This week in county government; Proposed Lake Anna condos, hotel get mixed results from Planning Commission; BOS preview
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, Oct. 17 through Oct. 22
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.
Monday, October 17
Affordable Housing Work Group, Administration Conference Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 12 pm.
Finance Committee, Administration Conference Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 2:30 pm.
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.
Wednesday, October 19
Community Policy Management Team, Executive Board Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.
Thursday, October 20
Industrial Development Authority, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 8:30 am.
Other meetings
Tuesday, October 18
Louisa Town Council, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda packet)
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.
Proposed Lake Anna condos, hotel get mixed results from Planning Commission
A commercial and residential development proposed for a prime piece of real estate on Lake Anna met with mixed results in front of the Louisa County Planning Commission Thursday night after neighbors strongly criticized the project and several commissioners raised concerns. (meeting materials, video)
LA Resort, LLC has requested to rezone roughly 15.2 acres just west of the Route 208 bridge, from commercial (C-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), for a mixed-use complex featuring an up to 96-unit condominium building, a 130-room hotel, a restaurant/bar, marina, and ancillary retail. The developers also requested a Conditional Use Permit allowing the lakefront condo building to reach 80 feet in height, exceeding the 60-foot limit for residential dwellings in a PUD.
The upmarket development would include extensive amenities, like a pool and pet-grooming facility, and more than 62,500 square feet of overwater structure with docks and boathouses with mechanical lifts fronting Mitchell Creek.
Commissioners expressed concerns about the proposal, suggesting it had some of the same flaws that prevented a previous developer from rezoning the property for mixed-use development in 2016.
But on a motion by Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway, the panel voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the rezoning, albeit with caveats. Disosway’s next motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit failed in a 3-3 vote. Jackson District Commissioner Cy Weaver was absent.
Several commissioners said they weren’t comfortable green-lighting LAR’s plan unless the developer beefed up assurances that the project would be completed as proposed. They worried that LAR might only complete the residential building or otherwise fail to finish the project, leaving the county without the tax revenue projected from the commercial activity. An economic impact study estimated that the county would net about $205,000 per year from the development with some of that coming from lodging and meals taxes.
The study factored in the county’s potential purchase and upgrade of a privately-owned wastewater treatment plant that would serve the complex and future commercial development along the Route 208 corridor. LAR agreed to chip in $1 million toward the upgrade, a proffered condition of its rezoning request. Commissioners noted that the county’s purchase of the plant would make it more dependent on the anticipated revenue. Upgrading the facility could cost nearly $11 million, according to Louisa County’s Economic Development Department.
“By not having the commercial, to me, we are recommending taking on a risk that I just don’t think is prudent without some assurance,” Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin said, adding that county officials rejected the 2016 rezoning request, in part, because of “the same lack of assurances.”
“If there’s not some guarantee that this gets finished so that we can bring in the revenue from it, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for all this stuff,” Louisa District Commissioner Manning Woodward said.
To assuage those concerns, Disosway included in his motion to approve the rezoning two recommendations: that the county withhold a certificate of occupancy for the condo building until it approves a site plan for the hotel and restaurant and that the county require the developer to post a performance bond. The latter is a financial guarantee issued by an insurance company or bank that a project will be satisfactorily completed.
Even with Disosway’s recommendations, Woodward opposed the rezoning. Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles cast the other no vote.
Mike Grossman, the Prince William County developer leading the project, said he and his partners intend to build the project in one phase and they are confident that they will identify a hotelier interested in locating there. He noted that they’ve already talked with several companies who are awaiting the project’s approval.
Grossman told the commission that the development team would include in its proffers a guarantee that commercial pad sites it plans to build on the property will only be used for commercial development. But he suggested that LAR isn’t comfortable agreeing to Disosway’s recommendation to withhold an occupancy permit. He contended that the provision could stall the project and “be detrimental to the long-term vision.” Grossman didn’t comment on the performance bond recommendation.
Though three commissioners voted against the Conditional Use Permit request, the building’s proposed height sparked limited comment from the panel. Woodward, Quarles, and Green Springs District Commissioner Jim Dickerson voted against the request.
‘A bad deal for Louisa County taxpayers’
Ten community members weighed in during the public hearing to either explicitly oppose the project or voice significant concerns.
Several speakers said that approving the project could come back to haunt Louisa taxpayers.
Claude Owen, who lives along Mitchell Creek across from the proposed development, said that it would be irresponsible for the county to approve the rezoning without a performance bond.
“As commissioners, you do not need to be an expert in banking or hotel development and franchising to understand the highly speculative nature of this rezoning proposal,” he said.
Charles Clapp, another neighboring property owner, described the proposal as “a bad deal for Louisa taxpayers,” suggesting that the county follow the lead of larger localities that routinely deal with sizable developments. He noted that Spotsylvania, Loudoun and other counties require developers to pay up front for their projects’ impact on roads, Fire and EMS, and other services instead of banking on revenue that might come.
Clapp also questioned the prudence of the county purchasing the wastewater treatment plant, arguing that Louisa is assuming a huge responsibility especially with the presence of Harmful Algal Blooms at the lake. Environmental regulations can change, he said, leaving taxpayers on the hook to pay for costly upgrades.
“The Lake Anna Resort developer is offering symbolic but insufficient funds to cover the impacts of their development and, as a taxpayer, I’m concerned about that,” Clapp said.
‘It should be no surprise to anyone that this land is going to get developed’
Most of the speakers live or own property along Mitchell Creek and took issue with the large condo building planned for the water’s edge. The building would include some 255,000 square feet of floor space across six stories and, with approval of the CUP, soar 80 feet high. Owen called it a “monstrosity.”
Residents said the building would be detrimental to the character of their community, marring their views and bringing light pollution. They also expressed concern about the density of the development and its impact on traffic on and off the lake.
Leesburg residents Carolyn and Robert Lorenzen own property nearby where they’re building a home. Carolyn Lorenzen said that she would welcome a hotel on the lake but described the development as “too much.”
“This is like northern Virginia high-density, which is what I’m trying to get away from,” she said.
Robert Lorenzen said he boats on Mitchell Creek cove regularly and his kids swim there. He fears for their safety with the current boat traffic, he said, and shudders to think of the conditions if the development wins approval.
“The idea of adding a complex of this scope frightens me. It’s just massive,” he said.
Ben Unruh, who lives across the cove from the proposed site, said an “80-foot, Virginia Beach-style condo setup” would “change the entire dynamic of Lake Anna.” He bemoaned not only the large residential building but also the hotel and other commercial activity.
“The heart and soul of Lake Anna are the people who are permanent residents here not the transients. We understand that they bring some economic impact…but that’s not why we wanted to be at Lake Anna to commercialize it and take away that ambiance that you’ve got with green space and water and quietness,” he said.
Grossman reminded residents and commissioners that the property is currently zoned for commercial development, which allows for a number of high-intensity, by-right uses, and it’s included in a growth area targeted for mixed-use development, per the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He said the property is too valuable to sit empty much longer and warned that, if LAR’s proposal isn’t approved, a lakefront hotel—bigger than the condo building he’s proposing—would likely be built on the site.
“It should be no surprise to anyone that this land is going to get developed. It is extremely valuable land so a putt putt golf or some sort of light density commercial development is just not going to happen. Economically, it just won’t work. We believe our proposal provides the least impactful approach and best path forward,” he said, adding that, If the PUD is approved, he and his team will work with neighbors to mitigate their concerns as they develop a final site plan.
Grossman noted that the hotel, which would sit off the lake’s shore, and condo building would be roughly the same height—hotels are already permitted to reach 80 feet—and that building up instead of out allows more room for landscaping and open space. Based on Louisa County’s rules for Planned Unit Development, he added, LAR’s plan includes 30 percent fewer units than what’s permitted.
Environmental concerns
Community members also expressed concerns about the project’s environmental impact.
Several residents questioned the adequacy of a Phase One Environmental Assessment that LAR submitted as part of its rezoning application. The assessment, they said, looks at current conditions on the property but doesn’t consider the proposal’s future impact, falling short of a provision in county code requiring applicants to submit an environmental impact study. Community Development Director Josh Gillespie said, based on past practice, a Phase One Assessment meets the county’s requirement.
Several speakers pointed out that bald eagles nest on the property and the development would disturb the federally protected bird’s habitat. While bald eagles were removed from the threatened and endangered species list in 2007, they are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which prohibits the taking of the birds, their eggs or nest without a permit from the Department of the Interior.
Neighbors also worry that the large development could exacerbate the Harmful Algal Blooms that have plagued the lake over the last several years. The blooms, composed of toxin-producing cyanobacteria that can be detrimental to human health, prompted the Virginia Department of Health to issue no-swim advisories for parts of the lake’s upper end in each of the last five summers. Their growth has been linked to excess nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen, which can come from both development and agricultural activity.
“I believe it’s irresponsible for the county to add to the (HAB) problem by allowing this high-density residential resort,” neighbor Anne Clapp said. “Organizations in this community like (the Lake Anna Civic Association) are working to develop HAB mitigation plans and lobbying the state government to fund studies on how to improve the situation while Louisa County would be supporting a development that worsens the situation.” Clapp asked if the county’s economic impact study accounted for how HAB might impact the lake’s economy.
LAR contends that the development would be built in an environmentally conscious manner. Grossman noted that the developers have a shoreline management plan, which includes strategies to mitigate runoff and “nutrient pollutants entering the lake.”
Grossman also framed the county’s potential purchase of the wastewater treatment plant as a way to protect the lake, noting that community members have expressed support for the acquisition. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has cited the facility’s current owner, Lake Anna Environmental Services, for various violations. The plant discharges its effluent into the lake.
Last year, the county proposed to buy and upgrade the facility from its current 20,000-gallon per day discharge capacity to its permitted 99,000-gallon per day capacity. Based on figures included in the economic impact study, the county projects a $10.8 investment in the plant. According to County Administrator Christian Goodwin, that potential investment would upgrade the plant’s capacity to 300,000 gallons per day. The upgrade would enable the plant to support significant commercial development along the Route 208 corridor beyond LAR’s proposal.
John Wayne, representing the Lake Anna Civic Association, didn’t weigh in on the county’s purchase of the plant or take a formal position on the rezoning Thursday night, but he did note that the organization opposes any new development that would require the plant to be upgraded beyond its permitted 99,000-gallon per day capacity, citing concerns about HAB.
Wayne also said LACA opposes the CUP request, arguing an 80-foot-tall structure is out of character with the neighborhood, and that the organization wants the developer to prohibit condo owners from using their property as a short-term rental for less than a 30-day period. Grossman said that LAR has agreed to prohibit owners from renting their unit for less than seven days at a time.
In addition to the rezoning and the CUP, the developers requested a modification to the county’s design and architectural guidelines to allow the use of high-quality composite siding. The commission voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the design modification with Quarles and Woodward casting opposing votes.
The applicant removed from its proposal a request for a special exception exempting the development from including a dry hydrant in its common area. Staff recommended denial of the request while recommending approval of the rezoning, CUP, and design modification.
The Board of Supervisors has the final say on LAR’s proposal. At publication time, the board had not advertised a public hearing.
Click here for Engage Louisa’s coverage of the neighborhood meeting where LA Resort first unveiled the project.
Commissioners recommend approval of buffer requirement repeal: After a public hearing in which no community members weighed in, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve an amendment to county code that would make retroactive a February 2021 repeal of a roadside buffer requirement for by-right A-2 subdivisions.
As part of a rewrite of the zoning code last year, supervisors removed from county code a provision that subdivisions in A-2 zoning include a tree-lined roadside buffer. But the move didn’t explicitly relieve subdivisions created prior to February 2021 of the requirement.
At the board’s September 19 meeting, Louisa District Supervisor Eric Purcell pushed to make the repeal retroactive.
“I just don’t think it’s anything the county needs to be involved in. We saw fit to do away with (the buffer requirement) and now you have a bifurcated system where you are trying to enforce things that happened prior to a date and you are not worried about things that happened after a date. That doesn’t make any sense,” Purcell said.
As green-lighted by the Planning Commission, the proposed amendment reads:
On February 21, 2021, the Louisa County Code was amended to remove roadside buffer requirements for Agricultural (A-2) subdivisions, which required roadside buffers to be provided along existing state roads. Any roadside buffer approved by the subdivision agent as of February 21, 2021, is no longer required and it shall not be enforced for maintenance and/or replacement of plantings. Any security posted with Louisa County and currently being held for subdivision buffers (plantings) required under the prior regulations, shall be returned to the developer by the Community Development Department.
BOS preview: supervisors to consider brief agenda
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors will convene Monday night for their second October meeting with a brief agenda on tap. Check out the agenda highlights below.
Supervisors to consider approval of right-of-way agreement with Rappahannock Electric Cooperative: Supervisors will consider a resolution approving a right-of-way agreement between Louisa County and Rappahannock Electric Cooperative. The agreement would allow REC to construct underground or overhead power lines across a county-owned parcel in the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park.
According to the proposed resolution, there is a need for electricity at a fire training building off Parrish Road near Shannon Hill. REC has agreed to construct an underground line to service the facility for a nominal fee but requires a right-of-way to cross the 116-acre parcel. The easement agreement would grant REC a 30-foot right of way.
Board to hear two presentations: Supervisors will hear a pair of presentations at Monday’s meeting.
The Commission on Aging will brief the board on its activities. The commission, composed of citizen representatives appointed by the Board of Supervisors, works with residents and community organizations to understand the needs of older adults and their caregivers and shares its insight with supervisors to inform their decisions on issues impacting older residents. Louisa County Parks and Recreation Director James Smith and Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advocacy Director Ginger Dillard also serve on the body. Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry serves as the board’s liaison to the commission.
The Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development will update supervisors on its work. The partnership promotes economic development across nine central Virginia localities including Louisa. Specifically, it provides comprehensive, customized economic development research, workforce development solutions for employers and job seekers, opportunities for grant funding, and site selection services.
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.
Good summary of the LAR vote. Mike Grossman and Mike Garcia are involved in a highly contested and widely unpopular development in Northern Virginia called the Prince William Digital Gateway which plans to flip 2k acres of farmland next to a historic battlefield into 100+ foot tall data centers. I suspect they are planning to use the funds from this potential development - which has yet to be approved - for the LAR project. I wonder how they plan to finance LAR if this controversial data center deal fails to pass.