This week in county government; Planning Commission oks rezoning for greenhouse, rejects CUP for solar site; PC roundup
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 15 through August 20
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.
Tuesday, August 16
Louisa County Electoral Board, Executive Board Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., 10 am. (agenda) The public can attend in person or call in at 540-967-4565.
Wednesday, August 17
Community Policy Management Team, Executive Board Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.
Thursday, August 18
Louisa County Industrial Development Authority, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 8:30 am.
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 recommends denial of CUP for utility-scale solar facility
The Louisa County Planning Commission voted unanimously Thursday night to recommend that the Board of Supervisors deny Turkey Solar LLC’s application for a Conditional Use Permit to develop what would be the county’s eighth utility-scale solar site. (meeting materials, video)
Pine Gate Renewables, on behalf of Turkey Solar, requested permission to build an up to 15.6 MW solar array on just over 100 acres off Kloeckner Road about two miles south of the Town of Gordonsville. During the applicant’s presentation to the commission, planners quizzed Pine Gate representatives about several aspects of the project, from its impact on neighbors’ viewshed to potential road improvements, but they didn’t appear satisfied with the developer’s answers. After several commissioners criticized Pine Gate for a lack of specificity, Green Springs District representative Jim Dickerson moved to reject the CUP request.
“The longer we go, I get more and more confused about (this project). It just looks like we’ve got too many questions,” Jackson District Commissioner Cy Weaver said before casting his vote in opposition.
Patrick Henry District Planner Ellis Quarles agreed.
“There are a lot of holes here,” he said.
Pine Gate still has a chance to fill whatever holes might exist in its application as the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has the final say on the project’s approval. An as-yet-unscheduled public hearing in front of the board is the next step in the application process.
The proposal
Pine Gate and its partner, Birch Creek, two experienced renewable energy companies with projects under development across the country, propose to construct the Turkey Solar Facility on about 100 acres across seven parcels (tax map parcels 9-16, 9-20, 9-4, 9-19, 9-49, 9-96, and 9-53) in western Louisa County just outside the Gordonsville Growth Area Overlay District and in proximity to other energy infrastructure including a Dominion-owned high-voltage transmission line and a power plant fueled by natural gas. Much of the property is owned by Herndon Land Company LLC. Lumberton Solar LLC and Linwood Lawrence each own one parcel.
While the property is situated adjacent to a growth area that’s home to a natural gas plant and Kloeckner Plentoplast, a plastics manufacturer, it’s historically been used for agriculture with part of the property serving as a commercial turkey farm for about 25 years. In its application, Pine Gate states that it expects to implement approximately $2.4 million in on-site improvements including grading, stormwater management, fencing, access road installation, seeding, and vegetative buffer plantings.
During construction, most traffic would access the site off Kloeckner Road with some lighter vehicles using Jefferson Lane, a dead end, gravel road off Route 33. Pine Gate representative Matt Boerger said that the latter road is in poor condition and the company plans to grade it and add gravel. Pine Gate estimates that about 10 trucks and 30 cars would use Kloeckner Road to access the site each day during the nine-to-12-month construction period. Construction could begin as early as the fourth quarter of 2025.
The solar array would connect to Dominion Energy’s electric grid via a yet-to-be constructed 34.5k distribution line. Pine Gate Project Manager Lorraine Bergman said that Dominion plans to build the line along an existing transmission line’s right of way.
When it comes to shielding the project from view, a central concern for county officials and residents during the approval process for previous solar applications, Boerger said that the site would include a minimum 150-foot buffer with most panels set back more than 200 feet from the property line. He said the buffer would encompass a 50-foot strip of mixed evergreens and a 25-foot strip of pollinator-friendly plantings. The evergreen buffer would consist of both existing vegetation and supplemental plantings, five-feet tall at installation and planted in three staggered rows. Boerger said an eight-foot, wildlife-friendly fence would encircle the property that allows smaller animals to cross the site.
With respect to erosion and sediment control, Boerger said that he’s aware of past issues with solar development in Louisa County, a vague reference to Dominion’s Belcher Solar Facility off Waldrop Church Road where stormwater runoff has caused significant damage to neighboring farms. He said Pine Gate has hired Kimley-Horn, an experienced engineering firm, to consult on the the project and ensure erosion and sediment control features are properly designed and implemented.
Senior Planner Tom Egeland told the commission that while staff recommends the project’s approval, the site requires “great care.” He pointed to a wetlands study conducted by ERM, on Pine Gate’s behalf, that identified 21 wetlands and 15 streams on the property. Staff’s report also notes that the site includes rolling terrain with “areas that exceed 10 percent in slope.”
“Great care should be made by the project’s construction team to implement proper phasing and construction practices that would prevent negative downstream and adjacent property impacts from occurring,” Egeland said.
The project’s proposed Conditional Use Permit, which includes 30 conditions, lays out some required stormwater management and erosion and sediment measures including a phased approach to site preparation and an on-site manager that monitors construction and provides a weekly report to the county.
Boerger said that protecting both the project site and surrounding properties is a top priority.
“We take special care and consideration of that. We’ll be phasing the project in with our site work and putting in the erosion and sediment basins, all the silt fencings, and then take special care with any of our wetland crossings,” Boerger said. “We are a renewable energy company. The last thing we want to do is have negative impacts to the wetlands on-site or off-site.”
To measure the project’s impact on county coffers, Pine Gate hired Mangum Economics to prepare an economic and fiscal analysis. Mangum’s report suggests that, over its 40-year lifespan, the facility would contribute approximately $1.22 million in tax revenue under the machinery and tools tax or $1.57 million under a revenue share agreement. In its current condition, the property will provide about $84,000 in real estate tax revenue over the next 40 years, according to Magnum.
Pine Gate is the first solar developer to seek a CUP’s approval since the Board of Supervisors updated the county’s solar ordinance at its August 1 meeting. Egeland said that the proposed project meets the standards laid out in the revamped ordinance—the ordinance includes beefed up erosion and sediment control measures and siting restrictions, among other regulations—except for its proposed buffer. While the site doesn’t include a minimum 300-foot buffer as the ordinance requires, Egeland noted that code allows the board to waive or modify buffer requirements on a case-by-case basis.
Pine Gate’s application doesn’t currently include any information about a siting agreement with Louisa County, another requirement of the new ordinance. A siting agreement is essentially a deal between a locality and utility-scale solar developer that can include financial compensation for capital needs, broadband deployment, and to mitigate the impact of large-scale solar generation. Supervisors stipulated that all future projects include such an agreement to maximize the economic benefits of solar production.
Community concerns
Both commissioners and community members expressed concerns about Pine Gate’s proposal Thursday night with the project’s proposed buffer and its impact on the viewshed prompting considerable unease.
Several nearby property owners complained that the buffer won’t adequately shield the project given its sloping topography. If approved as currently proposed, they said that they’ll be looking at solar panels for years to come.
In an email to the commission, Alexander Morrison, who recently acquired a nearby parcel where he plans to build a home, said that the solar array would be visible from his property for at least 15 years based on visual simulations provided by Pine Gate. He said that small trees won’t adequately hide the panels and noted that the property was recently clear-cut, which removed mature vegetation.
“Additional screening should be required to fully satisfy the buffer requirements based on the current conditions of the property and the inherent impacts of topography,” Morrison said.
Clyde Locker, another nearby landowner, shared a similar view, urging the commission to oppose the project. Locker pointed out that, given the area’s slope, he would see solar panels from his home for the next 20 years.
“You should not allow these small so-called solar farms to pop up in people’s backyards without having a plan of development for these generating plants,” he said.
Several commissioners asked what Pine Gate is willing to do to protect neighbors’ views, particularly in areas where trees are planted downgrade from solar panels.
Boerger said that the company would be amenable to planting trees on neighboring properties, if landowners are willing, noting that shifting the trees uphill would help shield the site.
Louisa District Planner Manning Woodward asked if Pine Gate could initially install trees taller than five feet that would mature more quickly. Boerger responded that the developer would likely be willing to start with six-foot trees.
Planners also expressed concerns about the poor condition of Jefferson Lane, which would act as a secondary entrance during construction and an “emergency and maintenance” access point. They asked Boerger to specify how the company planned to improve and maintain the road. Boerger said that he couldn’t commit to paving the road because its lightly used and didn’t specify any improvements beyond grading and adding gravel.
Commissioners also wondered about potential runoff and other negative environmental impacts given the property’s sloping topography and numerous wetlands and streams. Quarles said that he isn’t convinced the land is suitable for large-scale solar generation.
“The property and the lay of it…in regards to land disturbance, water runoff, the natural creeks, I don’t know if this one’s good for (solar),” he said.
After listening to the developer’s presentation and posing a range of questions, some commissioners expressed frustration with what they viewed as a lack of specificity on Pine Gate’s part.
Quarles observed that the company didn’t offer a detailed plan on how it would address neighbors’ concerns about their view of the panels or how it intends to maintain Jefferson Lane.
Cuckoo District Planner George Goodwin agreed.
“You need to specify. Is that road going to be improved and maintained to VDOT standard for a gravel road? Are the trees going to be tall enough from the very beginning to block a certain percentage of the viewshed,” he said.
Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning for greenhouse
The Louisa County Industrial Air Park could soon be home to a large commercial greenhouse that produces lettuce year-round.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously Thursday night to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the Industrial Development Authority’s request to rezone, from Industrial (I-2) to Agricultural (A-2), about 62 acres on the park’s southern edge to accommodate an unnamed business engaged in year-round crop production. (meeting materials, video)
According to Economic Development Director Andy Wade, the business plans to build a greenhouse to cultivate “lots of lettuce.” A conceptual plan shows a building area covering more than 11 acres including a 387,502-square foot growing area, a 32,291-square foot germination area, and a 99,459-square foot head house. An accompanying letter from Building Inspector John Grubbs suggests the facility could include accessory buildings for packaging and distribution.
The greenhouse project first came to light in early July when the IDA filed a rezoning request with Louisa County’s Community Development Department. The authority hasn’t made a formal public announcement about the project or detailed its potential economic impact. But, as the rezoning process moved forward, some additional information has emerged.
Wade told the commission Thursday night that he worked with the potential end user to secure a suitable location in Louisa County, first exploring properties already zoned agricultural where crop production is permitted by-right. He said the business is a heavy user of both natural gas and electricity and desired access to public water and sewer. Supplying those utilities to prospective sites zoned agricultural proved cost-prohibitive, Wade said, prompting the IDA to offer its property (tmp 41-191) and request a rezoning. Wade noted that the utilities are readily available in the industrial park and have the capacity to serve the business.
The property, located between Route 33 and School Bus Road just south of Freeman Field, will be accessed off School Bus Road (Route 767) where the Virginia Department of Transportation has already approved a proposed entrance. No more than five trucks—a combination of box trucks and tractor trailers—are expected to visit the site each day, according to Wade. The IDA agreed to incorporate signs directing commercial truck traffic to the new intersection at Route 22 and School Bus Road.
The IDA also agreed to install a 50-foot-wide vegetative buffer comprised of mixed evergreens around much of the site and to include a minimum 75-foot setback from non-Industrial Development Authority-owned property and a 50-foot setback from IDA-owned land. Both the buffer and setbacks far exceed what’s required in current code for both A-2 and I-2 zoning, Wade said.
While Wade didn’t offer details about how many people the greenhouse would employ, he noted that the property’s end user is interested in collaborating with Louisa County Public Schools’ Career and Technical Education program to potentially train horticulture students.
But not everyone is excited about the proposed greenhouse. Kenneth Daykin, an adjoining property owner, spoke during the public hearing to express concerns about the construction of such a large structure that could increase stormwater runoff. Daykin said that he’s worried about the greenhouse’s potential impact on a creek that runs through the area. He said, during heavy rains, runoff flows into the creek and impacts his property and properties further downstream and closer to the Town of Louisa. He fears the large greenhouse could further exacerbate flooding in and around the town.
“I really feel like this (project) should be maybe not rejected but delayed at least until we’ve got a good solid plan on how to handle all this extra water,” he said.
Wade said that, even though the project is an agricultural operation, it requires a stormwater management plan approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. He also noted that the greenhouse’s operator plans to construct a rainwater harvesting pond and reuse the water in crop production.
“All the runoff from the roof of the building will go into that pond. They’ll treat it then they’ll reuse it in their process. So, between the permitting from DEQ for the stormwater and the collection of the rainwater in the stormwater harvesting pond, you should not see as much stormwater runoff as you typically would with a building of this size,” he said.
Commissioners reacted favorably to the proposal but pushed Wade to secure a formal commitment from the prospective business regarding its collaboration with the school system’s CTE program prior to the rezoning’s public hearing in front of the Board of Supervisors.
“If the students of Louisa County can be involved in this, that’s a win-win situation,” Jackson District Commissioner Cy Weaver said.
Wade assured the commission that the end user is eager to work with the schools.
Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin also expressed concerns about commercial truck traffic on School Bus Road. He said the road has blind curves, including one near the project’s entrance, and asked if the IDA is willing to request that VDOT reduce the speed limit to 35 miles per hour for commercial traffic on the road.
Wade said that the site’s proposed entrance has 500 feet of sight distance on both sides, as required by VDOT, but the IDA will work with the department on a potential speed limit reduction.
The commission voted to greenlight the rezoning including in its motion recommendations that the IDA request a speed limit reduction to 35 miles per hour for commercial truck traffic on School Bus Road and that the authority firm up a commitment from the end user to work with Louisa County Public Schools’ CTE program.
PC roundup: commission rejects rezoning for commercial lot, oks CUP for residence exceeding height limit
The Planning Commission held two other public hearings Thursday night during a nearly three-hour meeting, recommending denial of an application to rezone, from Commercial (C-2) to Residential (R-2), a 1.13-acre parcel on the shore of Lake Anna and greenlighting a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a dwelling to exceed the maximum height limit for residences in the Residential (R-2) zoning designation. A previously-scheduled public hearing to consider an application to rezone nearly 19 acres, from Resort Development (RD) to Agricultural (A-2), was removed from agenda just prior to the meeting. The applicant, William E. Small III, withdrew the rezoning request. (meeting materials, video)
Commission rejects request to rezone commercial lot to residential: The commission voted 5-2 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors reject a request to rezone a 1.135-acre parcel (tmp 15E-1-A2) on the shore of Lake Anna from commercial (C-2) to residential (R-2). The property, owned by Gene and Sharon Hile, is located on the northwest side of Route 522 across from Tim’s at the Lake restaurant.
Attorney Torrey Williams, representing the applicant, urged planners to greenlight the request, arguing that the Hiles believed the parcel could be used for residential development when they bought it, the rezoning conforms with the character of the surrounding community, and the parcel isn’t well situated for commercial development. But most commissioners weren’t swayed by Williams arguments, in part, because of concerns about a residential rezoning’s potential impact on an adjoining lot zoned commercial.
Williams told the commission that when the Hiles purchased the property in 2016, they did so with the understanding that it could be utilized for a residential dwelling. He pointed to a 2014 email from the county to a realtor, stating that the parcel was split-zoned Residential (R-2) and Commercial (C-2). In a March 2022 email, however, the county told the applicant that the parcel is zoned Commercial (C-2) and can only include a residence as an accessory to a commercial operation, Williams said.
“I’m not blaming anybody or casting aspersions. I’m telling you this for the state of mind of my clients and their state of mind was that they understood (the parcel) could be used for residential purposes based on (the 2014) email,” he said.
Regardless of the property’s zoning at the time of its purchase, Williams said the rezoning makes sense today. According to the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the property lies in an area designated for low-density residential development, he said, and is near four subdivisions. Williams noted that there are 220 parcels zoned residential within a mile of the property.
Williams acknowledged that the property is located just across the street from a large commercial development, home to Tim’s restaurant, a mini golf course, and other lake-centric businesses. But he said the property on the east side of 522 differs from the applicant’s parcel because “it has great access.” In contrast, the Hiles’ land has no installed access from 522, in part, because it’s situated just south of the 522 bridge where a guardrail runs along the highway. The property is instead accessed from a gravel road off Estes Lane, which crosses a residential lot and a subdivision’s common area.
Given its access issues, Williams contended that the property isn’t well-positioned for commercial development and that “residential zoning is just common sense.” He reminded commissioners of the uses permitted by-right in C-2 zoning, including a drive-in restaurant, day care, and grocery store, arguing that commercial zoning means “lots of cars, lots of trips, lots of people.”
Along with the rezoning request, the Hiles are seeking a special exception to allow for construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot smaller than the 1.5 acres required for residential development in R-2 zoning. Williams said the special exception is necessary because the county revamped the zoning code last year, designating an acre and half minimum lot size. But he said the Hiles’ parcel conforms with the existing neighborhood, which is dominated by relatively small lots. Of the 220 residential lots within a mile of the parcel, 179 are smaller than 1.5 acres, Williams said. The power to grant a special exception lies solely with the Board of Supervisors.
Cuckoo District Planner George Goodwin said that he was part of the committee that worked on the county’s recent Comprehensive Plan update and the revisions to the zoning code that resulted from it. He said that the group looked specifically at the parcels surrounding the 522 bridge and determined that they should remain commercial. Staff suggested that, even with limited access, the parcel has commercial viability, noting that the Hiles’ parcel is well-situated for a bed and breakfast.
Goodwin also said that he’s uncomfortable recommending approval of the rezoning request because of the impact it could have on a 1.4-acre adjoining lot that’s also zoned commercial. That property, owned by Cochran’s Landing, LLC, sits on a point overlooking the lake just to the northeast of the Hiles’ property.
“If it’s difficult to get a commercial entrance for the two properties that close to the bridge, it’s going to be nearly impossible to get an entrance to that one property close to the bridge,” Goodwin said.
Several planners agreed with Goodwin. They said that while they’re sympathetic to the applicant’s situation, they can’t justify supporting the rezoning request because of the potential harm to the adjoining landowner.
“I’m very sympathetic to these folks who bought this lot under false claims or whatever it may be. I’m not sure what the remedy is because if we allow this then I think we are hurting the other folks beside them,” Mountain Road District Planner Gordon Brooks said.
Louisa District Planner Manning Woodward said that he might be inclined to support the request if the owners of both commercial properties on the west side of 522 were requesting a move to residential zoning but he finds it difficult to rezone just one parcel.
No surrounding property owners spoke during the public hearing and no one, other than the applicant, attended a July community meeting hosted by the Community Development Department, according to staff’s report.
Mineral District Planner John Disosway, who represents the area, asked Williams if his clients still hope to build a home on the parcel. Williams said that, given the uncertainty surrounding its use, the Hiles have started looking at other properties and he isn’t sure of their plans.
Before moving to recommend that supervisors deny the rezoning, Disosway said that since there are commercial uses for the property, even with limited access, it didn’t appear to him that rejecting the rezoning would cause the Hiles financial harm. He also said that he wasn’t comfortable recommending a rezoning that would trigger the need for a special exception to the county’s minimum lot size not long after county officials adopted it.
Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles and Jackson District Commissioner Cy Weaver said that they don't think the property is commercially viable given its access issues and voted against Disosway’s motion.
Planners ok CUP for residence that exceeds height limit: Planners voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of a request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing a single-family home in the Cuckoo Voting District to exceed the maximum allowed building height for dwellings in Residential (R-2) zoning.
Gerry Decker applied for the CUP to allow his residence, currently under construction on a 1.1-acre parcel (46-42-1) in the Rum Point subdivision on Lake Anna, to exceed the maximum permitted height of 40 feet. As designed, the home reaches 46 feet, 8 inches. County officials didn’t notice that the dwelling would exceed the height limit until construction was well under way.
Decker urged the county to approve the CUP, arguing that requiring him to reduce the height of the home now would cost thousands of dollars and negatively impact his neighborhood.
“My house would be one of those houses on the lake that everybody drives around and looks at and says ‘why’d they do that?’ because you’d have to disproportionately flatten the roof and make it look odd,” Decker said.
He said that, as constructed, the home doesn’t detrimentally impact the community so there’s no good reason to deny the CUP.
“I’m not blocking anyone’s view. I’m not hampering anyone’s view. I’m not in a utility zone. I’m not in a flight path. I’m nothing. I’m just 46 (feet), eight (inches),” he said.
Two adjoining property owners and the president of the Rum Point Homeowners’ Association submitted letters in support of the request, echoing Decker’s arguments.
“The home (Decker) is building does not interfere with my view at all and will be beautiful when complete. If the roof line were to change at this point to shorten the home, all of us would be stuck with an unattractive home forever. That wouldn’t be good for Mr. Decker or the other neighbors,” Jeff Smith, an adjoining property owner, wrote.
Before motioning to recommend approval of the CUP, Cuckoo District Planner George Goodwin said that he attended the pre-application meeting with staff and the applicant and assured his fellow commissioners that “there was no intent by the property owner to hoodwink the county or anyone else.” He said that he trusts staff to “get to the bottom of” whatever oversights led to permitting the home’s construction as designed.
Senior Planner Tom Egeland told the commission that the dwelling’s proposed height was not stated on the permitted building plans and the building inspector noted its extraordinary height in the field during construction. Staff then confirmed that the structure exceeded the height limit from a scale elevation drawing included in the building permit file.
Egeland said that, at the time the home was permitted, the county’s building permit application form for residential dwellings didn’t include a field for proposed height to be filled in by an applicant but there was a field for maximum height. The current form has a field for both proposed and maximum height, he said.
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.