to whom the property is sold or gifted must retain it for at least 10 years “unless the lot is the subject of an involuntary transfer such as foreclosure, death, divorce, judicial sale, condemnation or bankruptcy.” Per Virginia code, an individual is only permitted to receive one family subdivision parcel per locality during their lifetime.
According to subdivision administrator Linda Buckler, Louisa County adopted a one-year retention period for family subdivision parcels in 1990. That period increased to five years in 1997 and 10 years in 2010. Among surrounding localities, Louisa has the longest retention requirement. But Abemarle and Orange counties tack on a requirement specifying how long a parcel must be owned before it can be sold or gifted as a family division.
Jack Matthews, a Mineral District resident and former member of the Planning Commission, spoke during public comment and urged the commission to recommend to the Board of Supervisors shortening the retention period to five years. He contended that Louisa County is out of step with nearby localities and places “an undue burden” on residents.
A memo prepared by county planning staff notes that there are pros and cons to decreasing the retention period. The memo points out that returning the retention period to five years “could provide a qualifying family member, who has received a family subdivision parcel, a quicker means of disposing such a parcel should life changes take place.”
On the flip side, the memo states that shortening the retention period to five years could increase the number of family subdivisions submitted by landowners seeking to “circumvent the provisions of the subdivision ordinance.” Staff suggested that property could be divided under the more generous family subdivision rules then sold just after the retention period expires.
Buckler told the commission that the county raised the retention period from one to five years in 1997 to combat circumvention. Family divisions aren’t required to adhere to the same road frontage requirements as other divisions and gifting or selling a parcel to family member doesn’t require a road maintenance agreement, Buckler said. The parcels do require a platted right of way.
Buckler said that she could find little information on why the retention period shifted to 10 years in 2010. But, she indicated that the county handles family subdivisions regularly and there doesn’t seem to be any significant issues with the current criteria.
Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow, who acts as the board’s liaison to the Planning Commission and served as a supervisor when the retention period last changed, suggested that some circumvention continued when the limit was set at five years. But he added that he thinks a five-year period is reasonable.
Mineral District Planner John Disosway appeared uninterested in changing the retention period, noting that the family subdivision ordinance exists so that immediate family members can build a home on family land, which isn’t a short-term proposition.
“Since the intention of a family subdivision all along is to provide a piece of property for a family member to live…it seems to me like that’s not really something that a ten-year time period was a real problem for,” he said.
Disosway added that the county’s ordinance and state code provide hardship provisions for family members to sell their parcel prior to the end of the retention period, which cover bankruptcy, divorce, and other situations.
Mountain Road District Commissioner Gordon Brooks wondered why the county should change the retention period if there have been no significant problems.
“You hate to mess with something if it’s working as it’s designed. If it ain’t broke, why are we trying to fix it,” he said, adding that he’s open to hearing more from residents concerned about the current period.
After some debate, planners agreed to hold a public hearing to consider whether to recommend to the Board of Supervisors a shortened retention period or to keep the period at 10 years.
Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
Find agendas and minutes from previous 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 to access past editions of Engage Louisa.