This week in county government; Supervisors expected to defer public hearing on LA Resort rezoning request until Jan. 17 meeting; BOS and PC previews
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, Dec. 5 through Dec. 10
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, Dec. 5
Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Special Called Meeting (legislative work session), Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 3:30 pm. (agenda, livestream)
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.
Tuesday, Dec. 6
Louisa County School Board, Central Office Administration Building, 953 Davis Highway, Mineral, 7 pm. (agenda) A link to livestream the meeting is available on the agenda.
Wednesday, Dec. 7
Louisa County Electoral Board, Executive Board Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 10 am. (agenda)
Commission on Aging, Betty Queen Center, 522 Industrial Drive, Louisa, 10 am.
Thursday, December 8
Louisa County Planning Commission, Long-Range Planning Work Session, Public Meeting Room, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 5 pm. (livestream) At publication time, an agenda was not publicly available.
Louisa County Planning Commission, Public Meeting Room, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
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.
Supervisors expected to defer public hearing on LA Resort rezoning request until Jan. 17 meeting
A controversial rezoning request that could clear the way for luxury condominiums and an upmarket hotel on Lake Anna isn’t expected to be the subject of a public hearing at this Monday’s Louisa County Board of Supervisors meeting after the applicant requested to defer the hearing in an email to county staff Thursday morning.
Prince William County developer Mike Grossman, on behalf of LA Resort, LLC, asked that the county postpone the hearing to supervisors’ Tuesday, January 17 meeting. The board is expected to remove the item from Monday’s agenda and grant the deferral, according to Board Chair Duane Adams.
LA Resort has asked to rezone 15.27 acres just west of the Route 208 bridge from commercial (C-2 GAOD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), enabling the developer to build a mixed-use complex featuring an up to 96-unit residential condo building, a 130-room hotel, restaurant, and marina along Mitchell Creek, a narrow cove just south of Route 208 that’s lined with single-family homes. The developer is also asking for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the condo building to reach 80 feet high, 20 feet taller than what’s permitted for multi-family residential structures in a PUD, but equal to the maximum height allowed for some commercial buildings.
The proposal has sparked strong opposition from neighbors, who’ve taken particular issue with the residential condo building, dubbing it “Northern Virginia-style development” and arguing that the project would overwhelm local infrastructure and detract from the community’s rural character. The property is located at the county’s primary gateway from Northern Virginia, a corridor targeted for mixed-use development in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
In his email to Community Development Director Josh Gillespie and Senior Planner Tom Egeland, Grossman states that LAR “request(s) additional time to prepare prior to the public hearing,” marking the second time that the applicant has asked to delay supervisors’ consideration of the rezoning.
The county initially advertised the public hearing for the board’s November 21 meeting. In a November 10 email, staff said that the hearing would be postponed until December 5 at the applicant’s request. Adams said at the time that the hearing was delayed to allow residents more time to review the project.
County staff released the agenda for the board’s December 5 meeting Wednesday afternoon, which includes the public hearing. Because the agenda is already part of the public record, it can only be amended by supervisors at the meeting, Adams said. He said that he anticipates supervisors will postpone the hearing as they customarily do for applicants seeking a deferral.
Since an initial community meeting in late August, LA Resort’s proposal has met growing resistance from residents along Mitchell Creek and beyond with some neighbors launching a website opposing the project. Dubbed “Keep Louisa Rural,” the website warns that the PUD’s approval would open the door to “high density development” on the lake that threatens “the quiet and tranquility of the country.”
The site encourages residents to “voice (their) opposition to this atrocity” by signing a petition, speaking at public meetings, contacting members of the Board of Supervisors, and donating to an online fundraising campaign. A GoFundMe page says that any money raised will be used to “get the word out to concerned citizens all over the community” and otherwise oppose the rezoning. At publication time, the campaign had raised $2,525, exceeding its $2,500 goal
Dozens of residents have shown up at county meetings to express their concerns, arguing that the development would negatively impact not only their neighborhood but the entire county. At several public meetings, community members said that the project would clog traffic along Route 208, disrupt the Mitchell Creek community with noise, light pollution, and increased boat traffic, threaten the lake’s water quality, and strain county services, among other ills.
While Grossman has said that a PUD would be less disruptive to the community than what could be built on the commercially-zoned property by-right, some neighbors counter that they’d much prefer strictly commercial development, noting that commercial activity—not residential—would provide amenities that residents crave and bulk up the tax base.
LAR’s proposal is an especially risky deal for the county, some residents say, because there’s no guarantee the development’s commercial component would be built. Without revenue from meals and lodging taxes, they argue, residents would be left holding the bill for increased county services like Fire and EMS and a wastewater treatment plant that the county is considering acquiring to support the project and continued economic development along the Route 208 corridor.
LAR’s rezoning request is contingent on the county buying and upgrading the treatment facility. Via a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the county last year, the developer agreed to proffer $1 million toward the plant’s upgrade and pay another $250,000 to connect to the sewer infrastructure.
Acquiring and revamping the plant could cost between $7 and $11 million depending on the extent of the enhancements, per documents provided by the county. That would be money well spent, according to some county officials, who contend that the plant is expected to be a net-positive investment based on potential tax revenue generated by customers and user fees. They also argue that bringing the plant under county ownership would protect the health of the lake, pointing out that the privately-owned facility, which currently serves Lake Anna Plaza and adjoining townhomes on Route 208, has been repeatedly cited for violations by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The facility discharges its effluent into the lake.
Several members of the Planning Commission concurred with residents’ concerns about the cost of the treatment plant coupled with the lack of guarantees from the developer that the project’s commercial component would materialize. Though commissioners voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the rezoning at their October 13 meeting, they did so with the recommendation that the developer provide a performance bond and that the county withhold a certificate of occupancy for the residential building until site plans are approved for the hotel and restaurant.
LAR submitted revised proffers to the Community Development Department on November 28, acquiescing to one of the commission’s recommendations. In the document, the developer acknowledges that the county will not issue occupancy permits for the condo building until site plans are green-lighted for the hotel and restaurant. LAR also pledges to contribute $500 to the county’s Fire and EMS Department for each residential unit.
In mid-November, the county released proposed amendments to the wastewater treatment plant 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 will release the developer from the $500,000 payment if LAR inks a deal with a hotelier to locate at the property and a building permit is issued prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the residential building.
BOS preview: Supervisors to discuss legislative priorities with state lawmakers
With a controversial public hearing again expected to be put on the backburner, supervisors will consider a brief agenda at their penultimate meeting of 2022. The agenda doesn’t feature any action or discussion items but does include two other public hearings.
The board will kick things off a bit earlier than usual on Monday afternoon, convening for a special called meeting at 3:30 pm. The meeting will bring the three men who represent the county in Richmond—Sens. Mark Peake and Bryce Reeves and Delegate John McGuire—to the County Office Building to discuss supervisors’ legislative priorities ahead of the 2023 General Assembly session. The 46-day session starts January 11. Check out a preview of both meetings below.
Supes to meet with county’s reps in General Assembly
At their October 3 meeting, supervisors approved their legislative platform for the 2023 General Assembly session. They’ll discuss that platform with lawmakers on Monday afternoon.
The platform includes seven legislative priorities, several of which supervisors have advocated for in the past. They run the gamut from energy policy to counties’ taxing authorities. Here’s a brief rundown.
Undergrounding: Supervisors ask that state lawmakers support “undergrounding,” meaning placing overhead power lines underground. The county argues that while undergrounding is expensive and can lead to higher bills for ratepayers, placing even a small portion of overhead lines underground could significantly increase grid resilience.
Supervisors opted to prioritize grid improvements after Winter Storm Frida walloped the county last January, leaving some residents without power for more than a week.
“From my standpoint and I think many people who were impacted severely by the January storm, if we can save our power crews from fixing just one downed line, that’s another downed line they can be fixing instead of that,” County Administrator Christian Goodwin said at the October meeting.
Small Modular Reactors: In a second priority related to the energy sector, supervisors express support for the study and promotion of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR). Unlike traditional reactors, which are custom-built on-site and cost billions of dollars, SMRs could be fabricated in factories and far cheaper to assemble.
The reactors, still years away from commercial viability, are designed to produce up to 300 MW of power, about a third of the production capacity of one of the twin reactors currently operating at Dominion’s North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Proponents tout the technology as safe, cost effective, and scalable, contending that SMRs could play a key role in Virginia’s transition to a carbon-free grid. They also argue that their development could lead to new economic development opportunities across the state.
In his 2022 Energy Plan released in early October, Governor Glenn Youngkin called for the development of a commercial SMR in southwest Virginia in the next 10 years, labeling the effort Virginia’s “moon shot.” His energy plan says that the commonwealth is well positioned “to become the nation’s leader in SMR technology,” pointing to several Virginia-based companies that are at the forefront of the nuclear technology industry.
Jail costs: During the biennial budget cycle last spring, the state increased from $12 to $15 the per diem rates for state-responsible inmates in regional jails. The county again advocates for more state support for regional jails albeit from a slightly different angle.
As Goodwin explained it, the county encourages the state to pay a set percentage of jail costs, which can fluctuate from year to year and are tallied in an annual jail cost report.
“Rather than asking for an increase on a per diem basis, (we are) looking at indexing these costs as a percentage of actual costs. According to the jail cost report, the actual average statewide per-prisoner per day cost is $100.32 so we could index that cost at a certain percentage,” he said. “If we were to say local per diems will be 20 percent of that cost, in a year like this one, you’d get $20.32 cents rather than our current per diem rate. The nice thing about that is if those costs go up going forward, we get a higher amount. If those costs go down, you get a lower amount.”
Broadband: The county supports continued state and federal aid to localities for broadband deployment and efforts to bolster cooperation among utility providers and other entities in expanding connectivity.
Thanks to an influx of federal pandemic relief from the American Rescue Plan Act, the General Assembly, in 2021, made an historic investment in rural broadband, allocating about $700 million to the Virginia Telecommunications Initiative to provide grants for broadband expansion in unserved areas. Louisa County, via its partnership with Firefly Fiber Broadband, is directly benefiting from more than $20 million in VATI funds. Firefly has pledged to deliver fiber access to every unserved resident in Louisa by 2025. Supervisors committed $9 million in local funds toward the effort.
Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms: Supervisors request that lawmakers support efforts to mitigate fresh water Harmful Algal Blooms, a persistent problem in the upper end of Lake Anna and other waterways. The biennial state budget, approved last June, includes $3.5 million to study HAB in the Shenandoah River and at the lake, thanks, in part, to legislation that Peake carried last session.
HABs, which encompass toxin-producing cyanobacteria detrimental to human health, prompted the Virginia Department of Health to issue no swim advisories for parts of Lake Anna in each of the last five summers. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality recently included the lake on its list of impaired waterways because of the blooms.
Last month, supervisors sent a letter to Youngkin requesting that the governor include in his amendments to the state budget $1 million for near-term efforts to treat and mitigate HAB at the lake. In the letter, the board acknowledges the importance of studying the blooms, a burgeoning problem in freshwater bodies across the state, but asks for funding directed specifically at immediate mitigation and/or remediation activities.
“While we expect DEQ’s study to eventually produce useful and actionable information, that process will likely take many years to come to fruition. Meanwhile, there is an immediate need for treatment and mitigation of HABs at Lake Anna using any number of proven treatments that can help ensure the lake remains safe, open, and economically viable,” the letter states.
Youngkin is scheduled to present his proposed budget amendments at a joint meeting of the General Assembly’s money committees on December 15.
Equal Revenue Authority: A perennial plank in the county’s legislative platform, supervisors support counties’ right to raise the same revenue as cities. Under current law, cities have expanded taxing authority.
State funding flexibility: In another priority that regularly appears on the county’s legislative agenda, supervisors support allowing localities flexibility in the use of state revenues to compensate employees. The platform notes that when the state funds a compensation increase for employees, it occasionally compels localities to provide the same increase for staffers whose salaries it doesn’t fund. The county calls this an “unfunded mandate” and asks for the power to make its own decisions on how compensation funding is dispersed.
Supervisors to hold public hearing on incentive program for county employees
The board will hold a public hearing and consider an amendment to county code that establishes a framework to award financial incentives, bonuses, and awards to county employees for exceptional service.
According to the proposed resolution, the incentive program would allow the county to award a bonus of up to $5,000 or five percent of an employee’s annual salary, whichever is greater. The program would be administered by the Human Resources Department while the Board of Supervisors would approve directives determining the types of incentives, awards, and bonuses, the exceptional services for which they may be granted, their amount, and selection criteria.
Board to hold public hearing on Barlow’s split parcel proposal
Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider whether to approve a proposal pushed by Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow that would change the way the county recognizes parcels split by dedicated right-of-ways on federal, state, and local roads.
The proposed amendment to county code would recognize tax parcels split by such right-of-ways as separate parcels, codify the process to recognize the split/non-contiguous parcels, and provide additional provisions for development.
Specifically, the proposed amendment would deem parcels separated by a dedicated right-of-way on a federal, state or local road as separate and individual parcels for taxation and development purposes subject to several conditions including the submission and recording of a plat with Louisa County identifying the parcels.
Barlow, a surveyor by trade, said at the board’s October 17 meeting that, prior to 2015, the county considered properties divided by such right of way strips as separate tax map parcels. But, since then, properties that straddle a road or highway have been considered “physically separated parcels but not legally separated.” In Barlow’s view, that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
“(Our interpretation says) that they are physically separated parcels but not legally separated. Everybody I’ve talked to said this makes no sense. I think our ordinance needs to reflect common sense,” he said.
At its November meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the change with the caveat that staff make “improvements” to the amendment’s language to ensure it complies with state law.
PC preview: Commission to hold public hearing on grass parking for event venues
The Louisa County Planning Commission will convene for a pair of meetings Thursday evening. Commissioners will hold a long-range planning work session at 5 pm. At publication time, no additional information was available about the work session. At 7 pm, they’ll hold their regular monthly meeting with one public hearing on tap. Check out the meeting highlights below.
Commission to hold public hearing on grass parking at event venues
The commission will hold a public hearing and consider an amendment to county code that would empower the Zoning Administrator to permit the use of grass parking, on a case-by-case basis, at special occasion facilities or venues used for special events. Currently, code requires the use of gravel, stone, asphalt or concrete parking and only allows the use of grass parking via a special exception approved by the Board of Supervisors.
When reviewing a special exception request earlier this year, several supervisors wondered why the county didn’t allow grass parking at event venues in agricultural zoning, noting it could help maintain the area’s rural character. The board ultimately decided to send the issue to the Planning Commission for review.
The proposed amendment requires property owners wishing to use grass parking to submit a grass parking plan, schedule annual visits with staff during the first three years of operation of all approved grass parking locations, and prepare a photo report for the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission on the conditions found during these visits.
Other business: The commission’s agenda includes a discussion of its bylaws, which are typically reviewed annually prior to adoption each January.
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.