This week in county government; In busy meeting, BOS to consider sports facilities referendum, solar amendments, through truck traffic restrictions, and more
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, August 1 through August 6
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.
Monday, August 1
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)
Supervisors will convene for their lone August meeting with a packed agenda on tap, including two public hearings and several significant action items. See below for more information.
Tuesday, August 2
Louisa County School Board, Central Office Administration Building, 953 Davis Highway, Mineral, 7 pm. (agenda)
Wednesday, August 3
Louisa County Board of Supervisors Beaver Creek & Tanyard Branch work group, Executive Boardroom, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 10 am.
Thursday, August 4
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, 407 Water Street, Charlottesville, 7 pm. A link to watch virtually is available in the meeting materials. (meeting materials)
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.
In busy meeting, supervisors to consider sports facilities referendum, solar amendments, through truck traffic restrictions, and more
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors will convene for its lone August meeting Monday night with a packed agenda on tap. The board will consider whether to move forward with an up to $15 million bond referendum that could fund new and improved sports facilities, discuss formally requesting through truck traffic restrictions for four Louisa County roads, and hold a public hearing to consider amendments to the county’s solar ordinance that would limit future utility-scale solar development. Check out the agenda highlights below.
Board to consider moving forward with bond referendum for improved and expanded sports facilities: After months of discussion, supervisors will decide Monday night whether to move forward with a referendum that could empower the county to issue up to $15 million in bonds to fund construction of new and improved athletics facilities on county-owned property and property owned by Louisa County Public Schools. The board faces a mid-August deadline to secure permission from Louisa County Circuit Court to place the referendum on the ballot for the November 8 general election.
County officials’ vision for the project has shifted over time and they haven’t offered a detailed plan for how they intend to use the funding if voters permit the county to issue bonds. Proposed ballot language offers some new insight into the potential project but also raises questions.
As presented in a draft petition to Louisa County Circuit Court requesting a special election, the ballot question would seek voters’ permission to issue a maximum of $15 million in bonds to pay for improvements to existing athletics facilities and construction and development of new facilities on county and school property “in order to improve the availability of sports and recreation facilities for citizens of Louisa County.” The draft referendum explicitly excludes the use of county-owned land off Route 15 just north of Zion Crossroads that’s home to ultra-deep wells that provide water to the area. It also states that the county won’t use real estate tax revenue to pay off the bonds but could combine bond money “with other available funds” to cover the project’s cost.
It’s unclear which revenue streams the county would use to pay off the debt. It’s also unclear how many fields or other facilities the county is considering building and/or upgrading and their location. But, a conceptual sketch suggests that two rectangular turf fields could be built behind Louisa County Middle School and other fields at the high school/middle school complex, including the football field in The Jungle, could be upgraded to turf surfaces. Supervisors have discussed upgrading facilities at the complex, which is home to the only rectangular field routinely available for youth sports.
In their most recent public comments about the project at the June 21 Board of Supervisors meeting, the board’s sports complex work group, including Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes and Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry, suggested that they might alter initial plans to build a multi-field sports complex and instead primarily focus on improving and expanding fields adjacent to Louisa schools. Barnes noted that the county could potentially save money on parking and other infrastructure if they built on school campuses.
“We want to try to spread the improvements throughout the county to try to help as many athletics folks as we can. That’s why we started looking at the schools because that is a better location,” Gentry said. “Right now, that’s where we are going. Now, at our next meeting, we may decide something a little bit different but, right now, we’d like to get some facilities at every elementary school, improve some of the facilities at the high school, increase some of the facilities at the high school because that’s a more centrally located area. I think, in the long run, we’ll come out with something that most folks in the county will say is helping everybody.”
At their June 6 meeting, supervisors considered a draft ballot question that would’ve sought voters’ permission to issue up to $16.5 million in bonds for the sports complex, a field house at the high school, and upgrades to existing fields but opted not to move forward with that question amid a range of concerns.
Barnes and Parks and Recreation Director James Smith first presented the sports complex as a potential opportunity for economic development, floating the idea of siting it near Zion Crossroads in proximity to Interstate 64, a hotel, and restaurants. They suggested the complex could draw out of town visitors to tournaments and other events who, in turn, spend money on food and lodging. The complex, they said, would also serve the needs of local youth who lack adequate facilities for games and practices.
But, the only potential location that the county initially disclosed for the complex—the wells’ property located in the Green Springs National Historic Landmark District—met strong opposition from neighbors in the historic district and other residents. They questioned the viability of the project as a vehicle for economic development and argued that placing new sports fields at the county’s western edge wouldn’t benefit most local youth.
Community members and several supervisors also expressed concern about lumping multiple projects into one referendum, suggesting that residents should be given a clear choice of which projects they want to fund. Several residents said they’d support upgrades at the schools but not a sports complex at Zion aimed at drawing sports tourists.
With that feedback, Gentry and Barnes agreed to propose new ballot language. They convened a meeting of their work group in mid-June—the only public meeting the group has held—and returned to the board with a suggestion to build and improve facilities at the schools.
Supervisors haven’t publicly discussed barring the use of real estate tax revenue to pay off the bonds. But Barnes has suggested that the county could use other revenue streams to pay for the project such as lodging taxes, meals taxes, and potentially cigarette taxes. Louisa County doesn’t currently levy local taxes on the sale of cigarettes, but a state law passed in 2020 empowers counties to do so. Several surrounding counties have opted to tax cigarettes via a regional board administered by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
If supervisors decide to move forward with the bond referendum and a Circuit Court judge signs off on a Writ of Special Election, County Attorney Helen Phillips will be tasked with crafting a neutral statement explaining the ballot question. The statement can’t advocate for or against the referendum’s adoption. It’s limited to no more than 500 words and must be written in “plain English.” Louisa County would pay to print the explainer and provide copies to voters. Voters’ approval of the bond referendum wouldn’t obligate the county to issue bonds only empower them to do so.
Proposed bond referendum:
“Shall the County of Louisa, Virginia (the "County") contract a debt and issue General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds in the maximum amount of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) to provide funds, together with other available funds, to undertake a program for improvement of existing athletic facilities and construction and development of new athletic facilities on property owned by Louisa County (except for property in the Green Springs District where wells are located) and property owned by the Louisa County Public Schools in order to improve the availability of sports and recreation facilities for citizens of Louisa County; and no funds derived from real estate taxes shall be used to service any of this debt?”
Supervisors to hold public hearing on changes to solar ordinance that would limit utility-scale solar development: Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider significant changes to the county’s solar ordinance Monday night that would place new restrictions on utility-scale solar development. The proposed amendments would limit where large-scale solar sites could be located, beef up buffer requirements, toughen erosion and sediment control measures, and cap the amount of land in the county that could be used for utility-scale solar generation. But the revamped ordinance isn’t expected to include a controversial floor on solar facilities’ megawatt production, which would’ve prohibited the development of smaller sites.
In response to growing concerns that vast solar arrays are a threat to the county’s rural character and amid fallout from Dominion’s 88 MW Belcher Solar Facility off Waldrop Church Road where stormwater runoff has caused significant damage to neighboring farms, supervisors formed a committee last year tasked with recommending changes to the county’s current solar ordinance. The committee, composed of Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, submitted a report in December, which forms the basis of the proposed amendments. Barnes’ district is home to the Belcher site and Adams’ district includes the last three solar facilities approved by the county, none of which have been constructed.
Adams, Barnes, and county staff spent months researching best practices adopted in other localities, reflecting on Louisa County’s own experience with solar development, and meeting with stakeholders. In public comments, the committee made clear that its goal was two-fold: to protect the county’s rural ambience and agricultural and forested lands, an intent explicitly stated in the proposed amendments, and to maximize the economic benefit from future utility-scale solar development.
To achieve the first goal, the proposed amendments cap the acreage that can be used for large-scale solar generation to no more than three percent of the county’s land or about 9,800 acres. The county has already approved seven utility-scale solar sites, covering more than 5.000 acres.
As originally proposed and approved by the Planning Commission, the ordinance coupled an acreage cap with a prohibition on the approval of utility-scale solar facilities that produce less than 151 MW of power. That restriction was included, according to Adams, to maximize tax revenue from solar sites and to curtail the development of smaller facilities.
Per state law, utility-scale solar facilities subject to a locality’s machinery and tools tax initially receive an 80 percent tax abatement if they produce 150 MW of power or less. Facilities that produce more than 150 MW receive no tax break. Since solar sites that produce more than 150 MW require hundreds of acres of land, the acreage cap and megawatt floor would’ve likely meant only two or three more solar facilities could be built in the county.
But Adams has since said that county officials are rethinking the floor on megawatt production. At the board’s June 21 meeting, he said that the solar committee was considering a different approach: replacing the megawatt floor with another tool localities can use to reap significant financial rewards from solar generation: siting agreements. A 2020 law empowers local governments to negotiate deals with solar developers, dubbed siting agreements, that can include financial compensation for capital needs, broadband deployment, and to mitigate the impacts of utility-scale facilities.
In a brief interview with Engage Louisa late last week, Adams said that he expects the board will approve amendments that replace the megawatt floor with language related to siting agreements. He said that, when compared to the machinery and tools tax, the agreements offer the county more flexibility in maximizing financial benefits from solar production. He also suggested that county officials should look at each solar project individually, noting that he has voted both for and against solar facilities based on their specific context and merits.
Removing the floor on megawatt production could please some solar developers and landowners who opposed its inclusion. In comments to the Planning Commission, they argued that prohibiting smaller solar facilities infringes on property rights and prevents developers from placing projects on some parcels that could be well-suited for development. Louisa District Planning Commissioner Manning Woodward also expressed concern about the proposal before ultimately supporting it. Woodward said the floor would prevent many landowners from using their property for solar production, cutting off a potential revenue stream.
Aside from the acreage cap, the proposed rules would enact specific siting requirements for future projects, encouraging their construction within a mile of high-voltage transmission and distribution lines, doubling the required vegetative buffer around the sites from 150 to 300 feet, and prohibiting the facilities in residential and industrial zoning in growth areas overlay districts.
In response to concerns about significant runoff at the Belcher site, the draft amendments beef up erosion and sediment control measures. They require that developers implement a phased approach to site preparation and construction with no more than 100 acres cleared at a time, compel developers to pay a third-party engineer to monitor construction, and require a bond to ensure compliance with the Conditional Use Permit, among other regulations.
The draft rules also address battery storage facilities, a relatively new technology for Louisa County. Because the lithium-ion batteries pose a fire risk, the regulations require that applicants specify where they plan to locate storage and address both the threat of fire and the fiscal impact on county services for fighting fires. The Planning Commission recommended that developers site battery storage systems “on the solar panel side of (the) buffer” and that applicants submit a detailed fire suppression plan that’s reviewed by the fire chief.
So far, supervisors have approved one battery storage system: Energix’s 50 MW facility green-lighted as part of the Two Oaks project at the Cooke Industrial Rail Park. Energix agreed to buy the county a 3,000-gallon tanker truck and annually train local firefighters on how to combat battery storage fires.
The county’s current solar ordinance already requires developers to submit a decommissioning plan and a decommissioning bond. The amendments include a provision that prohibits developers from disposing of solar panels in Louisa County’s landfill. The Planning Commission recommended that the amendments go further by applying provisions that regulate construction to decommissioning.
Supervisors to consider formally requesting through truck traffic restrictions for four roads: Supervisors will consider formally requesting that the Virginia Department of Transportation bar through tractor-trailer traffic from four county roads and instead send trucks along two alternate routes.
The board is expected to act on three resolutions Monday night that would authorize VDOT to implement through truck restrictions on Chopping Road (Route 623), Chalklevel Road (Route 625), Mansfield Road (Route 613), and Shannon Hill Road (Route 605). Per the county’s proposal, tractor-trailers that don’t originate from or have a destination along Chopping, Chalklevel or Mansfield Roads would be prohibited from using them and rerouted to Route 522 and Route 22 through the Town of Mineral. Trucks that don’t originate from or aren’t traveling to a destination on Shannon Hill Road would be rerouted along Interstate 64, Route 208, and Route 33.
Formally approving the resolutions is the first step in requesting the restrictions. The restrictions and proposed alternate routes would next require public hearings in front of the Board of Supervisors, evaluation by VDOT, and approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. A proposed alternate route must be deemed “reasonable,” meaning it’s engineered to a standard sufficient for truck traffic and doesn’t create undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination.
Chopping Road residents have repeatedly expressed concerns about tractor-trailer traffic on the narrow, 4-mile secondary road which connects Routes 22/208 and 522. They say that truckers’ GPS sends them down the road when they’re traveling from Interstate 95 to 64 because it’s a slightly shorter route than Route 522, a primary road designed to handle truck traffic. Residents contend that the road has grown increasingly dangerous in recent years, recounting how large trucks have nearly run other vehicles off the road.
In response to those concerns, supervisors held a public hearing last November to consider a through truck traffic restriction and an alternate route that would’ve sent trucks down Route 522 through the Town of Mineral. The board opted to table the issue amid pushback from some members of the Mineral Town Council, who opposed routing trucks through the town, citing their own safety concerns.
Residents along Shannon Hill Road have also voiced concerns about traffic safety, especially as it relates to the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park, a 700-acre industrial site that the county is developing just off Interstate 64. They fear the park will bring more truck traffic to the roughly 10-mile highway that stretches from Route 33 to Route 250.
Supervisors formed a work group last year to study restrictions on both roads. The work group, which included Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry, a former VDOT administrator, and impacted residents, recommended that the county formally request restrictions despite contrary advice from VDOT staff. County officials also opted to include Chalklevel and Mansfield Roads because they fear barring trucks from Chopping Road could push them to other secondary routes ill-suited to handle them.
In a contentious meeting of the work group in late June, VDOT staff said that they don’t have the data to justify a through truck traffic restriction on Chopping Road and that there isn’t a compelling reason to place a restriction on Shannon Hill Road either.
VDOT Engineer Troy 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 for all vehicles including widening the road, adding paved shoulders, and implementing a consistent speed limit.
VDOT officials said there’s even less data to justify a restriction on Shannon Hill Road. Austin said that while there were more accidents on Shannon Hill, few involved trucks. He also said the roadway is wider.
VDOT staff pointed out 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 wouldn’t address concerns about increased truck traffic. They suggested that the county include specific language in contracts with companies that locate at the park barring their trucks from using the road beyond the park. Residency Administrator Scott Thornton noted that VDOT is working with county planning staff on signage that directs trucks to the interstate from the park. Adams said that he’s advocating for measures to ensure that trucks traveling to and from the park use the interstate whenever possible.
But, supervisors and residents pushed back against some of the traffic engineers’ determinations, particularly regarding Chopping Road. They said that some of the suggested improvements would only draw more truck traffic, further endangering residents. Adams said that he understood VDOT’s determinations are data-driven but, at times, they lack “common sense.” He observed that officials seemed to be telling residents they must wait until someone gets killed before the department takes appropriate action. County officials and residents insisted that through trucks should be removed from the narrow, residential corridor and sent down 522, a wide highway that handles a large volume of truck traffic daily.
“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,” Chopping Road resident Lloyd Runnett said, referencing Route 522.
VDOT staff acknowledged that the county is free to request restrictions. But Austin said that routing trucks through Mineral would require them to make a difficult turn on to Route 22. He said the proposed alternate route would require mitigation measures to make it suitable for increased truck traffic.
If any through truck traffic restriction is implemented, truckers’ GPS programs would flag the restriction and wouldn’t send trucks along the restricted route, according to information previously provided by VDOT.
County seeks green-light for bank building renovations: Supervisors will consider a resolution green-lighting extensive renovations to a recently purchased building at 114 Industrial Drive in the Louisa County Industrial Air Park. The building will serve as the future home of the county’s Human Services Department, currently housed in cramped quarters on MacDonald Street in the Town of Louisa.
The proposed resolution authorizes the county to spend up to $1.087 million to renovate the building, which formerly housed the headquarters of Virginia Community Bank. Enhancements are expected to include new carpet, paint, led lights, security improvements, a camera system, and layout changes to create a lobby, interview rooms, and public restrooms, among other renovations.
County officials purchased the building and a 3.95-acre adjoining lot from Blue Ridge Bank in January, paying about $2 million for the properties, roughly their assessed value. County Administrator Christian Goodwin said at the time that the building and lot would offer local agencies additional space, provide flexibility in where the county places its services, and allow room for future growth.
The resolution authorizes the county to utilize a Sourcewell contract with BlueScope Construction for up to $650,000 to cover initial construction costs and contingencies. Loudin Building Systems, a Louisa-based company, will act as BlueScope’s primary subcontractor coordinating on-site work. The county recently contracted with BlueScope and Loudin via Sourcewell to build the New Bridge Fire and EMS Station on Route 208. Sourcewell allows public entities to bypass traditional procurement procedures via a streamlined cooperative process.
The county tapped funding from the American Rescue Plan Act to cover both the building’s acquisition and renovation. The federal pandemic relief legislation passed last year allotted about $7.2 million to the county in two tranches. Supervisors appropriated $2.1 million for the building and adjoining lot’s acquisition in December and allotted roughly $1 million toward its renovation in January.
The proposed resolution notes that the Board of Supervisors “has made it a priority to expand workspace for County employees in an effort to reduce the risks for the spread of viruses and disease among the workforce thus creating a safer work environment during and after the Coronavirus pandemic.”
Board to discuss civil penalties for some code violations: Supervisors will discuss potentially replacing criminal penalties with civil ones for violations of certain sections of the county’s zoning code.
According to a memo by County Attorney Helen Phillips, Virginia law permits localities to adopt an ordinance establishing civil penalties for violations of specific provisions in the zoning code. But current county code only allows zoning violations to be prosecuted criminally. Violations constitute Class 3 misdemeanors and can result in a fine of up to $1,000.
Phillips writes that responding to zoning and land use violations with criminal charges presents several challenges: if a criminal case is dismissed, the county has no further recourse to remedy ongoing violations; the burden of proof for criminal violations is beyond a reasonable doubt; and criminal charges must be brought within one year of the date of discovery. Civil charges, on the other hand, provide more leeway. Phillips points out, for example, that civil charges require a lesser burden of proof, based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
Phillips notes several specific cases that could benefit from a shift to civil penalties. In 2018, a citizen reported that a dock was constructed and expanded without a permit. Another citizen, in 2018, reported that a “house has black mold” and “the deck is about to fall in,” among other problems. To date, Phillips writes, there has been no enforcement of the building code and the cases remain open. In addition, she points out that there are other zoning and land regulation cases open from 2018 including sheds built without permits that violate setback regulations and homeowners operating businesses out of garages without permits.
Phillips includes a draft ordinance for supervisors’ consideration that lays out procedures for bringing civil charges and a schedule of civil penalties.
Board to consider approving letter in support of Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation grant application: Supervisors will consider authorizing county staff to submit a letter in support of the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation’s request for $300,000 in state grant funding from the Virginia Department of Health’s SWAP Local Partners Program. The program assists residents with incomes at or below 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines in repairing or replacing wells and septic systems.
The draft letter notes that FLHF “has provided a consistent program of home repairs to our residents,” utilizing a range of state and federal programs, and “aids over one hundred families every year through projects ranging from roof replacement to major rehab of residences.”
Supervisors to hold public hearing on special exception for event venue: Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider approval of a special exception to allow grass parking at a special event venue where Louisa County Land Development Regulations require gravel, stone, asphalt, or concrete parking areas.
Kenneth and Melody Bowers asked the county to permit grass parking on a 35-acre agriculturally zoned (A-2) parcel (tmp 61 8 D) near the intersection of Fredericks Hall Road and Tavern Road in the Cuckoo Voting District where they hold a Conditional Use Permit to operate a special occasion facility to host weddings and other events.
According to staff’s report, the applicants would like to utilize grass parking to protect an existing farm field as they don’t know how long their event venue will operate. The applicants plan to install ADA-compliant parking and access points in the parking area.
Staff recommends approval of the request, noting that grass parking would fit with the county’s rural character and allow for future agricultural use on part of the property that would otherwise be covered by an impervious surface.
Board to consider supplemental appropriation to cover Fire/EMS overtime: The board will consider authorizing a $200,000 supplemental appropriation to the Fire and EMS Department to cover overtime costs incurred during the FY22 budget cycle. The resolution states that call volumes to FEMS increased during the last fiscal year requiring staff to work additional hours and the department to incur unanticipated overtime expenses. If the board approves the appropriation, the county will draw the money from its general fund.
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.