This week in county government; Residents criticize LA Resort proposal at contentious town hall; Supes to consider brief agenda
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, November 21 through November 26
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here. (Note: Louisa County frequently schedules internal committee/work group meetings after publication time. Check the county’s website for the most updated information).
Monday, November 21
Finance Committee, Administration Conference Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 3 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.
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.
Residents criticize LA Resort proposal at contentious town hall
A mixed-use development proposed for a prime piece of real estate on Lake Anna was the subject of a contentious town hall last Thursday night with residents grilling the developer about the project’s potential impact on traffic, water quality, county services, and more.
LA Resort, LLC has requested to rezone, from commercial (C-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), 15.27 acres just west of the Route 208 bridge fronting Mitchell Creek (tmp 30-3A and part of 30-3). The rezoning would clear the way for an up to 96-unit residential condominium building, a 130-room hotel, a restaurant and bar, marina and more. The developer is also asking for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the residential condo building to reach 80 feet high, twenty feet taller than what’s permitted for multi-family residential structures in a PUD, but the same height allowed for some commercial buildings.
Some neighbors have staunchly opposed the rezoning, urging the Board of Supervisors to reject it at previous public meetings. Supervisors are currently scheduled to hold a public hearing on the request at their December 5 meeting.
Thursday’s town hall, moderated by Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams and held at an event venue adjacent to Callie Opie’s restaurant, drew more than 100 residents from the lake and beyond. Adams, who represents the area, said he organized the event and invited the project’s lead developers, Prince William County businessmen Mike Grossman and Mike Garcia, after some residents expressed concern about missing a late August neighborhood meeting hosted by the Louisa County Community Development Department.
Grossman, who manages LA Resort, LLC and speaks for the entity at public meetings, fielded questions and comments from community members for nearly an hour and a half, some of whom sharply criticized the project. He opened the meeting with a brief overview of LAR’s proposal, comparing it to a previous plan for the commercially-zoned property that the developers could build by-right, meaning without supervisors’ approval.
‘A better fit for Lake Anna’
If LAR wins the board’s approval to rezone the property for a PUD, Grossman said the development team plans to build a luxury residential condominium building—with units potentially selling for about $600 per square foot—coupled with a commercial component that includes an upper-mid tier to upper tier hotel like Residents’ Inn or Home2Suites, a 150-seat restaurant and bar, and ancillary retail. According to a preliminary site plan, the condominium building and restaurant would be situated close to the lake, with each condo enjoying a lake view, while the hotel would be closer to Route 208.
The development would feature resort amenities like pools and outdoor gathering places plus more than 62,000-square feet of overwater structure, per preliminary plans. The overwater component includes four covered boat houses with mechanical lifts and additional uncovered boat slips to accommodate hotel and restaurant patrons. As proposed, the development includes 129 boat slips on Mitchell Creek, a narrow cove just south of the Route 208 bridge that’s lined with single-family residences.
If LAR doesn’t get supervisors’ approval to rezone the property, Grossman said the developers could revert to a previous plan, permitted by-right in commercial zoning.
That proposal includes a lakeside condo-hotel with about 150 units. The condos would be sold to individual owners who could occupy them as often as they like, Grossman explained. When the owners aren’t using the property, the units would be part of a rental pool, run by a hotel management company with the company and the owners sharing the rental income. The hybrid concept is popular in resort settings across the county, according to Grossman, and considered a commercial use, per Louisa County officials.
The condo-hotel complex would include a restaurant, banquet hall, marina with about 120 boat slips, and a boat ramp plus resort amenities like an outdoor pavilion and tennis courts, per a conceptual plan shared by Grossman.
Grossman said he and his partners opted to pursue a PUD over the by-right option because it allows them greater control over the project and provides them more “upside.” He added that the development team believes the PUD is a better fit for the area.
“We believe that a Planned Unit Development with a residential condominium on the water, instead of a condo-hotel, is a much better symbiotic relationship with the area. It’s less intrusive. It’s less transient. It will be less loud and (generate) less light. The reality is it’s a better fit for Lake Anna and the surrounding community,” Grossman said.
A million dollar proffer
To ensure infrastructure is in place to support the project, LAR agreed to proffer $1 million toward the county’s potential purchase of a privately owned wastewater treatment plant that serves Lake Anna Plaza and adjoining townhomes across the street. The developers entered a Memorandum of Understanding with the county last year, committing to the payment, plus $250,000 more to connect to the infrastructure, if the county acquires the plant. LAR’s rezoning request is contingent upon the county purchasing the facility.
The county is considering buying and upgrading the facility to support continued economic development along the Route 208 corridor. Economic Development Director Andy Wade said last year that, for about $5 million, the county could upgrade the plant from its current 20,000-gallon per day discharge capacity to its permitted 99,000-gallon per day capacity. That figure has since risen to more than $7 million. Alternatively, the county could upgrade the plant to a 300,000-gallon per day capacity for about $10.8 million, according to county staff. The latter upgrade would provide enough capacity for LAR, existing customers, and significant new commercial development along Route 208, an area designated for growth in the county’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Last week, the county released proposed amendments to the MOU that, if executed, would commit LAR to pay an up to $1.5 million proffer. The additional $500,000 payment could be reduced if the county’s cost to upgrade the facility falls below $7.5 million. The county would release the developer from the $500,000 payment if LAR inks a deal with a hotelier to locate at the property and construction of the facility begins prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the residential building. Supervisors are expected to consider the amended MOU at their December 5 meeting.
While the PUD is dependent on county-owned wastewater infrastructure, the by-right proposal could rely on a massive drain field. A drain field was approved on the property under a previous site plan.
Residents speak out
Lake Anna residents expressed a range of concerns about the rezoning request Thursday night, many of which were raised at previous public meetings. Several community members argued that the developers’ proposal would burden taxpayers, who’d be on the hook for upgrades to a wastewater treatment plant and other county services that would largely benefit wealthy folks from out of town.
“We’re going to tax the working class, the middle class to subsidize wealthy developers and wealthy people buying condos,” one community member said.
Adams, who has advocated for the county purchasing the treatment facility, argued otherwise. First and foremost, he said, a publicly-owned plant would better protect the health of the lake, a benefit to everyone in the community.
“I don’t want that townhouse association responsible for that wastewater treatment because they are held to the absolute lowest standards that DEQ has. I don’t want developers responsible for the effluent that goes into that lake. I want the county government who is held to the absolute highest standards by DEQ and EPA to be responsible for the effluent that goes into that lake from commercial development,” Adams said.
Adams also contended that the plant would be a revenue-positive investment for the county. “There is no taxpayer subsidy,” he said.
Adams provided Engage Louisa with a document entitled “Lake Anna WWTP Financing/Design options,” dated November 18, 2022, which he said was prepared by Dewberry Engineering, a county consultant. The document breaks down three slightly different upgrade scenarios for the plant, each of which would enable it to reach its permitted 99,000-gallon per day discharge capacity.
According to the document, the county would acquire between $5.69 million and $5.84 million in bond funding to pay for the upgrades with LAR’s $1 million proffer and connection fee covering the rest of the cost. Under each scenario, the county would pay roughly $700,000 annually over the next 30 years for the plant with more than $400,000 of that going to debt service.
The document claims that revenue from LAR and existing customers would generate about $709,000 annually. Adams said that figure is based on real estate taxes and personal property taxes from LAR’s condos plus user fees. He said it doesn’t include projected meals and lodging tax revenue from the development’s commercial component.
An economic impact study conducted by Magnum Economics on the county’s behalf as part of LAR’s rezoning request estimates that the development would pay about $73,000 annually for sewer service while existing customers of the plant would pay $66,000, for a total of $139,000 in direct revenue. The facility would tally about $150,000 in annual operating costs, per the study.
When Eric Harlowe, chief of the Mineral Volunteer Fire Department, and another resident asked what LAR is doing to offset its impact Fire and EMS services, Grossman pointed to the tax revenue that’s projected to come from the development, per Magnum’s study.
The study claims that LAR will ultimately be a revenue-generator for the county—netting it more than $200,000 annually—thanks to income from property taxes, lodging and meals taxes, and related sources. It estimates about $1.1 million in gross revenue and nearly $900,000 in county expenses. About $766,000 of the county’s projected expenses would be tied to the wastewater treatment facility while $130,000 would derive from increased public safety costs. The study assumes the county will upgrade the wastewater treatment plant to handle 300,000 gallons of discharge daily, an estimated $10.8 million investment.
Grossman added that LAR is still in talks with the county about how to address concerns that emerged at the Planning Commission’s meeting in October centered on ensuring that the project’s commercial component gets built. The Commission recommended that 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.
Beyond the development’s impact on direct county services, community members argued that the project would overwhelm Route 208, a road that they say is already clogged and dangerous.
“You have a two-lane highway. How do you propose to manage the traffic that is going to be coming from 96 units? Are you thinking about expanding the highway? Are you thinking about expanding the bridge and, if so, who’s going to pay for that? We’re going to pay for that,” one resident said.
Grossman said that LAR would build an entrance on the western end of the property and a full left and right turn lane along Route 208, noting that the Virginia Department of Transportation green-lighted the entrance and other improvements as part of a previous site plan with a higher projected traffic count. Grossman added that LAR would provide VDOT with additional right of way, allowing room for construction of two additional lanes in the future. According to a traffic analysis for the rezoning request, the development is expected to generate 2,382 vehicle trips per day at full build out.
Some residents expressed concern about how the development would impact boat traffic on the lake and, specifically, along Mitchell Creek where community members have said they like to kayak and seek refuge from busier swaths of the waterway.
“There’s a lot of traffic on the lake. It’s so bad that I don’t go out on the lake on the weekend anymore. I used to get on my kayak and you are now in my kayak play area,” a Windwood Coves resident told Grossman.
“The lake is for everybody,” Grossman responded. “I think it’s a little bit disingenuous to say ‘now that I’m on the lake and I get to participate, people that own land and want to develop it, whether to build a house or build a condominium or build a condo-hotel by-right, that they can’t do that because the people that are already on the lake think that we don’t want any additional development.’”
One community members said she worries about the development’s environmental impact, citing concerns about the Harmful Algal Blooms that have landed much of the lake north of the Route 208 bridge on the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s list of impaired waterways.
Grossman said that he and his partners are concerned about water quality and committed to being “good stewards of the lake.” He said LAR will coordinate with DEQ and other agencies to ensure proper stormwater management and that there are steps they can take to “reduce or eliminate” nonpoint source pollutants like fertilizers and other chemicals, which he cited as a key contributor to HAB.
“We believe we can have a robust program in place, which prevents those types of chemicals and pollutants from entering the lake,” he said.
Throughout the rezoning process, neighbors along Mitchell Creek have voiced strong opposition to a six-story, more than 500-foot-long condo building on the lake’s shore. One resident described the building as a “monstrosity” at a previous meeting while others have said they moved to the lake for its beauty and tranquility, and they fear the development will ruin that with noise, light pollution, and other intrusions.
As one community member put it Thursday night: “A lot of us are from Northern Virginia where we came from a metropolis. We are not interested in a metropolis here at the lake.”
But another attendee took a different view. She reminded the crowd that Grossman and Garcia can do quite a bit on the property by-right, but they are instead proposing a rezoning for a PUD, which gives community members a chance to weigh in and push for a more palatable project.
“If people just came in and developed what they could put there, I promise you it would be a whole lot worse than the fact that they are asking for a PUD. That gives us room to negotiate many things in order to have a real Planned Unit Development. That’s what’s so special about that,” she said.
BOS preview: supervisors to consider brief agenda at Nov. 21 meeting
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors will consider a brief agenda at its pre-Thanksgiving meeting Monday night. Check out the agenda highlights below.
Board to discuss elections: The board’s agenda includes one discussion item: “Elections Update.” No other information is included about the topic in the meeting materials.
According to Louisa County Electoral Board Chair Curtis Haymore, this year’s elections—the first since the once-a-decade redistricting process—ran smoothly in Louisa County despite some voter confusion.
Redistricting reshaped voting districts at the local, state, and federal level based on results from the 2020 Census. The Virginia Supreme Court finalized congressional and state legislative districts last December while the Board of Supervisors redrew local voting districts and the precincts that comprise them in April. The shake-up meant that many residents were assigned to new polling locations, which led to some voters heading to the wrong polling place on Election Day and hundreds of residents calling the County Office Building with election-related questions.
“The biggest concern, which was expected, was that some people were unsure of where they should vote even with all the publicity of potential changes in polling places,” Haymore said in an email to Engage Louisa, adding that a small number of voters showed up to the wrong polling location “during their lunch break and did not have time to get to their correct one and return to work on time.” He also noted that a “well meant, but incorrect” sign at a former polling place sent a few voters to the wrong polling location, but those voters were eventually able to cast a ballot in their correct precinct.
Haymore said that a team of county staffers pitched in on Election Day, fielding hundreds of calls to ensure residents knew where to vote.
Beyond Tuesday’s efforts, both the county and state worked to inform voters about the changes brought about by redistricting. In late September, the Virginia Department of Elections sent mailers to every registered voter in the county notifying them of their new legislative districts and polling location.
According to Louisa County Public Relations Manager Cindy King, the county used a variety of tools to alert voters of potential changes including social media, texts to residents signed up for the county’s alert system, and an email newsletter. The county also updated its website, making voter information easier to find, and sent inserts with real estate tax bills that notified voters about early voting and told them to look out for the state’s mailer, King said.
Aside from the confusion caused by redistricting, Haymore said that Louisa County encountered few issues on Election Day.
“The mood and demeanor of election officials and the voters was high. People were friendly. Those working outside the polls seemed to get along well and helped notify the election officials if people needed assistance, and every party observer I spoke with had positive things to say about the process,” Haymore said. “The Registrar, Cristy Watkins, and her staff, the election officers, and the team (County Administrator) Christian Goodwin put together to help out, helped make this once-a-decade election after a redistricting go better than expected.”
Watkins said that about 55 percent of the county’s registered voters cast a ballot this year. According to data from the Virginia Public Access project, 10,992 people chose to vote in person on Election Day, 4,061 voted early in-person and 1,220 people voted by mail.
The Electoral Board certified the results for Louisa County Monday afternoon after adjudicating provisional ballots and tallying late-arriving mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and arrived before Monday at noon. For a user-friendly breakdown of the results, check the Virginia Public Access Project. To read Engage Louisa’s recap of this year’s elections, check out last week’s edition.
Board to consider lease renewals for Arc of the Piedmont, JABA: Supervisors will consider approving lease renewals for Arc of the Piedmont and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, a pair of not-for-profit organization that run day programs at the Betty Queen Intergenerational Center. Arc of the Piedmont offers day care services for residents with mental disabilities while JABA provides health care services and day care to aging residents.
Per its lease agreement, Arc of the Piedmont will pay the county 8 cents per square foot of usable space for its first 11 client on a monthly basis with rent increasing two percent per year. Currently the organization serves 11 clients and its rent totals $82.09 per month. That figures will rise to $83.73 in July 2023. The lease will renew annually on July 1 unless written notice is given by either party on or before April 1 of the same calendar year.
Per JABA’s lease, the county won’t charge the organization rent for its use of space at the Betty Queen Center. The lease is subject to automatic renewal July 1 of each year unless either party provides written notice by April 1 of the same year.
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.