This week in county government; PC tables draft utility-scale solar regs, sets public hearing on draft short-term rental rules; BOS to adopt budget and voting precincts, discuss coyote bounty program
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, April 18-April 23
Monday April 18
Louisa County Board of Supervisors, special meeting, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 4 pm. (agenda, livestream)
Supervisors will hold a special meeting to discuss the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Six-Year Secondary Road Plan for Louisa County.
Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda packet, livestream) The board will convene in closed session at 5 pm.
Supervisors will consider a busy agenda that includes four public hearings and several discussion items and action items. See below for more information.
Tuesday, April 19
Zion Crossroads Gateway Study Community Meeting, hosted by the Virginia Department of Transportation and Kittelson and Associations, Spring Creek Clubhouse, 109 Clubhouse Way, Zion Crossroads, 3:30 to 5:00 pm, 5:30 to 7 pm.
VDOT and its engineering consultant, Kittelson and Associates, will host a community meeting to discuss and answer questions about proposed transportation solutions for the Route 15 and Route 250 corridor including an innovative bow tie intersection. Click here for more information.
Wednesday, April 20
Louisa County Water Authority, Conference Room, LCWA Business Office, 23 Loudin Lane, Louisa, 6 pm. (public notice) At publication time, an agenda was not publicly available.
Louisa County Planning Commission, educational training work session, Extension Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (public notice)
Friday, April 22
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Public Hearing on Broadband Proposal, Virtual Meeting, 1 pm. (meeting materials) A Zoom link is included in the meeting materials.
TJPDC will hold a public hearing to consider Firefly Fiber Broadband’s proposal to provide fiber access in 13 counties including Louisa via its RISE program.
Other meetings of note:
Wednesday, April 20
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Virtual Meeting, Discussion of the 2021 safety performance at Dominion’s North Anna and Surry Nuclear Power Stations, 4 pm to 5 pm. Click here for the webinar link and more information.
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.
Planning Commission tables proposed utility-scale solar regulations
The Louisa County Planning Commission voted unanimously Thursday night to delay action on proposed amendments to the county’s solar ordinance that would limit utility-scale solar development. (meeting materials, video, work session video)
During a work session and public hearing, commissioners expressed concerns about some of the draft rules and several property owners and representatives of solar developers criticized the proposal. Planners ultimately decided to table the amendments and continue the discussion until their May 12 meeting, keeping the public hearing open so residents and stakeholders can again weigh in.
“I think we’ve brought up enough meaty questions and issues with this (proposal) that I don’t think this is ready for prime time,” Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin said before motioning to table the regulations.
Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams and Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes, who serve on the Board of Supervisors’ solar committee and whose districts have attracted significant interest from utility-scale solar developers, crafted the proposal, drawing on feedback from constituents, meetings with stakeholders, and a review of policies and ordinances implemented in other localities.
Community Development Director Josh Gillespie provided planners with a brief overview of the amendments, noting that they’re designed to fill gaps in and update the solar ordinance supervisors adopted in February 2021 as part of a larger rewrite of the zoning code.
With their stated intent “to preserve and protect the county’s rural ambiance and its agricultural and forestal lands,” the regulations would significantly reshape the future of solar development. The proposed rules cap the total acreage that could be dedicated to large-scale solar generation to three percent of the county’s land, or 9,800 acres, prohibit the approval of utility-scale projects that produce less than 151 MW of power, double the required vegetative buffer from 150 to 300 feet, and limit where large-scale solar projects could be sited. The facilities would be prohibited in residential and some industrial zoning in growth area overlay districts and would be encouraged to locate near high-voltage transmission and distribution lines.
In response to concerns about significant runoff from Dominion’s 88 MW Belcher Solar Facility in Barnes’ district, the draft amendments implement beefed-up erosion and sediment control measures, which supervisors have already incorporated in Conditional Use Permits for several recent projects.
The amendments would require that developers implement a phased approach to site preparation and construction with no more than 100 acres cleared at a time, prohibit stormwater holding ponds in vegetative buffers, mandate that sediment control features receive county approval on a phase-by-phase basis, compel developers to pay a third-party engineer to check on construction weekly, 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. The lithium-ion batteries, which hold energy for distribution on the grid during peak demand, pose a fire risk. The regulations require that applicants specify where they plan to locate battery storage on their site and address both the threat of fires and the fiscal impact on county services for fighting 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.
Limiting solar development
While commissioners and members of the public didn’t take issue with capping the acreage that can be used for large-scale solar generation to three percent of the county’s land or specific siting restrictions, several questioned the wisdom of placing a 151 MW floor on the size of future projects. They argued that the proposed rule is an infringement on property rights and counterproductive in the county’s aim to limit negative impacts from solar facilities.
Planners noted that of the seven utility-scale solar facilities already approved in the county, only one was approved to produce more than 151 MW: Aura’s up to 244 MW facility slated for construction on about 1,400 acres near the county’s reservoir. An Aura representative has since said that, after studying the site, the company only plans to build an up to 150 MW facility, meaning no approved project would meet the proposed threshold.
Commissioners also observed that the proposed regulations would nearly eliminate the construction of ground-mounted solar arrays bigger than 30 kW and smaller than 151 MW. The county caps small-scale solar projects, which typically serve individual residences at 30 kW and minor-scale arrays at 2 MW but defines minor arrays as those that generally serve “civic, commercial and industrial applications.”
Louisa District Commissioner Manning Woodward said that it would take a vast amount of land to fulfill both the proposed megawatt requirement and the vegetative buffer requirement, eliminating the ability of landowners to use their property for smaller projects and effectively putting the brakes on solar development in the county.
“We are looking to put huge projects in here if they’re going to come in. I take it the reason for most of these requirements is to really not have much solar in the county,” Woodward said, noting that, in his view, solar facilities have minimal impact on neighbors and are “what we want to do green-wise in this country.”
In an email to the commission, Matthew Herndon, whose family is leasing 160 acres outside of Gordonsville to Pine Gate Renewables for potential construction of the 16 MW Turkey solar project, said that the 151 MW floor would kill the project and amounts to an attack on his family’s property rights.
“I think this is a terrible intrusion on our property rights. This (proposal) basically only allows huge solar projects that benefit only large landowners. It takes a massive amount of land to make 151 MW,” he wrote, adding that it will be more difficult to control erosion and other detrimental impacts from sites that requires hundreds or even thousands of acres.
“I can tell you, as a full-time farmer, how tough it is trying to make a living off the land. Solar allows small and large landowners an opportunity to keep their land and get a return off it while not draining county resources in the form of more schools, fire and rescue, sheriff’s department etc. It’s also good for our environment and makes us less dependent on foreign sources of energy,” Herndon continued.
Chris Wu, who represents several solar developers for the global environmental consulting firm ERM, questioned the value of permitting larger sites over smaller ones. He said that smaller sites allow developers to target more suitable land, meaning there will be fewer negative impacts, making the county’s review process simpler. He noted that larger sites bring more uncertainties because they often include pockets of land that’s less than ideal for solar development and require additional site work.
Jesse Dimond, a solar developer for Impact Power Solutions, which has leased land in the Green Springs District in hopes of developing a shared solar array, said the proposed floor on megawatt production would outlaw shared solar sites. He said shared solar provides a way for residents who don’t own land or a rooftop to access solar energy. He suggested striking the provision or making it not applicable to shared solar facilities, which are subject to a state-mandated 5 MW cap.
Gillespie said that the solar committee chose the 151 MW floor because sites larger than 150 MW require approval from the State Corporation Commission and are taxed differently than smaller sites. When discussing the draft rules at a recent Board of Supervisors meeting, Adams highlighted the additional tax revenue the county could receive from larger projects and noted that, because the county already has more than 5,000 acres committed to utility-scale solar generation, the floor on megawatt production and cap on acreage would likely mean only three more facilities could be built in the county.
A one-size-fits-all approach to buffers?
A draft provision mandating a minimum 300-foot vegetative buffer also drew criticism. Barnes and Adams included the amendment in response to concerns about the viewshed around solar facilities.
Woodward argued that the provision is “overkill” and there should be more flexibility in buffering depending on the site.
Goodwin said that he’s concerned about a one-size-fits-all approach to shielding the projects, noting that many of the complaints he’s heard about solar facilities focus on their impact on views.
“We treat every project as if it’s on a tabletop. If the topography is sloping away from public right-of-way or adjoining properties, boxwoods would do it. But if it’s going up the side of a mountain like the one in Spotsylvania, 300 feet ain’t going to touch it. And the word topography is never used when we talk about buffers,” he said, adding that the county should ask applicants to include information about topography and a line of sight analysis to inform buffer requirements.
Gillespie pointed out that, under current code, a viewshed analysis is required and that provision would remain in place. But Goodwin said that the county still isn’t allowing enough flexibility in response to the analysis.
Both Wu and Chris Mason, who also works for ERM and represents Pine Gate, the Turkey project’s developer, agreed with Goodwin. They argued that considering a site’s topography is critical in protecting a viewshed and that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work.
“When it comes to solar each project is so different and so unique that applying a blanket standard just doesn’t make sense,” Wu said.
Addressing battery storage
Some planners also expressed concern about what they view as the amendments’ failure to adequately address battery storage facilities and their lack of knowledge about the technology.
Woodward recounted the commission’s experience with the only battery storage site approved in the county: Energix’s 50 MW system green-lighted as part of the Two Oaks project at the Cooke Industrial Rail Park and slated for construction off Chopping Road.
He said planners were asked to make a recommendation about the proposal after a short work session with representatives from Dominion Energy, noting that they had lots of questions that were never answered. He said Energix opted to pull the battery storage component from the CUP that night before re-inserting it when it reached the Board of Supervisors. The company agreed to proffer more than $500,000 in equipment to the county’s fire department, including a 3,000-gallon tanker truck, and provide annual training to emergency responders. The facility won the board’s approval with limited public discussion.
He wondered if the county should include a provision specifying where the facilities could be sited, noting that Energix’s storage system is slated for construction near residential dwellings. He said that he’s particularly concerned about toxic fumes released from battery storage fires.
“The object here is to protect our rural character and protect our citizens. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of harm to a solar project. There probably isn’t a whole lot of harm to the battery but we know that there is a susceptibility of those lithium ion batteries to develop a lot of heat and catch on fire,” he said.
Gillespie pointed out that the draft amendments require a developer to specify where they’ll site battery storage and address fire threats and potential impact on emergency services. He also noted that the proposed 300-foot buffer would apply to the storage system, ensuring some distance between it and adjoining properties.
What about decommissioning?
In a similar vein, Goodwin complained that the draft amendments don’t adequately address decommissioning.
“There are two phases of the project that will interrupt traffic and disturb ground. One’s construction, the other’s decommissioning. But all of our words talk about construction. Do we need to specify traffic studies, upgraded erosion studies (for decommissioning)?” he said.
Decommissioning solar sites has been a key concern of some residents who worry about reclaiming rural land decades down the road.
The draft amendments only include one provision related to decommissioning--barring the disposal of panels in Louisa County’s landfill—but county code already requires a decommissioning plan and bond that’s reviewed every five years. Code doesn’t require an updated traffic analysis ahead of decommissioning.
In addition to his other concerns, Goodwin asked if county officials are adequately prepared to analyze all the information they’re asking for under the draft amendments including detailed engineering reports during construction.
The way ahead
Jackson District Planner Cy Weaver suggested that commissioners and supervisors hold a joint meeting to discuss the draft ordinance, an idea that was previously floated then rejected.
Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow, the board’s liaison to the Planning Commission, waved away the suggestion, saying that he didn’t like joint meetings because “there’s pressure there to do one thing or the other.” He encouraged planners to reach out to Barnes and Adams to learn more about their proposal, noting that the draft amendments hadn’t been vetted by the entire board. He said planners should do their due diligence before forwarding a recommendation to supervisors.
In passing a motion to table the proposed amendments, the commission appointed Woodward to collaborate with staff about the commission’s concerns and ensure they’re communicated to board.
Planning Commission sets public hearing on draft rules for short-term rentals
The Planning Commission voted unanimously Thursday night to hold a public hearing at its May 12 meeting on proposed regulations that would govern the establishment and operation of short-term rentals, a currently unregulated lodging option frequently used by visitors to Lake Anna. (meeting materials, video)
The rules would apply to dwellings offered as lodging for less than 30 consecutive days in exchange for payment. The proposal doesn’t apply to already-regulated businesses like hotels, bed and breakfasts, and campgrounds. STRs are typically offered by homeowners on platforms like Airbnb.
Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said that a working group including Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams and Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry, whose districts encompass much of the lake, crafted the draft rules. According to Coon, the group consulted with Dominion Energy, the Louisa County Chamber of Commerce, the Lake Anna Business Partnership, and residents of the Overton Fork subdivision, who initially brought their concerns about STRs to the Board of Supervisors. The county also reached out to Web Excavating, a company that installs septic systems.
Coon explained that the regulations would establish a county-wide short-term rental registry, requiring STR operators to annually register their property and pay a $50 fee. The registry would help the county track and monitor STRs and ensure they’re paying the transient occupancy tax.
The amendments would require that STR operators provide the county with a property management plan, a copy of at least a $1 million general liability insurance policy, and a statement from any homeowners’ association whose rules apply to the STR.
If the property is not served by public water and sewer, operators would be required to provide proof that the STR’s septic system is adequate for its occupancy and to have the system inspected annually. Operators would also be required to provide renters with a copy of Louisa County’s noise and solid waste ordinances.
The amendments would compel STR owners to maintain a list, for no less than two years, of all visitors’ names, addresses, ages, and the dates they rented the property and prohibit operators from renting STRs for events.
The draft amendments stipulate that occupancy would be limited to two people per bedroom (a previous version of the draft rules excluded minors from occupancy limits), that parking should be allowed in the driveway or parking spaces but prohibited on other sections of the property, and that all safety equipment, like smoke detectors, should be maintained in accord with state building code standards. The amendments would authorize Louisa County officials to inspect STRs with at least 48 hours notice.
STR operators who fail to register their property or otherwise violate the ordinance could be subject to a maximum $500 fine. STR operators may be prohibited from offering a specific property for short-term rental after multiple violations.
Several commissioners asked how the county would communicate the proposed regulations to STR operators and how they’d be enforced.
Coon said that Granicus, software the county uses for other purposes, can provide functions that track STRs. He showed a map, generated by the software, that plotted all the short-term rentals it found in Louisa County via a survey of online platform like Airbnb and Vrbo.
Coon said in March 2022, 380 structures were available as short-term rentals, according to the software. The map showed that many were clustered around Lake Anna but that STRs exist across the county. Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway noted that folks can “rent a yurt, a tent, a camper, and a tugboat” for an overnight stay.
Coon said, based on Granicus’ listings and the Commissioner of Revenue’s records, county officials could reach out to many STR operators to notify them of any new rules. He also said that the county could establish a hotline for complaints about STRs and that Granicus offers software that accepts and tracks online complaints.
Disosway wondered how county officials could regulate occupancy in structures like tents and how they could address the amenities that some STRs offer. He noted that an STR offering shooting could be acting as a commercial shooting range.
Coon said that the county could send out its building inspector to look at different structures to determine occupancy and county zoning regulations and other rules could come into play regarding what amenities are offered. He noted that the draft rules are just a starting point and may not address every issue with STRs.
Several Overton Fork residents weighed in on the proposed rules during the commission’s public comment period, thanking county officials for addressing STRs and reiterating concerns expressed at previous meetings. They said that STRs are operated as businesses in residential neighborhoods, which threatens the character of their community, and that overcrowded rentals pose fire safety issues and endanger the lake because of potential septic system failure.
Mark Ainsworth, a homeowner in the Maple Springs subdivision, offered a different view. He said operating his second home as a short-term rental saved him from bankruptcy and enables him to keep the home. Ainsworth described himself as a responsible STR owner who talks to his neighbors and is heavily involved in his community’s homeowners’ association.
“This is a property owners’ rights issue. This should be handled by the local homeowners’ associations and community associations. This is not something that the county should be trying to mandate or dictate,” he said.
Ainsworth expressed particular concern about strict occupancy limits, noting that he rents his three-bedroom home to a maximum of 12 guests and limiting guests to two per bedroom would kill his business.
Supervisors to adopt FY23 budget, voting precincts; Board to discuss coyote bounty program and more
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors will gather for a busy meeting Monday evening with four public hearings on the agenda and several action and discussion items. Check out the agenda highlights below.
Board to adopt FY23 budget, tax rates: After two public hearings and two work sessions, supervisors will adopt Louisa County’s FY23 Operations and Maintenance Budget, Capital Improvement Plan, and tax rates.
As proposed, the county’s operations budget totals $135,317,531 and its Capital Improvement Budget reaches $10.840,975 for a combined budget of $146,158,506.
Supervisors proposed level tax rates for the coming fiscal year. If adopted, the following rates will remain in place:
Real Estate: $0.72 per $100 of assessed value (includes mobile homes)
Personal Property: $2.43 per $100 of assessed value (exclusive of household furnishings)
Business Personal Property: $1.90 per $100 of assessed value (exclusive of household furnishings)
Machinery and Tools: $1.90 per $100 of assessed value
Merchant’s Capital: $0.65 per $100 of assessed value
Aircraft: $0.48 per $100 of assessed value
For a more detailed look at the proposed budget, check out Engage Louisa’s coverage of Finance Director Wanda Colvin’s budget presentation at the board’s March 21 meeting here. Click here and here for coverage of the budget work sessions.
Supervisors set to adopt voting precincts: At its April 4 meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted new lines for the county’s seven voting districts as part of the decennial redistricting process. Supervisors will hold a public hearing Monday night to adopt the precincts that make up those districts and the polling places where residents will cast ballots over the next decade.
Like the voting districts they comprise, precincts must be drawn using census tract boundaries with lines that align with describable geographic features like roads and creeks. Each precinct must include between 100 and 5,000 registered voters and an accessible, public polling place. Each polling place is required to lie either within its precinct’s boundaries or no more than a mile outside of those boundaries. Virginia law requires that precincts are wholly contained in larger state legislative and Congressional Districts.
The proposed ordinance cuts the county’s voting precincts from 15 to 14, consolidating both the Mineral and Jackson Districts into one precinct each. Under the current ordinance, both districts include two precincts. The draft ordinance adds a third precinct to the Louisa District, siting its polling place at the same location as one of the Green Springs precincts. The ordinance also renames many of the county’s precincts, replacing geographic monikers with district names and numbers.
Maps approved by the Virginia Supreme Court in December place the entire county in the 5th Congressional District but split it between two new state legislative and House of Delegates Districts. The far western end of the new Louisa District falls into different state legislative districts than portions to the east, necessitating the creation of a third Louisa District precinct.
In crafting precincts and choosing polling places, supervisors and county staff consulted with General Registrar Cris Watkins and the county’s Electoral Board, who are tasked with administering local elections. In the case of the Louisa 3 precinct, the board struggled to identify an accessible building for the polling place within the confines of the small, rural area. They ultimately opted to place it at Living Grace Church, which also serves as the polling place for the Green Springs 2 precinct. The church, located along Route 15, lies within the proposed Green Springs 2 precinct but less than a mile from Louisa 3’s proposed boundary.
Watkins said that even though Green Springs 2 and Louisa 3 will share the facility, the polling places will be separate, with different check-ins, voting machines, and election officers.
Check out Louisa County’s redistricting resource page here. It includes both the proposed precinct map and adopted voting district map.
Board to consider establishing coyote bounty program: Supervisors will consider establishing a targeted coyote bounty program that would provide cash payments for coyotes slain on qualifying property.
A proposed ordinance included in the board’s agenda packet sets guidelines for the program though it doesn’t specify how much money the county would pay for each coyote killed, set limits on the number of bounties the county would pay or authorize funding.
Morgan Perkins, a Patrick Henry District resident and professional trapper, urged the board to establish a bounty program at its December 20 meeting, telling supervisors that coyotes are a serious problem in the county and their numbers are increasing. He said he’s “flooded with calls” from farmers and other residents whose livestock and pets have been killed by the animals.
Coyotes are considered a nuisance species in Virginia, meaning no permit is required to kill them and it’s always open season. Virginia law permits localities to establish, by ordinance, bounty programs. Seventeen Virginia localities have established programs but only 10 fund them, according to Cale Godfrey, assistant chief of the wildlife division at Virginia’s Department of Wildlife Resources.
Godfrey told supervisors at the same meeting that county-wide bounty programs aren’t effective and, if the county is interested in wading into the problem, the best approach is to develop a targeted program at the hyperlocal level.
“If the county wants to do something, don’t think total population control, think very targeted control. That’s where you are going to have your best result, where you can help an individual that has a problem resolve that problem,” Godfrey said.
Godfrey explained that coyotes are highly adaptive creatures that increase their breeding when their population declines and migrate to areas where their population is sparse.
“The (coyote’s) social structure is very complex. They are very rapid in being able to fill in any gaps out there where coyotes have been removed,” he said, noting that at least 60 percent of the coyote population in an area must be killed annually to even have a shot at population control. Godrey estimated that there are about 1,000 coyotes in Louisa County, calling that a conservative guess.
Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, who owns a cattle farm in eastern Louisa, and Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes agreed to serve on a committee to research ways to help residents experiencing coyote conflict. The pair worked with representatives from the Department of Wildlife Resources in crafting the proposed ordinance, according to a memo from Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon.
The program would allow landowners with property zoned agricultural to apply to participate by completing a selective removal form and demonstrating that coyotes are causing human safety, pet safety or livestock safety concerns or that the animals have attacked humans, pets or livestock.
County staff would establish “reasonable requirements for proof that the coyotes were killed in the county and at such places in the county as represented by the persons claiming such bounty.” The County Administrator could also institute a tag system in which landowners are provided tags to identify coyotes killed on their land. Individuals who submit false claims under the ordinance could be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Supervisors to discuss federal funding for community projects: Supervisors will discuss recommending projects for funding through the FY23 Community Project Funding process, a program that allows Members of Congress to make direct requests for money to support local projects through the federal appropriations process.
According to Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger’s (D-VA07) office, members are allowed to request money for up to 15 projects in their districts but there’s no guarantee which, if any, will receive funding. The projects must be submitted by either a state or local government entity or non-profit organization and demonstrate community support via a resolution from a local governing body or other documentation.
During the FY22 appropriations process, Spanberger secured more than $6.4 million for 10 projects, one for each locality in her district. Awards ranged from $15,000 to purchase a van for Goochland Cares, a nonprofit that serves elderly, low-income, and disabled residents in Goochland County to $1.8 million to expand Spotsylvania County’s Motts Run Water Treatment Plant. Louisa County received $775,000 to build a mixed-income affordable housing community in partnership with Habitat for Humanity.
Supervisors to discuss potential sites for sports complex: Supervisors will continue a discussion about potential sites for a multi-field sports complex that could include turf fields for soccer, lacrosse, baseball, and other sports.
In March, Chair Duane Adams appointed a working group to identify possible sites. The group will provide an update Monday night.
County officials included a request for more than $8 million for the complex in the FY24 Capital Improvement Plan. Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes said at the board’s March 21 meeting that voters will ultimately decide if the project is funded via a referendum on the ballot this November. The board hasn’t formally voted to move forward with a referendum.
The board allocated up to $15,000 for soil work at prospective sites at a previous meeting and several supervisors noted that they wouldn’t necessarily need to select a parcel before placing the issue on the ballot.
So far, only one potential site has been publicly discussed: 190 acres of county-owned land along Route 15 just north of Zion Crossroads. That property, located in the Green Springs National Historic Landmark District, is home to ultra-deep wells that provide water to the area. It’s long been the source of controversy and, occasionally, litigation between the county and residents of the historic district.
County officials have suggested that they’d like to site the park near Zion so it’s easily accessible off Interstate 64 and close to hotels and restaurants. Parks and Recreation Director James Smith has touted the facility as a potential destination for “sports tourism,” noting that it could serve as a venue for tournaments that draw out of county visitors.
Board set to approve budget supplement and performance agreement for Shannon Hill Regional Business Park grant: Supervisors will consider a resolution that authorizes a $300,000 supplemental appropriation for the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park as part of a grant the facility received from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership’s Business Ready Sites program. The proposed resolution also authorizes the approval of a performance agreement.
The $300,000 grant, which requires local matching funds, will cover the design and construction of a 20 to 25-acre rough graded building pad site. The addition of the site is expected to move the business park toward Tier Four status, meaning all the facility’s infrastructure is in place or will be deliverable within 12 months and all permit issues have been identified and quantified. Currently, the park sits at Tier Three status, which means its zoned industrial and due diligence, including a wetlands survey, geotechnical boring, cultural resources study, Phase 1 environmental study, among other tasks, is complete. VEDP uses the tier system to assess the readiness of potential industrial or commercial sites for marketing for economic development purposes.
Supervisors to hold three public hearings on AFDs: Supervisors will hold three public hearings focused on agricultural and forestal districts, a conservation tool that allows landowners engaged in farming or forestry to voluntarily prohibit development on their property. The districts require review and renewal by the board every 10 years.
Supervisors will consider approving renewals for both the Goldmine Creek and Ellisville AFDs, which encompass portions of northwest Louisa County around Goldmine Road and Ellisville Drive.
The Ellisville AFD, originally created in 1992, currently includes 18 parcels covering about 1,505 acres. Property owners requested the removal of three parcels from the district, which would reduce its size to just under 1,000 acres. The Goldmine Creek AFD currently covers 34 parcels and just over 3,400 acres. One property owner requested the removal of a roughly 69-acre parcel, reducing the district’s size to about 3,334 acres.
In a third public hearing, supervisors will consider a request to withdraw about 288 acres from the Mountain Road AFD. Louis Kean and Cora Pennell own the Indian Creek Road property via Louis L. Kean Jr., LLC. They requested its removal for estate planning purposes.
Property owners are free to remove parcels from an AFD when the district is up for review and renewal but withdrawal outside of that 10-year interval requires Board of Supervisors’ approval. The Mountain Road AFD is up for review and renewal by August 1, 2022.
In an email to the Planning Commission, Pennell said that she and Kean are in their late 70s and want to divide the parcel and gift it to their heirs as soon as possible. Because the property is in an LLC, they can’t divide it under the county’s family subdivision ordinance, the only division permitted for property in an AFD.
Kean reiterated the couple’s desire to remove the parcel at the Planning Commission’s public hearing, noting that he and Pennell “aren’t getting any younger” and their recent involvement in a car accident reminded them of the importance of completing estate planning as soon as possible.
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.