This week in county government; BOS preview; County expected to request through truck traffic restrictions; JMRL name change would require consent of member localities
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, July 4 through July 9
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.
Tuesday, July 5
Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Administration Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. The board will convene in closed session at 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
With county offices closed on Monday in observance of Independence Day, supervisors will convene Tuesday night to consider an agenda that includes two public hearings and three discussion items. See below for more information.
Louisa County School Board, School Board Meeting Room, Central Office Administration Building, 953 Davis Highway, Mineral, 7 pm. (agenda, livestream)
Wednesday, July 6
Louisa County Electoral Board, Executive Board Room, Louisa County Office Building, 10 am. The public is invited to attend in person or call in at 540-967-4565. (agenda)
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.
BOS preview: Supervisors to hold public hearing on community development department fee increases
With county offices closed Monday in observance of Independence Day, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors will convene Tuesday night with an agenda that includes two public hearings and three discussion items. In one public hearing, supervisors will consider approval of fee hikes for a variety of services provided by the Community Development Department. In the other, they’ll consider renewal of the Mountain Road Agricultural and Forestal District. In addition, the board will discuss a request that the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library change its name, an update to the 2023 Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the county’s involvement in a commission commemorating the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution.
Notably absent from the board’s agenda is a previously scheduled public hearing on proposed regulations governing short-term rentals, a lodging option not explicitly addressed in county code. A draft ordinance that would establish a county-wide short-term rental registry and codify a controversial occupancy cap, among other regulations, cleared the Planning Commission, 5-2, in June.
The cap, which would limit occupancy to two people per bedroom unless a dwelling’s septic system is designed to accommodate additional occupants, has sparked resistance from the Louisa County Chamber of Commerce because of concerns that it could negatively impact tourism. Some Lake Anna residents have urged the board to adopt the cap, arguing that overcrowded STRs are a threat to the health of the lake, public safety, and the character of their communities. At publication time, the board had not rescheduled the public hearing.
Board to consider community development department fee hikes: Supervisors will hear public comment and consider approval of fee hikes for a variety of services provided by the Community Development Department. The county uses the fees to defray the costs of those services.
The proposed increases range from eight percent to 329 percent and cover charges for residential building inspections for new construction and remodeling, site plan reviews, rezoning applications, other residential and commercial services, and telecommunication structures, among others. Not all fees would increase.
County officials told the Planning Commission in June that the fee overhaul would help the department meet staffing needs and bring it closer to “cost-neutral,” meaning the services the department provides pay for themselves and don’t require additional county funds. Finance Director Wanda Colvin said the department has never been cost-neutral during her tenure but it’s a long-standing goal. Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon noted that the county currently charges $35 for some services that require both preliminary and final inspections and the fee falls far short of covering the cost of the work.
Coon said that building permits for covered decks, porches, and landings would see the highest increase, rising some 329 percent. He said the county is hiking the minimum fee from $35 to $150, which is why the percent increase appears so large. Application fees for amendments to proffers and master plans would rise 200 percent, Coon said, from $500 to $1500. He said those increases, like many of the others proposed, would bring the county in line with what’s charged in surrounding localities.
Other charges set to go up 200 percent or more include permit fees for open decks, porches, and landings, which will rise 257 percent, based on an increase from $35 to $125 for the minimum fee, generator and generator mechanical permit fees, permit fees for tents over 900 square feet, and fees to provide electric to tents.
The only charge proposed for removal is a $100 fee for placing land in or removing land from an agricultural and forestal district. Supervisors voted to ax that fee earlier this year at the urging of the Ag, Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the fee hikes but suggested that the board retain the $100 fee for AFD applications.
“I don’t understand why (AFD fees) would be eliminated when you (are increasing) all the others. I’m sure it doesn’t generate much revenue but it’s bound to cost the county something to look at these pieces of property and then to bring them forward to us and then the board,” Louisa District Commissioner Manning Woodward said.
The Community Development Department last amended fees in 2019, a process that the county generally undertakes every few years. The department implemented a comprehensive overhaul of the fee schedule in 2010. Staff pointed to statistics that reflect the department’s increased workload and staffing needs as justification for another overhaul.
In 2018, the department handled 950 planning and zoning permits, 856 building plan reviews, 287 single-family home permits, and 5,967 building inspections, according to staff. Those numbers soared in 2021 when staff handled 1430 planning and zoning permits, a 51 percent increase, 1390 building plan reviews, a 62 percent increase, 513 single-family home permits, a 79 percent increase, and 14,289 building inspections, a 139 percent increase.
Community development currently employs 14 full-time staffers and one part-time worker, up from 12 full-time and three part-time staffers in 2018. The department anticipates hiring an additional building inspector, Colvin said.
Supervisors to discuss request for library name change: The Jefferson-Madison Regional Library’s Board of Trustees discussed a request for a name change for the regional library system at its monthly meeting on Monday, June 27. Supervisors are expected to hear a report on that discussion from Wendy Craig, Louisa County’s trustee. (See article below).
Board to discuss Hazard Mitigation Plan: Supervisors will discuss an update to the regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Revised every five years, the plan provides details on how communities can take action to prepare for natural disasters before they strike thus reducing the potential for loss of life and property damage when disasters occur. The plan’s update is supported by the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, which falls under the umbrella of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. The work group consists of representatives from each locality in the district.
Supervisors will review a specific section of the daft plan that details the threats posed by various natural hazards and recommends locality-specific strategies and goals to mitigate those threats. The plan addresses seven categories of hazards: hurricanes, high winds, and lightening; flooding and dam failure; winter weather; communicable disease/pandemic; wildfire; temperature extremes, drought, and landslides; and tornado and earthquake.
The plan lays out broad goals and specific actions for mitigation, developed in cooperation with each locality, and ranks each action as low, moderate, or high priority. Louisa County’s mitigation goals include:
Education and Outreach: Increase awareness of hazards and encourage action to mitigate the impacts.
Infrastructure and Buildings: Reduce the short and long-term impact of hazard events on buildings and infrastructure.
Whole community: Prepare to meet the immediate functional and access needs of the population during natural hazards.
Mitigation Capacity: Increase mitigation and adaptation capacity through planning and project implementation.
Information and Data Development: Build capacity with information and data development to refine hazard identification and assessment, mitigation targeting and funding identification.
The county has seven action items ranked as high priority. They include three related to infrastructure and buildings: enhancing access to broadband internet in rural areas; installing backup generators in shelters and critical facilities; and implementing recommendations from the Water Supply Plan to address drought and flooding. The county is partnering with Firefly Fiber Broadband to deliver universal fiber access by 2025 and hopes to install backup generators in critical facilities over the next five years at a cost of $15,000 to $25,000 per generator. County officials are involved in an ongoing effort to address flood and drought hazards and to implement components of the Water Supply Plan, projects that could cost more than $150 million.
The plan lists three high priority action items related to mitigation capacity including providing training for building inspectors and code officials on mitigation techniques and hazard-resistant building, continuing and expanding use of the citizen alert system, including in cooperation with the Towns of Louisa and Mineral, and increasing the number of trained emergency responders. The plan estimates that training building inspectors and enhancing the alert system could cost $10,000 each. The effort to increase emergency services personnel is ongoing and the plan doesn’t include an estimated cost.
The plan includes one whole community action item that ranks as high priority: ensuring that all schools have regular disaster response drills. The item applies to both the public school system and individual private schools and is an ongoing effort.
Board to discuss county’s participation in commission commemorating the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution: In 2020, The General Assembly established the Virginia American Revolution 250 Commission (VA250) to plan for and commemorate the 250th anniversary of Virginia's participation in American independence. The commission is composed of legislative leaders, tourism and economic development officials, historians, and experts across a wide spectrum. Supervisors will discuss Louisa County’s potential involvement in the commission’s work.
A letter from the commission’s executive director asks the county to formally participate in its planning efforts, which kick off this year and run through 2026. It requests that the county form a local VA250 committee to help with planning and designate a liaison to work with the commission, who will serve as the local contact. The liaison will participate in planning events and communicate regularly with the commission regarding events occurring in the locality.
Localities that pass a formal resolution stating that they plan to participate, form a VA250 committee, and appoint a liaison are eligible for state grant funding for anniversary-related events as well as access to traveling exhibits and teacher resources. Those localities can also apply for American Rescue Plan Act funding that supports industries negatively impacted during the pandemic such as tourism, travel, and hospitality.
The letter touts the commemoration effort as an opportunity for Virginia and individual localities to draw in visitors by highlighting their role in American independence, noting that the commission intends to foster “a statewide commemoration that is multi-faceted and inclusive of the diverse individuals, histories, sites, stories, and communities that define Virginia.”
Supervisors to consider renewal of Mountain Road AFD: Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider renewing the Mountain Road Agricultural and Forestal District. The district, established in 1992, currently includes more than 30 parcels and about 2,047 acres around Rolling Path and Harts Mill Roads in southeastern Louisa County. Two properties owners requested the removal of a combined 287 acres. If renewed, the district would cover roughly 1760 acres.
AFDs are a conservation tool that allow landowners engaged in farming and forestry to voluntary prohibit development on their property. The districts require review and renewal by the Board of Supervisors every 10 years.
VDOT staff questions need for through truck traffic restrictions but county expected to move ahead with request
Representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation told county officials and concerned citizens Wednesday morning that they don’t believe there’s sufficient data to justify a through truck traffic restriction on Chopping Road (Route 623) but the county intends to move forward with a restriction request.
During a meeting of the Board of Supervisors’ through truck traffic work group, county officials said they plan to request that VDOT bar through tractor trailers from Chopping Road, a 4-mile secondary road that stretches from Route 522 to Route 22/208, and is frequented by large trucks using it as a short-cut when traveling between Interstates 95 and 64. Chopping Road residents have repeatedly complained that the road isn’t suitable for tractor trailer traffic, in part, because it’s a narrow residential corridor that lacks sufficient shoulders. They’ve suggested that trucks should instead travel along Route 522, a primary highway built to handle the traffic.
But VDOT engineer Troy Austin, director of traffic operations for the Culpeper District, said that, based on crash data, tractor trailers appear to be navigating Chopping Road without much difficulty and county officials should instead focus on making the road safer for all vehicular traffic.
“I think you need to look at what the issue is with Chopping Road. Is it the trucks or is it the road?” he said.
Austin pointed to crash data from 2017 to 2021 showing that, of the 37 crashes on Chopping Road, only three involved trucks. Two of those were box trucks, Austin said, which aren’t likely to be impacted by a truck restriction. The third involved a tractor trailer that ran off the road and into a field. Austin said that the accident appeared to be an issue with the road’s insufficient shoulders.
“Once you leave that paved surface, it’s easy to lose control whether you are in a passenger vehicle or a truck. There were 37 total crashes and one of them was a tractor trailer and it could’ve just as easily been a passenger vehicle,” Austin said.
Austin suggested measures that could improve traffic safety including widening the road, adding paved shoulders, and implementing a consistent speed limit. But he noted that drivers tend to traverse roads at whatever speed they feel comfortable no matter the limit so controlling speed on the road requires enforcement.
Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, who represents the area and frequently hears from constituents concerned about tractor trailer traffic, said that the trucks don’t belong on the “one and three-quarter lane” residential road. He fears Austin’s suggestions would only draw more trucks to the road, he said, further endangering the people who live there and regularly travel along it.
“Why are we not prohibiting (tractor trailers)? There is not one commercial reason they should be going down a residential road,” he said, adding that the large trucks that currently travel the road destroy the shoulders that do exist.
Adams said that he understands VDOT’s determinations are data-driven but, at times, they lack “common sense.” He observed that officials seem to be telling residents they must wait until someone gets killed before the department takes appropriate action which, in his view, is removing tractor trailers from a residential road that isn’t designed to handle them.
Austin countered that truck traffic wouldn’t increase with road improvements unless there’s a new destination to draw the vehicles and that Chopping Road isn’t a residential street but a rural road with houses on it, no different from many other roads across the state where large trucks travel.
But, for Chopping Road residents, the road is special and, in their opinion, dangerous. They say they’ve watched its conditions deteriorate in recent years as GPS technology has sent an increasing number of tractor trailers down the corridor because it’s a slightly shorter route than traveling down 522. They said they fear for their safety as drivers and the safety of their neighbors, some of whom must walk across the road to get their mail.
“Data can say a lot of things and what the data says to me is that (we) are pretty good at defensive driving,” Chopping Road resident Lloyd Runnett said.
Runnett contends that tractor trailers already have a suitable route along 522, a road that was upgraded specifically to accommodate them. He recounted how the late Delegate Earl Dickinson, a Mineral resident who served as chair of the House Appropriations Committee in the 1990s, secured state funding to redesign the road. Trucks routinely travel down 522 without issue or complaint from residents, Runnett said, and VDOT should do what it can to ensure that they stay on the primary road.
“There is a beautiful road sitting right there. All we have to do is figure out a way to encourage folks to get on that highway that millions of dollars was spent to build for truck traffic,” Runnett said.
If a through truck traffic restriction is implemented, truckers’ GPS programs would flag the restriction and wouldn’t send them down Chopping Road, according to information previously provided by VDOT.
David Rogers, another Chopping Road resident, said that Austin’s proposed solutions amount to “putting a band-aid on something and waiting for it to start bleeding all over again.”
Though Austin and Louisa Residency Administrator Scott Thornton said they don’t have the data to justify a truck restriction for Chopping Road, the county is still free to request a restriction, a step Adams and others said they plan to take. That process requires that the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing and propose a “reasonable” alternate route that’s engineered to a standard sufficient for truck traffic and doesn’t create undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination.
Proposed restrictions and alternate routes are subject to state evaluation and approval. According to County Attorney Helen Phillips, the Commonwealth Transportation Board votes to approve restrictions upon the recommendation of VDOT’s commissioner. Through trucks are defined as trucks that have no point of origin or destination along the subject route.
Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry, a former VDOT administrator, said that the county should move forward with the request despite the crash data. The traffic engineers working locally must use data in making their recommendations, he said, but supervisors can invite the commissioner out to look at Chopping Road and talk to residents, which could convince him to recommend routing trucks down 522.
“(The commissioner) could say, since we have a brand new 522 going through the Town of Mineral, maybe we should reroute trucks down that road instead of sending them down a secondary road. To me, 90 percent of this is common sense,” Gentry said.
VDOT and county officials briefly discussed a proposed alternate route, which would send trucks along 522 and through Mineral where they could connect with Route 22/208. Austin said that there are concerns about the intersection of East First Street and 22/208 in the town because large trucks have difficulty making a right turn on to 22. He said the intersection requires measures to “mitigate the risk” presented by truck traffic.
The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing late last year on a through truck traffic restriction for Chopping Road and part of Davis Highway (Route 22), and proposed routing trucks down 522 through Mineral. The alternate route met pushback from Mineral Mayor Pam Harlowe and members of Town Council, who argued it would cause traffic safety issues in the town. Supervisors tabled the proposal and agreed to form a work group to study restrictions and alternate routes.
Adams said Wednesday that the alternate route under consideration diverts a lot of traffic into Mineral but the town’s representatives in the work group, Harlowe and Town Councilor Ed Kube, haven’t shown up to meetings to share their concerns.
“I don’t want you to think we are dumping (traffic) on the Town of Mineral without their input. We aren’t getting their input because they don’t show up to meetings,” he said.
Adams also indicated that the county doesn’t plan to include Chalklevel Road (Route 625), in its restriction request, as previously suggested, because trucks aren’t currently an issue on the road. Supervisors considered requesting a restriction for the road because they feared barring trucks on Chopping Road might push them to Chalklevel, which runs roughly parallel to it.
County officials and VDOT staff agreed to proceed with a safety study on Chopping Road in hopes of determining an appropriate and consistent speed limit.
County eyes through truck restriction for Shannon Hill Road
County officials are also eyeing a through truck restriction for Shannon Hill Road (Route 605) but VDOT officials said there’s even less to justify a restriction on Shannon Hill than Chopping Road. Austin said that while there were more accidents on Shannon Hill, a roughly 10-mile highway that runs from Route 33 to Route 250, few involved trucks. He also said the roadway is wider.
But truck traffic could significantly increase on the road because of the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park, a 700-acre industrial site that the county is developing about a quarter mile off Interstate 64. Increased traffic on the road was a key concern for residents who opposed the park’s construction.
The county sited the park along the interstate with the intention of keeping trucks off its interior roads, Adams said, noting that he intends to prohibit companies who locate in the park from routing trucks along Shannon Hill through proffers. But, he said, a proffer wouldn’t necessarily stop a trucker’s GPS from sending them down Shannon Hill like a VDOT restriction would.
Thornton said that trucks traveling to a business park on Shannon Hill wouldn’t be classified as through traffic because they have a destination on the road so a restriction doesn’t address the problem. VDOT officials suggested a proffer in combination with a specific restriction in a company’s contract with the county as well as an increase in law enforcement presence are better ways to deal with trucks headed to the park. Thornton noted that VDOT is working with county planning staff on signage that directs trucks to the interstate from the park.
Adams indicated that the county still plans to request a restriction for Shannon Hill. Officials said sending trucks down Routes 33 and 208 is a possible alternate route.
JMRL name change would require consent of five member jurisdictions
If the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library’s Board of Trustees wants to change the library system’s name, it will have to gain the approval of its five member localities, JMRL Executive Director David Plunkett told trustees at their monthly meeting Monday afternoon (June 27).
Trustees agreed to discuss a potential name change in May after a group representing descendants of enslaved laborers asked the board to adopt a new name. The group cited Thomas Jefferson and James Madison’s role as slaveholders and argued that keeping a name that honors them conflicts with the library’s stated values, which include fostering “inclusive spaces for people of all backgrounds, where everyone is welcomed and respected.”
Plunkett told trustees that any name change for the regional library requires an amendment to a 2013 agreement between the system’s member jurisdictions--the City of Charlottesville and the counties of Louisa, Nelson, Albemarle, and Greene--and that amending the agreement requires the consent of each locality’s governing body. He said the agreement, generally reviewed every five years by the Regional Library Agreement Review Committee, is set for review in 2022-23 so the committee could convene to discuss potential amendments including a name change. Each member locality effectively has veto power over proposed changes.
Both the Louisa and Greene County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed resolutions opposing a name change prior to trustees’ June meeting. Louisa County Attorney Helen Phillips submitted a June 8 letter to the library reiterating the county’s stance, stating that the board “will not agree to amend this agreement to implement any changes from the name of the library from the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library.” Plunkett said that trustees face an “uphill battle” if they want to adopt a new name.
Board members listened to an hour of public comment about the name change request during Monday’s meeting at the Northside Library in Albemarle. About 20 people spoke, making arguments both for and against adopting a new name. Some said that the library is failing to live up to its values and upholding a legacy of white supremacy by bearing the names of slaveholders while others framed Jefferson and Madison as great men whose words and ideas were foundational not only to the American Revolution but to subsequent struggles for freedom like the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement.
“The enemies of Jefferson may not realize that they would have no rights at all if his ideas are discarded and his name is taken away,” Ann McLean, a Richmond resident said.
Myra Anderson, president of the Reclaimed Roots Descendants Alliance, the group that originally proposed a name change, said that, as the descendant of people enslaved at Monticello, she wasn’t there to argue about Jefferson’s greatness because “that’s not what my DNA represents.” She urged the library to adopt a new name, noting that “a library should be an inclusive space and not one that perpetuates oppression.”
After listening to the speakers, trustees expressed mixed views on a potential name change and next steps.
Michael Powell, a trustee from Albemarle County, said he heard two distinct points of view from community members, which led him to believe that, whether the name is changed or not, someone would feel excluded.
“We want to be welcoming and inclusive but it’s clear that, in being inclusive to some, we are being exclusionary to others and vice versa. The difficult truth in today’s environment is that there is no magic bullet that works for everyone,” he said.
Powell suggested, that since the decision on a name change is out of trustees’ hands, they move forward with “robust contextualization, in an exhibit or other materials, that give air to both of these viewpoints, clearly explaining the important legacies of Jefferson and Madison and why so many celebrate them while also fully describing the individual failings of the men who failed to live up to their own principles.”
Lisa Woolfolk, a trustee from the City of Charlottesville, took issue with that framing. She echoed commenters who insisted that the library’s efforts to be an inclusive space fall short by honoring slaveholders and argued that concepts like freedom and liberty are far bigger than two men.
“What we are trying to do is to be that which we say we are. If we are a regional library, if we are a public library, for the whole public, what we need to do, I would think, would be to lean into the values that we believe would help us ensure a brighter, more holistic, more welcoming community,” she said.
“The concepts of freedom and liberty are larger than Jefferson. They are larger than Madison and they exist because democracies are made up of living, breathing people who change,” she added.
Wendy Craig, who represents Louisa County on the board of trustees, didn’t take a position for or against a name change but suggested that, if the request is taken up by the review committee, it’s critical that the committee listens to the voices of community members to inform their work.
Board President and Albemarle County Trustee Thomas Unsworth said that, even though the board can’t change the library’s name, it isn’t powerless in the process going forward.
“Although, we, ourselves, cannot directly change the name, I don’t believe that that removes our voice from this process. We are still the board of trustees and I think we do still have a path to consider going forward to try to enact the change if the board so chooses. That could include the suggestion of a specific name or a request to reconsider the name as we open up the five-year review process of the funding agreement,” Unsworth said.
Several trustees expressed irritation that Louisa and Greene chose to pass resolutions in opposition to a name change before the board and community members had a chance to begin a public discussion. Unsworth said he was “disappointed” by the move and Woolfolk said she felt like the two localities are “trying to corner” trustees.
“They didn’t get a chance to hear what we were able to hear today but they put out resolutions that say ‘we oppose any change’… it just feels like they are trying to corner us into a box and it makes me feel like I’m being pushed into keeping something that I have heard from many people is not in line with the value of the actual organization,” Woolfolk said.
In an interview with Engage Louisa last week, Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry, who serves as the Board of Supervisors’ liaison to the library, wasn’t particularly concerned with his board’s decision to weigh in on a name change prior to the meeting and he said that he didn’t hear anything at the meeting to change his mind about voting for the resolution. He suggested that what’s getting lost in the fight over the library’s name is the services it provides.
“I got frustrated because the more I sat there and listened, the more I realized that it’s not really about the library,” he said.
Trustees plan to discuss the name change request again at their July 25 meeting and continue to collect public input.
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 to access past editions of Engage Louisa.