This week in county government; Supes pull bond referendum for sports fields, approve new regulations for utility-scale solar development; PC to consider solar site, rezoning for greenhouse
This week in county government; Supes pull bond referendum for sports fields, approve new regulations for utility-scale solar development; PC to consider solar site, rezoning for greenhouse
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 8 through August 13
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.
Tuesday, August 9
Louisa County Board of Supervisors Finance Committee, Administrative Conference Room, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 9 am.
Wednesday, August 10
James River Water Authority, Fluvanna County Public Library, 214 Commons Blvd., Fluvanna, 9 am. At publication time, an agenda was not publicly available.
Louisa County Water Authority, Public Meeting Room, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. At publication time, an agenda was not publicly available.
Thursday, August 11
Louisa County Planning Commission, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
Other public meetings:
Monday, August 8
Mineral Town Council, 312 Mineral Ave., Mineral, 7 pm. (agenda)
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 decide against moving forward with bond referendum for sports fields
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors opted not to move forward with a referendum that could’ve empowered the county to issue up to $15 million in bonds to fund constructions of new and improved sports facilities on county-owned property and property owned by Louisa County Public Schools. (meeting materials, video)
At the request of Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, the board removed from last Monday’s agenda an action item to finalize language for the referendum and to approve a petition to Louisa County Circuit Court asking for its inclusion on the ballot for the November 8 general election. Board members instead suggested they’d consider a pared down proposal to improve several fields at the schools through the normal budget process.
Williams moved to sideline the referendum just ahead of a mid-August deadline to secure a judge’s permission to place it on November’s ballot. He cited a lack of “clarity” surrounding the proposal as the reason for his request.
“I felt like we need to provide some clarity before we stuck a $16 million referendum out there,” he said.
As proposed, the referendum would’ve sought voters’ permission to issue a maximum of $15 million in bonds to pay for improvements to existing athletics facilities and construction and development of new facilities on county and school property, explicitly excluding the use of county-owned land off Route 15 just north of Zion Crossroads that’s home to ultra-deep wells that provide water to the area. The referendum would’ve also prohibited the use of real estate tax revenue to pay off the bonds.
In public discussions over the last several months, county officials’ vision for the project shifted and they never offered a detailed final plan for how many fields they intended to build, what form they’d take, and where they’d be located. They offered only limited insight into their plans for improvements: a conceptual sketch showing turf surfaces on multiple fields at the Louisa County High School/Middle School complex. Officials didn’t have any in-depth public discussion about which revenue streams they’d tap to pay off the bonds in lieu of using real estate taxes, one of the county’s largest funding sources.
With a referendum off the table, Williams said he’s willing to explore more limited upgrades via the annual budget process. The board instructed county staff to work with Superintendent of Schools Doug Straley, Athletics Director George Stanley, and the School Board on potential improvements to fields at the schools, to be funded through the county’s Capital Improvement Program. Board Chair Duane Adams specifically suggested upgrading the field in Louisa County High School’s football stadium and two grass fields located behind the middle school, which are regularly used by youth sports leagues. The latter fields lack lights and, according to some residents, are in poor condition.
Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes, who championed the referendum, continued to argue that the county is in dire need of turf and lighted fields to accommodate both scholastic athletes and other youth sports. He said turf surfaces don’t require regular maintenance or watering and Louisa is one of few counties in the area that lack the facilities.
Barnes indicated that he’s comfortable moving forward with “a more conservative concept” that could upgrade several existing fields to turf and acknowledged that his push for a multi-million bond referendum may have been “too fast.”
Since it was first publicly discussed earlier this year, the proposed referendum sparked debate among county residents and supervisors. County officials initially proposed an up to $16.5 million bond referendum to fund construction of a multi-field sports complex, a field house at the high school, and upgrades to existing fields.
Barnes and Parks and Recreation Director James Smith presented the sports complex as a potential opportunity for economic development, floating the idea of siting it near Zion Crossroads in proximity to Interstate 64, a hotel, and restaurants. They suggested the complex could spark “sports tourism,” drawing out of town visitors to tournaments and other events who, in turn, spend money on food and lodging. The complex, they said, would also serve the needs of local youth who lack adequate facilities.
But the only potential location that the county initially disclosed for the project—the wells’ property located in the Green Springs National Historic Landmark District—met strong opposition from neighbors in the historic district and other residents. They questioned the viability of the complex as a vehicle for economic development and argued that placing new sports fields at the county’s western edge wouldn’t benefit most local youth. Several residents said they’d support upgrades at the schools but not a sports complex at Zion aimed at drawing sports tourists.
Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones also pushed back on potentially siting the project in the historic district and asked for more transparency in the search for potential locations. And several supervisors suggested they weren’t comfortable lumping multiple projects into one referendum, arguing voters should be given a clear choice on what they want to fund.
After hearing that feedback, Barnes and Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry, who compose the sports complex work group, told the board at its June 21 meeting that they were shifting their focus to upgrading and expanding facilities at the high school/middle school complex and potentially elementary schools. But, with the clock ticking to place the referendum on the ballot, they never offered a detailed proposal to pitch to voters or their colleagues.
Board approves new regulations for utility-scale solar development
At its August 1 meeting, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors approved new regulations for utility-scale solar development aimed at both protecting the county’s rural character and maximizing the economic benefits of large-scale solar generation.
The regulations cap the amount of land in the county that can be used for utility-scale solar production, limit where solar facilities can be constructed, beef up buffer requirements, toughen erosion and sediment control measures, and require developers to negotiate deals with the county that can include financial compensation. But the amended ordinance doesn’t include a controversial floor on solar facilities’ megawatt production that would’ve prohibited the approval of smaller sites.
“Do I think (the amended ordinance) answers everybody’s concerns and makes everybody happy? Probably not. Do I think it’s a step in the right direction that still makes Louisa County receptive to solar projects, that still protects the property owners’ rights, that still protects the environment, that still protects the rural nature of the county? I think it does,” Board Chair and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said just before voting in support of the amendments.
Supervisors voted 6-0 to approve the revised ordinance. Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry was absent.
Amid growing concerns that vast solar arrays are threat to the county’s rural character and fallout from construction of Dominion’s Belcher Solar Facility off Waldrop Church Road where stormwater runoff has caused significant damage to neighboring farms, supervisors formed a solar committee last fall tasked with recommending changes to the county’s previous solar ordinance, drafted in February 2021 as part of a larger rewrite of the zoning code.
The committee, composed of Adams and Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes, spent months researching best practices adopted in other localities, reflecting on Louisa County’s own experience with solar development, and gathering feedback from stakeholders before presenting a report last December that formed the basis for the new regulations. Louisa and other localities in central and Southside Virginia have become hotbeds for solar development, particularly since the General Assembly passed the Virginia Clean Economy Act in 2020, landmark legislation that seeks to decarbonize the state's electric sector by 2050.
With an eye toward protecting the county’s “rural ambiance and its agricultural and forestal lands,” a goal explicitly stated in the revamped ordinance, the new regulations cap the acreage that can be used for large-scale solar generation to no more than three percent of the county’s land or about 9,800 acres. The county has already approved seven utility-scale solar sites, covering more than 5,000 acres.
But supervisors removed a companion provision that would’ve prohibited the approval of solar facilities that produce less than 151 MW of power. That amendment was originally included to maximize the tax revenue the county receives from solar generation—projects subject to a locality’s machinery and tools tax that produce 150 MW or less initially receive an 80 percent tax break, per state law, while projects that produce more than 150 MW receive no tax break—and to limit the proliferation of solar sites. Since solar facilities that produce more than 150 megawatts require hundreds of acres of land, a 9,800-acre cap and a 151 MW floor would’ve likely meant only two or three more solar facilities could be built in the county.
Supervisors replaced the floor on megawatt production with a stipulation that future utility-scale solar projects require siting agreements, essentially deals solar developers negotiate with localities that, under Virginia law, can include financial compensation for capital needs, broadband deployment, and to mitigate the impact of solar production.
Adams said that, when compared to the machinery and tools tax, the agreements offer the county more flexibility in maximizing financial benefits from solar generation. He also suggested that county officials should look at each project’s individual merits instead of opting for a blanket policy that excludes smaller sites.
Perhaps the most controversial component of the proposed ordinance, the floor on megawatt production sparked pushback from solar developers and landowners who complained that excluding smaller sites infringed on property rights and could prohibit the use of land ideally suited for solar generation. Of the four people who spoke during Monday’s public hearing, three urged the board to remove the megawatt floor.
Bill Ochs, a Green Springs District resident, called the provision “unduly punitive to those who want to implement a small facility.”
Aside from the acreage cap and siting agreement provision, the new rules enact specific siting requirements for future projects, encouraging their construction within a mile of high-voltage transmission and distribution lines, doubling the required vegetative buffer around the sites from 150 to 300 feet, and prohibiting the facilities in residential and industrial zoning in growth areas overlay districts.
Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams expressed some concerns about the buffer requirement, particularly because the board opted to allow smaller sites. He pointed to a long, narrow parcel targeted for solar generation in his district that’s adjacent to railroad tracks, arguing that a 300-foot buffer seemed unnecessary and infeasible.
County staff said that the ordinance sets a standard for buffering but also includes a provision allowing the board to waive or modify that requirement based on individual circumstances. The goal of the buffer, staff said, is to adequately screen projects and, if a view shed analysis demonstrates that hiding the site from view can be achieved with less than a 300-foot buffer, officials have the flexibility to make that call.
“The biggest concern our residents have always had is the view shed and that buffer has always been a red line in the sand with me,” Adams said. “We’ve increased that buffer but we’ve put mechanisms in place that allow projects to be looked at on an individual basis.”
In response to concerns about significant runoff at the Belcher site, the amendments beef up erosion and sediment control measures. They require that developers implement a phased approach to site preparation and construction with no more than 100 acres cleared at a time, compel developers to pay a third-party engineer to monitor construction, and require a bond to ensure compliance with the Conditional Use Permit, among other regulations.
The rules also address battery storage facilities, a relatively new technology for Louisa County. Because the lithium-ion batteries pose a fire risk, the regulations require that applicants specify where they plan to locate storage, submit a detailed fire suppression plan that’s reviewed by the fire chief, and address both the threat of fire and the fiscal impact on county services for fighting fires.
The county’s current solar ordinance already requires developers to submit a decommissioning plan and a decommissioning bond. The amendments include a provision that prohibits developers from disposing of solar panels in Louisa County’s landfill and apply provisions that regulate construction to decommissioning.
BOS roundup: supes move ahead with request for through truck traffic restrictions
Supervisors considered a wide range of business during their lone August meeting, from green-lighting requests for through truck traffic restrictions on four county roads to approving a special exception to allow grass parking at a special event venue. Six of seven supervisors attended the meeting. Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry was absent. (meeting materials, video)
Board moves forward with request for through truck traffic restrictions on four county roads: Supervisors voted to formally request that the Virginia Department of Transportation bar through tractor-trailer traffic on four county roads and instead send trucks along two alternate routes. But the county is expected to face an uphill battle in securing state approval to implement the restrictions.
The board voted 6-0 to authorize through truck traffic restrictions on Chopping Road (Route 623), Chalklevel Road (Route 625), and Mansfield Road (Route 613), proposing to instead send tractor-trailers along Route 522 and Route 22 through the Town of Mineral. Supervisors also unanimously voted to place a restriction on Shannon Hill Road (Route 605), proposing that trucks instead travel on Interstate 64, and Routes 208 and 33.
The restrictions and proposed alternate routes next require public hearings in front of the Board of Supervisors, expected to take place at the board’s September 6 meeting, evaluation by VDOT staff, and approval from the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
Through truck traffic restrictions bar tractor-trailers that don’t originate from or have a destination along restricted routes from using them and truckers’ GPS programs flag the restrictions, so trucks aren’t directed to the roads. Localities requesting restrictions are required to propose a “reasonable” alternate route that’s engineered to a standard sufficient for truck traffic and doesn’t create undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination.
The board’s through truck traffic work group, including Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry, a former VDOT administrator, and impacted residents, recommended that the county request the restrictions for Chopping Road and Shannon Hill Road despite VDOT staff’s insistence that there isn’t sufficient crash data to justify barring trucks. County officials also opted to include Chalklevel and Mansfield Roads because they fear removing trucks from Chopping Road could push them to another secondary route ill-suited to handle them.
“At this time, VDOT is not amenable to (implementing these restrictions) based on the data they have collected,” Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said. “We are asking VDOT to be forward-looking, to be proactive instead of reactive.”
Chopping Road residents have repeatedly expressed concerns about tractor-trailer traffic on the narrow, 4-mile secondary road which connects Routes 22/208 and 522. They say that truckers’ GPS sends them down the road when they’re traveling from Interstate 95 to 64 because it’s a slightly shorter route than Route 522, a primary road designed to handle truck traffic. Residents contend that the road has grown increasingly dangerous in recent years, recounting how large trucks nearly run other vehicles off the road.
During public comment Monday night, Chopping Road resident David Rogers, a member of the county’s work group, thanked the board for standing up for his neighborhood and questioned VDOT’s interpretation of traffic conditions on the road.
“VDOT talks about data. I’ve been in the insurance business for 30 years. I know all about data and I know how it can be manipulated depending on who is using it and what purpose they want to use it for,” Rogers said, adding that VDOT is telling residents they must wait until someone is killed by a tractor-trailer before the department takes action.
Residents along Shannon Hill Road, a roughly 10-mile highway connecting Routes 33 and 250, have also raised concerns about tractor-trailer traffic, arguing that the road is frequented by cyclists and has grown more dangerous with continued development. Traffic safety along the road emerged as a key point of contention during the approval process for the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park, a 700-acre industrial site that the county is developing just off Interstate 64.
Mary Kranz, who lives near Shannon Hill Road and is also part of the county work group, echoed Rogers, applauding supervisors for going to bat for local interests.
“I’m glad you are standing up to VDOT. They have their interests and we have ours. We work together but this is a point where our concerns need to be expressed because they just don’t see it through our eyes,” she said.
Kranz questioned how VDOT evaluates data when considering through truck restrictions. She said the department recently implemented restrictions on five Hanover County roads near a planned Wegmans distribution center. At her request, Adams obtained the crash data and other information VDOT used to make its determination. While there were accidents on the roads, she said, they weren’t above the state average. She noted that Hanover residents seemed to be making similar arguments as residents in Louisa.
“(Hanover residents) seemed to be saying the same things that we are. These are rural roads that can’t take the truck traffic. There are accidents and people are constantly having to dodge trucks when they are trying to get their mail,” she said.
During a June meeting of the work group, VDOT staff heard from county officials and residents who shared their daily experiences on the roads. But the traffic engineers maintained that they don’t have the data to justify removing through trucks from either road while acknowledging that the county is free to move forward with restriction requests.
VDOT Engineer Troy Austin pointed to crash data from 2017 to 2021 showing that, of the 37 crashes on Chopping Road, only three involved trucks. Two of those were box trucks, Austin said, which aren’t likely to be impacted by a truck restriction. The third involved a tractor-trailer that ran off the road and into a field. Austin said that the accident appeared to be an issue with the road’s insufficient shoulders and suggested improvements, like widening the road and adding paved shoulders, that would make it safer for all vehicular traffic.
VDOT officials said there’s even less data to justify a restriction on Shannon Hill Road though they didn’t provide specific numbers. Austin said that while there were more accidents on Shannon Hill, few involved trucks. He also said the roadway is wider. VDOT staff pointed out that trucks traveling to a business park on Shannon Hill wouldn’t be classified as through traffic because they have a destination on the road.
Adams said that the issue facing Shannon Hill Road is two-fold: addressing truck traffic generated by the planned business park and dealing with current conditions. With respect to the business park, he said, the county intends to include a condition in permits for businesses that locate there, which stipulates that trucks can only access the park via Interstate 64.
As for dealing with current conditions, Adams said that county officials plan to invite VDOT’s commissioner and members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board to Louisa to look at the road. They plan to do the same for the other roads where restrictions are requested.
September’s public hearing will mark the second time in less than a year that the board has formally considered a truck restriction on Chopping Road. Supervisors held a public hearing last November to gather input about a restriction, proposing an alternate route that would’ve sent trucks down Route 522 through Mineral. The board tabled the issue amid pushback from members of Mineral Town Council, who opposed routing trucks through the town, citing their own safety concerns.
Assistant County Administrator Chris Coon noted Monday night that representatives from the town were invited to participate in the county’s work group but they never showed up to any of its meetings.
During the work group’s June meeting, Austin said that routing trucks through Mineral would require them to make a difficult turn on to Route 22. The proposed alternate route, he said, would require mitigation measures to make it suitable for increased truck traffic.
Board sends draft ordinance on zoning code violations to Planning Commission: Supervisors unanimously voted to request that the Planning Commission review a draft ordinance that could replace criminal penalties with civil ones for some violations of the county’s zoning code.
Under Virginia law, localities can adopt an ordinance establishing civil penalties for violations of specific provisions in the zoning code. But current county code only allows zoning violations to be prosecuted criminally. Violations constitute Class 3 misdemeanors and can result in a fine of up to $1,000.
Assistant County Attorney Kyle Eldridge presented the proposed ordinance to the Board Monday night. The draft lays out a schedule of civil penalties, the violations to which they would apply, and an enforcement process. Eldridge urged the board to consider adopting the ordinance, noting the difficulty county officials face resolving some code violations via criminal prosecution.
“If we don’t put something like this in place, future zoning and building code violations will be difficult to enforce if it’s possible at all,” he said.
Eldridge said that responding to zoning and land use violations with criminal charges presents several challenges: if a criminal case is dismissed, the county has no further recourse to remedy ongoing violations; the burden of proof for criminal violations is beyond a reasonable doubt; and criminal charges must be brought within one year of the date of discovery. Civil charges, on the other hand, provide more leeway, Eldridge said, including requiring a lower burden of proof based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
In a memo to the board, County Attorney Helen Phillips pointed to specific zoning cases that could benefit from a shift to civil penalties. In 2018, a citizen reported that a dock was constructed and expanded without a permit. Another citizen, in 2018, reported that a “house has black mold” and “the deck is about to fall in,” among other problems. To date, Phillips writes, there has been no enforcement of the building code and the cases remain open. In addition, she points out, there are other zoning and land regulation cases open from 2018 including sheds built without permits that violate setback regulations and homeowners operating businesses out of garages without permits.
If the county adopts the proposed ordinance, a zoning enforcement officer could issue a civil summons for a code violation, Eldridge explained. The summons would be adjudicated in General District Court where a judge could issue a fine and order the violation remedied.
Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams argued that there are grey areas in county code and, sometimes, residents and county officials have legitimate disagreements as to whether there’s a violation. He questioned the appropriateness of fining residents who go to court because they want “a neutral third party” to determine if they’re running afoul of county rules.
Phillips said that a judge would have the discretion to give residents time to fix a violation before ordering a fine.
County Administrator Christian Goodwin said that the decision before the board was only to send the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for its consideration and county officials would have ample opportunity to discuss its appropriateness and how it could be used by code enforcement staff. He suggested that bringing civil charges could be a “last resort” for residents who refuse to fix a zoning violation.
“We are very early in this process...how this would be laid out would be up to the board,” Goodwin said.
Board green-lights bank building renovations: Supervisors voted 6-0 to green-light extensive renovations to a recently purchased building in the Louisa County Industrial Air Park that formerly housed the headquarters of Virginia Community Bank. The building, located at 114 Industrial Drive, will serve as the future home of the county’s Human Services Department, currently housed in cramped quarters on MacDonald Street in the Town of Louisa.
The board authorized the county to utilize a Sourcewell contract with BlueScope Construction for up to $650,000 to cover initial construction costs and contingencies. That money will be drawn from $1.087 million that the board previously allocated for the renovations. Enhancements are expected to include new carpet, paint, LED lights, security improvements, a camera system, and layout changes to create a lobby, interview rooms, and public restrooms, among other upgrades.
The county recently contracted with BlueScope, via Sourcewell, to build the New Bridge Fire and EMS Station on Route 208. Sourcewell allows public entities to bypass traditional procurement procedures using a streamlined cooperative process. Loudin Building Systems, a Louisa-based company, is BlueScope’s primary subcontractor for both projects.
Supervisors approve special exception to allow grass parking at event venue: Supervisors voted 6-0 to approval a special exception to allow grass parking at a special event venue where Louisa County Land Development Regulations require gravel, stone, asphalt, or concrete parking areas.
Melody and Kenneth Bowers asked the county to permit grass parking on a 35-acre agriculturally zoned (A-2) parcel (tmp 61 8 D) adjacent to Tavern on the Rail restaurant in the Cuckoo Voting District. The applicant has owned the restaurant for 20 years and, in 2018, received a Conditional Use Permit to operate a special occasion facility to host weddings and other events on surrounding property.
Melody Bowers told supervisors Monday night that she requested permission for grass parking because she thinks it fits with the historic rural property, noting that she restored the old tavern that houses her restaurant and it’s now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. She also said that she wants to protect her land so it can potentially be used for agriculture again in the future.
Several supervisors wondered why the county mandates paved or gravel parking areas for special event venues in agricultural zoning. Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow said that he has friends who operate an agri-tourism business in Fauquier County and visitors park in a large field.
“They have thousands of people who come out from the city and they park in a field…in Louisa, we are requiring way more than Fauquier County with improved parking areas, which create more runoff and everything else,” Barlow said.
Community Development Director Josh Gillespie said the Planning Commission could review the requirement for improved parking areas at special occasion facilities in agricultural areas.
Board authorizes two supplemental appropriations: The board voted unanimously to authorize a $200,000 supplemental appropriation to the Fire and EMS Department to cover overtime costs incurred during the FY22 budget cycle. The resolution states that call volumes to FEMS increased during the last fiscal year requiring staff to work additional hours and the department to incur unanticipated overtime expenses. The county will draw the appropriation from its general fund.
The board also approved a $945,000 supplemental appropriation for Louisa County Public Schools, about $413,000 of which will be drawn from the American Rescue Plan’s Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Act. The other roughly $532,000 will come from state sources. The appropriation will cover a $1,000 bonus for LCPS faculty as approved in the state budget.
Board approves letter in support of Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation grant application: Supervisors approved submitting a letter in support of the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation’s request for $300,000 in state grant funding from the Virginia Department of Health’s SWAP Local Partners Program. The program assists residents with incomes at or below 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines in repairing or replacing wells and septic systems.
Planning Commission to consider solar site, rezoning for greenhouse
The Louisa County Planning Commission will convene for its August meeting Thursday night with five public hearings on the agenda.
Commission to consider IDA’s request to rezone 62 acres in Louisa Industrial Air Park: The Louisa County Industrial Development Authority filed a land use application in early July requesting to rezone, from Industrial General (I-2) to Agricultural (A-2), about 62 acres on the southern end of the Louisa County Industrial Air Park. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing Thursday night and consider whether to recommend the application’s approval.
The application, submitted to the county on July 7, offers limited details about the property’s potential use. In a brief description of the request, Economic Development Director Andy Wade states that the IDA seeks to rezone the property (tax map parcel 41-191) “to accommodate an agricultural operations business engaged in year-round production of crops.” A letter from County Building Inspector John Grubbs indicates the operation will include a greenhouse and accessory buildings for packaging and distribution.
Wade notes that the parcel is served by public water and sewer as well as natural gas, all of which are required by the end user, and that crop production is a by-right use for A-2 property per Louisa County Land Development Regulations. He said that the project’s primary water source would be rainwater and stormwater collected in a harvesting pond. The Louisa County Water Authority submitted an email stating that it has adequate water to service the project.
Access to the site would be off School Bus Road (Route 767) with no more than five commercial trucks expected to visit the property each day, according to Wade. VDOT has approved the site’s proposed entrance, Wade said, and the IDA has agreed to incorporate signs directing commercial truck traffic to the new intersection at Route 22 and School Bus Road. Traffic has emerged as a key concern for some county officials during previous rezoning and Conditional Use Permit requests for property located between the Towns of Louisa and Mineral as the area frequently experiences congestion during peak travel times.
The IDA has agreed to proffer a 50-foot-wide vegetative buffer comprised of mixed evergreens, a minimum 75-foot setback from non-Industrial Development Authority-owned property, and a 50-foot setback from Industrial Development Authority-owned property.
Wade doesn’t offer details about how many people the greenhouse would employ but notes that the project “presents an opportunity to enhance the horticulture programs offered in the Career and Technical Education programs” in Louisa County Public Schools.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning “as it supports economic diversity and agricultural business development in the county.”
Planners to consider Conditional Use Permit for 15.6 MW utility-scale solar site: Commissioners will hold a public hearing and consider whether to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of what could be the county’s eighth utility-scale solar site.
Pine Gate Renewables, via Turkey Solar LLC, applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an up to 15.6 MW solar array on 101 acres of a 241-acre site off Kloeckner Road in the Green Springs Voting District. The project area includes seven parcels (tax map parcels 9-16, 9-20, 9-4, 9-19, 9-49, 9-96, and 9-53), one of which was formerly home to a turkey farm. Much of the property is owned by Herndon Land Company. Lumberton Solar LLC and Linwood Lawrence each own one parcel.
Pine Gate submitted its application prior to the Louisa County Board of Supervisors’ approval of new regulations for utility-scale solar development. As such, the developer’s proposal is based on the county’s previous standards.
In its report, Louisa County Community Development staff states that the property, located about two miles south of Gordonsville and surrounded by parcels zoned agricultural, residential, and industrial, has been primarily used for farming and forestry in recent years. From 1995 until 2020, a portion of the land was home a commercial poultry operation. Currently, about 50 acres are planted in green sorghum.
Pine Gate proposes to build a solar array covering less than half of the 241-acre project site. Staff states that the site includes numerous wetlands and streams as well as areas that exceed 10 percent in slope, noting that “extreme care needs to be taken to protect these environmentally sensitive areas and the downstream properties they connect to.”
Construction at the site could begin as soon as late 2025 and last about a year. During construction, trucks would access the facility off Kloeckner Road. The solar array would connect to Dominion Energy’s electric grid via a nearby distribution line.
Pine Gate hired Mangum Economics to prepare an economic and fiscal analysis for the project. Mangum’s report suggests that, over its 40-year lifespan, the facility would contribute approximately $1.22 million to county coffers under the machinery and tools tax or $1.57 million under a revenue share agreement.
Public hearing on request to rezone parcel from Resort Development to Agricultural: The Commission will hear public comment and consider whether to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of a request to rezone 18.9 acres from Resort Development (RD) to Agricultural (A-2) for the purpose of utilizing and completing a family subdivision.
William E. Small III asked the county to rezone the property (tmp 38-23-11), which is adjacent to Small Country Campground on Byrd Mill Road in the Patrick Henry Voting District. Small sold the campground, per staff’s report, but retained one parcel where his daughter hopes to build a single-family residence. The Smalls plan to divide the property via the county’s family subdivision process. Per Louisa County Land Development Regulations, family subdivisions aren’t permitted in RD zoning. In addition, the applicant would like to remove proffered conditions for the Small Country Campground RD that are attached to the property.
Staff recommends approval of the request, noting that it conforms with the county’s goal of rural preservation and, under current conditions, “would limit the Small County Campground Resort Development district from future expansion.”
PC to consider rezoning commercial property for residential use: Planners will hear public comment and consider whether to recommend that the Board of Supervisors green-light a request to rezone a 1.135-acre parcel (tmp 15E-1-A2) on the shores of Lake Anna from Commercial (C-2) to Residential (R-2). The applicant also requests 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. The property, owned by Gene and Sharon Hile, is located on the west side of Route 522 across from Tim’s at the Lake restaurant.
According to their land use application, the Hiles purchased the property “with the understanding that (it) was residential and commercial split zoned and could be utilized for a home.” They note that much of the adjacent property on the west side of 522 is residential while commercial activity is located on the east side of the highway. (A staff report on the rezoning request was not included in the meeting materials posted on Louisa County’s website at publication time).
Public hearing on CUP to allow a residence to exceed height limit: Planners will consider 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.
Gary Decker requested 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. Decker submitted letters from two adjoining property owners who support his request.
In its report, staff states that “the building height dimension was not stated on the permitted building plans” and “the building inspector noted the extraordinary height in the field after construction.” Since the dwelling is nearly complete, staff recommends approval of the CUP with several conditions including that the home doesn’t exceed 46 feet, 8 inches.
Staff notes that the county is “amending the application form for building permits to ensure heights are stated on applications, and that elevation drawings show the dimension to review during plan checking.”
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.