Engage Louisa is a nonpartisan newsletter that keeps folks informed about Louisa County government. We believe our community is stronger and our government serves us better when we increase transparency, accessibility, and engagement.
For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.
Tuesday, July 14
Airport Advisory Committee, 335 Industrial Drive, Louisa, 10 am.
Wednesday, July 15
Community Policy Management Team, Executive Boardroom, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.
Board of Zoning Appeals, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm.
Thursday, July 16
Industrial Development Authority, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 8:30 am.
“I know that the churches simply want to open their doors for a few homeless people to spend the night in cold weather. I also know that there are fears around homeless people and, possibly, some well-founded fears. My hope is that, as a community, we don’t give in to fears, but we also don’t discount those fears.”
-Mary Kranz, during a public hearing on proposed regulations for humanitarian shelters. Kranz’s church has temporarily housed homeless people in the winter, and she urged the board of supervisors not to overregulate the use. Read more in the article below.
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night convened for their lone July meeting. Here’s a recap. (meeting materials, video)
Supes choose not to move forward with sales tax referendum
The board of supervisors won’t move forward with a plan to ask voters for permission to add a penny to the 5.3-cent sales and use tax to fund construction of the county’s fifth elementary school—at least not this year.
Supervisors on Monday night were poised to consider a resolution asking Louisa County Circuit Court to place the referendum on the ballot for the November 3 General Election after the General Assembly gave every county and city in the state the power to hike the sales tax by up to one percent to pay for school capital projects so long as voters back the move at the ballot box. The authorization was included in a last-minute state budget deal approved in late June.
But Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, a member of the board’s Finance Committee, moved to amend the advertised agenda at the start of the meeting, removing the resolution. The board subsequently voted 7-0 to adopt the amended agenda without comment.
Following a June 30 Finance Committee meeting, Williams and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, who also serves on the committee, initially recommended that the board move forward with the referendum, before reversing course.
In a brief interview after Monday’s meeting, Williams said that, after giving it some thought, he doesn’t think it’s the right time to pose the question to voters, noting it could be a contentious issue, and he doesn’t want to divide the county.
“I don’t think the county is ready for it right now. I think there’s a lot of controversial stuff going on. I just think it’s going to cause too much of a stir,” Williams said. He didn’t specify what “controversial stuff” he was referring to, but many residents have expressed frustrations with ongoing data center development, which the board has overwhelmingly supported.
Adams suggested the late-arriving state budget had complicated matters, giving localities a tight window to decide whether to pursue the referendum this year. Ultimately, he said, the committee opted not to recommend moving forward with the measure for now.
“This is a process that shouldn’t be rushed. It shouldn’t be rushed by the Finance Committee. It shouldn’t be rushed by the board, and it shouldn’t be rushed onto the voters. [We can] step back and look at it in the future. It won’t happen this year,” Adams said.
Lawmakers in Richmond finalized the budget on June 29, giving localities about six weeks to decide whether to place the referendum on November’s ballot and clear the hurdles to make that happen. Per state law, local courts must green-light referendums at least 81 days before Election Day. This year, the deadline falls on August 14.
As school enrollment climbs, the county is preparing to build a new elementary school, which is expected to cost at least $55 million. The board included $3 million in last year’s budget to begin planning for the school and has tentatively allotted $52 million in the Fiscal Year 2028 capital budget for construction.
County officials have repeatedly said that anticipated revenue from data centers, mostly generated by real estate and business personal property taxes, will likely allow the county to pay for large capital projects in cash, including the school.
By increasing the sales tax, the county could’ve harnessed a new revenue source to fund the school, freeing up real estate and personal property taxes for other priorities, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon suggested in a memo to the board. Coon also noted that visitors and commuters would be subject to the sales tax, not just residents.
It’s unclear how much revenue the tax would’ve generated annually. The county is expected to pull in nearly $8 million from its one percent share of the state’s sales tax this fiscal year, inclusive of the tax on groceries. But, per state law, the additional sales tax doesn’t apply to “foods for human consumption,” essential personal hygiene products or prescription drugs. State law also requires the tax to have a specific sunset date.
While Williams said he hadn’t heard from constituents concerned about the referendum, some community members spoke out against the measure on social media prior to Monday’s meeting.
In an early July Facebook post, Mineral District resident Chris Liles expressed exasperation with the proposed referendum, pointing to supervisors’ insistence that they’d brought lucrative economic development to the county—specifically a trio of large data center campuses—that would provide millions of dollars in revenue to pay for schools and other services.
“Wait. I am so confused...weren’t data center tax revenues supposed to solve all Louisa County funding [issues] for the next 50+ years? And our leaders are already asking for a ballot referendum to tax ourselves,” Liles said.
Liles attended Monday’s meeting and, during public comment, thanked the board for pulling the resolution.
“[You] apparently came to the conclusion that this isn’t such a good idea, considering all the potential tax revenue that may be coming in. The county doesn’t need another avenue to stick their hands down into the pocket of the citizens,” Liles said.
After lengthy public hearing, supes table action on CUP requirements for humanitarian shelters
Following a public hearing that stretched nearly two hours, the board of supervisors tabled action on proposed amendments to county code that would require churches and other entities, regardless of their zoning, to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) to provide temporary overnight shelter to homeless community members and others in need of a place to stay.
Nearly a dozen people spoke during the public hearing—some engaging in direct dialogue with the board. They urged supervisors to allow churches to open their doors to unhoused community members, at least under some circumstances, sans a public approval process.
A few speakers said that churches have an obligation to minister to the most vulnerable in the community and that government shouldn’t interfere. Others, including representatives of the Louisa Homeless Coalition (LHC), emphasized that a few churches are already providing overnight shelter during winter and the use hasn’t been disruptive.
A couple board members suggested they’re conflicted about how far the county should go in regulating churches, but noted they’re also obligated to protect the surrounding community.
“How do we find that happy medium that doesn’t impede the church’s ability to fulfill its mission and how do we make sure that the neighborhood and the community stays safe,” Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said.
Supervisors ultimately opted to delay action until their August meeting, allowing staff time to consider community members’ concerns and potentially craft a different path forward.
The proposal
The public hearing came nearly a year after the planning commission recommended requiring a CUP for churches, or any other entity, looking to provide overnight shelter regardless of zoning.
Commissioners for months had grappled with how to define “homeless shelter” in county code and what restrictions to place on the use. The discussion was sparked after advocates with LHC asked county officials to loosen a provision in current code that requires a CUP to operate a homeless shelter in some zoning designations, including A-2 zoning, which is home to most of the county’s churches. Code currently calls a homeless shelter an “emergency shelter.”
LHC pushed for the change in hopes of launching a program modeled after People and Congregations Engaged in Ministry (PACEM) in Charlottesville, where a rotating group of churches offer overnight shelter to unhoused community members during the coldest months of the year.
LHC ran a pilot program for a few weeks during the last two winters, but volunteers said their efforts were hampered by the county’s CUP requirement, noting that they couldn’t broadly advertise their services and ran into trouble recruiting churches because they feared running afoul of county code. The coalition requested that the county carve out churches from the permit requirement—at least during cold weather.
The commission instead recommended amendments that tightly regulate overnight shelters regardless of who’s pursuing the use.
The proposed amendments would remove the definition of “emergency shelter” from code, replace it with a definition for “humanitarian shelter,” which county staff says is more inclusive, and permit the use with a CUP across the county.
Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said during Monday’s meeting that the draft amendments broaden who can benefit from shelters and where they’re permitted, noting the CUP requirement for humanitarian shelters would apply county-wide while emergency shelters are prohibited in some zoning designations.
The draft ordinance defines a humanitarian shelter, in part, as “a facility that provides temporary shelter and basic services to individuals or families without requiring leases or occupancy agreements.”
To obtain and retain a CUP, churches and other entities would be required to have an authorized representative on site whenever the shelter is operating; provide written documents detailing intake and screening policies and procedures; provide information about any partnerships with providers of supportive services like mental health care and substance abuse services; provide a narrative explaining how they’d avoid “adverse impacts on surrounding properties and uses;” and provide a point of contact to respond to community concerns, among other requirements.
The proposal would generally allow a humanitarian shelter only as an accessory or ancillary use but wouldn’t explicitly prohibit standalone shelters. The draft states that standalone facilities “may raise additional considerations and should be discussed with staff during the application process.”
The proposed ordinance includes one significant change from the draft recommended by the planning commission: it would allow churches and non-profits to provide overnight shelter, sans a CUP, during a state or locally declared state of emergency. States of emergency are typically called due to the threat of severe weather or in the aftermath of a severe storm or catastrophic event.
Concerns about the CUP requirement
During the public hearing, volunteers with the coalition and representatives of a few churches argued against the CUP requirement with some suggesting that government is stymying churches’ ability to carry out their mission.
The CUP process, which is free to churches, can take several months. It requires two public hearings and an affirmative vote by the board of supervisors, meaning a majority can reject the request.
Lin Kogle, an LHC volunteer, said the organization has run a pilot shelter program at a few churches during the last two winters and already has processes and safety protocols in place, modeled after PACEM’s program. Kogle contended that the CUP process is an unnecessary hurdle and wondered why it’s okay for churches to provide overnight shelter, without a CUP, in some situations but not others.
“If you can trust the churches to act in a state of emergency without a CUP…why require it for other times?” Kogle asked. “If temperatures fall below 30 degrees, and there’s no state of emergency, are those homeless people not going to freeze?”
Mary Kranz, whose church participated in the pilot program, emphasized that volunteers are trying to accomplish a simple mission—providing a handful of folks a place to stay in cold weather. She argued that the CUP requirement is “overkill.”
Kranz said the coalition has taken steps to address community concerns, including providing volunteers with specialized training and having a paid staffer on-site when a church is used as a shelter. Coalition members also emphasized that they work closely with the Louisa County Sheriff’s Office; have a transportation plan in place that relies on volunteers, not county-funded services; and their program only serves community members in Louisa. They said that they pay for families to stay at the Loyalty Inn, a motel in the Town of Louisa, and don’t rely on church-based shelters for children.
“I know that the churches simply want to open their doors for a few homeless people to spend the night in cold weather. I also know that there are fears around homeless people and, possibly, some well-founded fears. My hope is that, as a community, we don’t give in to fears, but we also don’t discount those fears,” Kranz said, suggesting there could potentially be a compromise that limits the number of people churches can house and how often the establishments operate as shelters.
Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams suggested that some speakers seemed to fear the CUP process, which, he insisted, is straightforward and designed to protect the interests of everyone in the community.
“I would like to understand what [the] concerns are with the CUP process, understanding that we just put Zion [United Methodist] Church through one for a farmers’ market in 74 days at no cost to them. Our staff worked with them to get that accomplished,” Williams said.
David McWilliams, pastor at Zion Methodist Church, said that his concerns with the CUP process mostly centers on the fact that, on any given night, four supervisors can reject a request no matter the quality of the application.
“The CUP process is a subjective tool. It’s based on the opinions of seven people…It doesn’t matter how well-written [the request] is, if I don’t have your approval, [it can’t move forward],” McWilliams said. “What I’m hoping that we can accomplish is to create an objective approach. Consult with experts in the field, some of whom are in the room.”
McWilliams also noted that the process is “time-restricted,” meaning churches might be prevented from offering services when they’re needed. He acknowledged that his church cleared the CUP process for its farmers’ market rather quickly, but suggested that’s different than the hurdles a homeless shelter might encounter.
Supervisors ultimately opted to hold off on action until next month, instructing staff to work with the coalition to potentially establish guardrails for the use outside of the CUP process though they didn’t dismiss the possibility of adopting the current draft.
Other business
Board oks MOUs with youth sports leagues: The board voted 6-1 to approve Memoranda of Understanding with the Louisa Youth Athletic Association (LYAA), the county’s lone tackle youth football league, and the Louisa Area Soccer Association (LASA), which will govern their use of a pair of new turf fields behind Louisa County Middle School as well as their use of the county’s grass fields. Under the agreements, the leagues will pay $625 per season to use the fields for a set number of practices and game days, including 20 practice days and four game days on the turf. LYAA plays football in the fall while LASA has spring and fall soccer seasons. To gain additional access to the fields, the leagues will be charged per use. They’ll have the option to reduce their fees by partnering with the Parks and Rec Department for clinics, tournaments and other community events. Both LASA and LYAA had expressed concerns about fees county officials initially proposed for use of the turf, prompting supervisors to direct staff to work with the leagues to negotiate the MOUs. Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow voted against the agreements. (LASA MOU, LYAA MOU)
Board approves fee schedules, policies for use of parks and rec facilities: Supervisors voted 7-0 to approve rules, regulations and fee schedules for use of sports fields and other facilities owned by Louisa County and Louisa County Public Schools and available for rent through the county’s Parks and Recreation Department. The revised fee schedules include rental rates for residents and nonresidents for everything from the new turf fields behind the middle school and the county’s grass fields to park pavilions and meeting space at the Betty Queen Center. They also stipulate minimum insurance requirements. In keeping with current policy, county employees and qualifying community-based organizations are eligible for a 50 percent discount on rental fees for all facilities except the pavilions. (fee schedules and rules)
Board oks $1.355 million budget supplement, mostly for pay hikes for county, school employees: Supervisors voted 7-0 to approve a $1.355 million budget supplement, mostly to pay for raises for county and school employees. The supplement allows the county to match pay hikes in the biennial state budget, including a four percent raise for school staff and a three and a half percent pay bump for state-supported county employees. The county’s budget, approved in April, featured slightly slimmer three percent raises for both school and county staff. With the appropriation, the county will fund four percent raises for LCPS faculty and support staff and three and a half percent pay hikes for county employees regardless of whether their salaries are subsidized by the state.
Supes expand AFDs: Supervisors on Monday night held public hearings and voted unanimously to expand four of the county’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD) by a combined 520 acres. The board’s action adds 85.09 acres to the Cuckoo AFD in southeastern Louisa; expands the Green Springs AFD in western Louisa by 93 acres; and tacks on 284 acres and 57.9 acres, respectively, to the Gold Mine Creek and Ellisville AFDs in the northwestern part of the county.
Supes green-light General Services Dept. capital projects: Supervisors voted 7-0 to green-light $4.43 million worth of capital projects requested by the General Services Department. Funding for the projects was allocated in the Fiscal Year 2027 capital budget. Most notably, the projects include a roughly $2 million expansion of the Louisa County Animal Shelter; $867,000 for a maintenance shop for the Parks and Rec Department’s grounds crew; and $400,000 for parking lot repairs at the County Office Building.
The planning commission on Thursday night held a pair of meetings: a 5 pm work session and a regular monthly meeting at 7 pm. Here’s a recap. (work session materials, video) (regular meeting materials, video)
Commission delves into proposed transfer of development rights program
Over the last few months, the planning commission has pitched sweeping changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth, especially outside the county’s designated growth areas, preserving agricultural land and protecting the community’s rural character.
To accomplish those goals, commissioners and county staff have floated sharply limiting landowners’ ability to divide and subdivide agriculturally zoned (A-1, A-2) land outside of growth areas. Their ideas include upping, from 1.5 acres to 15, the minimum acreage required to create a new lot and increasing road frontage requirements, from 200-300 feet to 450 feet.
These restrictions would limit how many times some parcels could be cut up for residential development. Under current county code, for example, a 30-acre parcel with 2,000 feet of road frontage that’s zoned A-2 can be divided into seven pieces, paving the way for seven new homes. But under the proposed changes, that same parcel could only be split into two pieces.
Staff has argued that the measures would curb residential development in agricultural areas, where more than half the new homes in the county are currently being constructed, and slow the fragmentation of farmland—the slicing up of large tracts into smaller pieces, which imperils large-scale farming operations.
The commission is also considering dramatically increasing setback requirements for new homes on both new and existing lots, from 50-60 feet to 250, with the idea of pushing homes farther off the road. Staff and commissioners say the move would help preserve viewsheds and the community’s rural character.
Changes to the zoning code would act as a stick for rural preservation—essentially government would limit property rights that landowners currently have. The commission has also talked about offering carrots by incentivizing preservation and allowing landowners to realize economic value in ways other than selling rural land for development.
At their work session on Thursday, the commission delved deeper into two potential preservation initiatives, which they’ve touched on at previous meetings: a termed purchase of development rights (PDR) program in which landowners voluntarily pause development on their property for a set period and, in return, receive cash compensation from the county; and a transfer of development rights (TDR) initiative, which allows landowners in agricultural areas to sell their division rights to folks developing property in growth areas.
Here’s a closer look at how a TDR program could work. Check out next week’s edition of Engage Louisa for a deeper dive into the termed PDR initiative.
Transfer of development rights
The transfer of development rights program would take a market-centered approach in which landowners with property in agricultural areas could sell their division rights to developers pursuing projects in growth areas, essentially limiting future development on the rural parcel while directing growth where the county prefers it.
“Instead of eliminating the development entirely, the program just pushes to relocate future development areas where infrastructure and public services exist,” Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said in a presentation to the commission. By concentrating development in growth areas, county officials say, they’d curb residential sprawl and enable services to be delivered more efficiently.
While county officials have touted the TDR program as both a voluntary and market-based approach to land preservation, local government would play a key role in creating, maintaining and regulating the market. And government’s ability to fulfill those functions would likely determine if the program’s successful.
To set up the market, the county would follow provisions laid out in state code, establishing sending zones, where transferrable development rights could be sold or retired, and receiving zones, where developers could buy them. The former would include property in rural areas, A-1 and A-2 zoned land outside of growth areas, and the latter would take in land in growth areas, including parcels zoned agricultural, residential (R-1, R-2) and Planned Unit Developments (PUD).
Property owners with land in a sending zone who want to sell one or multiple by-right divisions would be required to notify the county, Coon said, as state code requires the locality to track and verify TDRs offered for sale. The development rights, along with the owner’s contact information, would be put on a list that’s provided to developers looking to buy TDRs. Once a TDR is sold, it couldn’t be regained in the future regardless of whether the county’s zoning code changed.
“That specific mechanism is what preserves a parcel forever,” Coon said.
In Virginia, TDR sales occur in parcel-to-parcel transactions. That is, government doesn’t buy them then sell them to developers, and individuals aren’t permitted to acquire them and sell them later. The property owner with land possessing a TDR sells it directly to a developer planning to use it.
Developers building houses on agriculturally zoned property in a growth area could double its by-right development capacity via the TDR program, Coon explained. The acquisition of one division right from a sending zone parcel would be good for one additional division in the receiving zone.
Under current A-2 zoning, for example, property can generally be divided into seven pieces, provided the parcels meet certain requirements. If a landowner sold a development right on a sending zone parcel, it would reduce its by-right development potential to six while increasing it by one on the receiving parcel. If a developer bought seven division rights for a receiving zone parcel, they could build 14 houses, instead of seven. The county proposes keeping the minimum lot size at 1.5 acres for agriculturally zoned property (A-1, A-2) in growth areas.
For residentially zoned property (R-1, R-2) inside growth areas, the commission is considering upping the minimum lot size for residential development from 1.5 acres to 2.5 acres. Via the TDR program, developers could acquire division rights, which would allow them to lower the minimum to 1.5 acres for parcels reliant on wells and septic systems, and to 40,000 square feet, or just under an acre, where public utilities are available. Each retired division right from a sending parcel would allow one additional dwelling unit over what’s allowed by-right on the receiving parcel, up to a 100 percent increase.
For Planned Unit Developments (PUD), generally dense, mixed-use projects, the commission is considering dramatically lowering by-right density, from 10 dwelling units per acre (DUA) to just .75 with the possibility of raising it to 1.25 DUA via the TDR program and 1.75 DUA via a combination of TDRs and the incorporation of community benefits identified by the county like workforce housing or infrastructure improvements. But Coon said that the density thresholds could be increased to make the program more feasible.
Coon said that lowering how much residential density is permitted by-right in designated growth areas—but not by so much that development isn’t profitable—is necessary to facilitate the TDR program. He acknowledged that the program has found little success elsewhere in the state, but argued that’s, in part, because localities implementing the initiative didn’t adjust their by-right density in growth areas to compel developers to buy TDRs. In other instances, he said, localities didn’t have appropriate growth areas where developers could use transferrable rights.
“If we [lower] the density, it puts a little more pressure on people who want to develop in Louisa County and make a profit. It makes the TDRs look more advantageous and helps spur that market,” Coon said.
Changes to the zoning code in the county’s rural areas—specifically increases in the minimum lot size and road frontage requirements designed to slow new parcel creation—are also key to creating a TDR market.
Coon said division rights available for sale as a TDR would be based on the divisions a parcel has prior to any changes to the zoning code, allowing residents to realize economic value from property that, essentially, can’t be divided for development.
For example, a property owner with a 30-acre, A-2 zoned parcel that has 2,000 feet of road frontage could divide the parcel into seven pieces under current county rules. If the county adopted the proposed 15-acre minimum lot size, the property could only be split into two pieces. But the landowner would still have the division rights they lost as a consequence of the zoning code changes albeit only in the form of transferrable development rights.
While the property owner couldn’t divide the land for seven new homes, they could still realize at least some value by selling the transferrable rights to a developer pursuing a project in a growth area.
“They would still have an opportunity to receive some type of compensation for those divisions. The hope is that they will be the first people that would sign up [to participate in the TDR program],” Coon said, noting they would put “product on the shelf” for developers to acquire.
Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks floated another potential way to create TDRs. Hicks, who worked with Coon and Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin to craft parts of the preservation plan, said that landowners could potentially vacate lot lines on property they own that’s already been divided, essentially making larger parcels and giving up division rights that could then be transferred.
Combining previously divided parcels reduces rural fragmentation and the potential for residential development in agricultural areas, Hicks said, two of the preservation initiative’s chief goals. And it allows more property owners to participate in the TDR market.
Hicks offered a few examples of how the idea might work. He said property owners could combine family subdivisions where the lots had never been used, and residents who purchased adjoining parcels for privacy could also tap the program. In either case, he said, the property owners might have an interest in preserving their land by vacating the lot lines and gaining TDRs.
“It’s a way for substantially more citizens to be able to participate versus saying who has a larger chunk of land that you don’t want division rights on,” Hicks said.
Several commissioners said they liked the idea, agreeing that it could increase participation and potentially allow landowners to realize value from parcels that aren’t suitable for development because they’re oddly shaped or have poor soil.
Hicks said staff is still exploring whether vacating lot lines and combining parcels would constitute a transferrable development right under state code.
Another complicating factor in establishing the TDR market centers on making sure it’s balanced, meaning there’s a similar number of parcels with transferrable development rights as parcels receiving them. According to Coon, that’s necessary, in part, to ensure the program passes constitutional muster.
“If you’ve got 5,000 parcels that could buy TDRs, you need to have about 5,000 that can be sold. You can’t have 10,000 TDRs that can be sold and 2,000 that can be used because that doesn’t jive,” Coon said, noting the county would track the TDRs available for sale and might have to pause the program if supply significantly outpaced demand.
Throughout the zoning code overhaul, county officials have acknowledged that slowing growth will raise housing costs. Increasing the minimum lot size means more homes are built on large lots, which cost more. Increasing setbacks might preserve rural viewsheds, but it will likely raise development costs by requiring longer driveways and, potentially, additional land clearing.
If the county opts to increase setbacks to 250 feet, as currently proposed, the requirement could make some lots—particularly small lots already in existence—unbuildable, pushing some of the more affordable housing options off the table. And curbing new home construction, by design, limits the available housing supply.
“Preservation comes at a cost. It’s expensive,” Hicks said.
But county officials have cast the TDR program as a way to facilitate dense and diverse housing options in growth areas while reducing sprawl outside of them.
“It’s dense in certain growth area pockets, while the rural area [stays] rural. So, is it going to be more affordable in areas that have 15, 20-acre parcels? No, it’s not. It’s not going to be cheap to live there. But if you go to a growth area where now there’s additional units per acre, and they have apartments or townhomes…varying housing options, that’s where the affordability should come from,” Coon said.
Still, Coon and Hicks noted that TDR programs have struggled elsewhere in the state—only three localities have the programs in their code and none are particularly active. Whether the program succeeds here hinges, in part, on whether the county can create a balanced market. Otherwise, the proposed changes could contribute to escalating housing costs with many new homes consisting of single-family dwellings on estate-style lots.
Next steps
The TDR and termed PDR programs are part of what commissioners and county staff have called a “holistic approach” to slowing residential growth and preserving farms and forestland. The commission next month is expected to review draft changes to the zoning code, a first step toward moving the plan forward.
The commission is expected to hold a public hearing on the zoning code changes as soon as its September meeting and make a recommendation to the board of supervisors. Supervisors could consider the plan as soon as October.
Check out next week’s edition on Engage Louisa for a closer look at the termed PDR initiative.
Commission to hold public hearing on campground regulations as soon as August
The planning commission will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to county code to regulate campgrounds. As proposed the regulations would establish two categories for the use: “campground, major,” which refers to larger facilities that include three or more campsites, and “campground, minor,” smaller venues with a maximum of two campsites. The proposal would permit the latter use by-right in some zoning designations.
The commission will hold the hearing as soon as its August meeting. Any changes to the zoning code would require a second public hearing in front of the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the body.
The proposed regulations grew out of concerns that unregulated campgrounds—often featuring just a couple RVs parked on private land—are sprouting up across the county, in part, a consequence of the influx of temporary workers coming in for refueling outages at the North Anna Nuclear Power Station and short-term construction jobs.
To set guardrails on the use but also help ensure that temporary workers have safe and affordable accommodations, a two-man work group, including Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles and Jackson District Commissioner Troy Painting, worked with staff to craft the amendments.
Before starting a construction business locally, Painting traveled to nuclear power plants for outage work. At several work sessions, he amplified concerns about the difficulty temporary workers face in finding a place to stay.
“We’ve brought a huge workforce into our community that we all live with on a daily basis. At this point, there’s lots of places in our community where there are trailers and RVs and campers…What we have is more of a workforce housing issue,” Painting said in May.
Other community members have expressed similar concerns. In an email to the commission, Joshua Turner said his family offered “workforce campers” to temporary workers for about six years and hadn’t directly received any complaints. He said that he’d personally spoken with immediate neighbors about the sites, which are all served by approved drain fields, electric service, and water, and they’d “expressed no concerns regarding [the] operation.”
The county recently cited Turner’s family with multiple code violations, based on an anonymous complaint, Turner said. He added that his family is working to comply with county code so they can once again offer workforce accommodations, which he characterized as important to the local economy.
Under current code, campgrounds, regardless of their size, aren’t permitted by-right in any zoning designation except Resort Development. They require a CUP in agricultural zoning.
“Workforce camper accommodations have existed in Louisa County for many years and serve an important role in housing workers who contribute to the local economy. The issue before the County is not whether these uses exist, but how they can be reasonably regulated and brought into compliance,” Turner wrote.
The proposed regulations would amend the definition of “campground,” to include both major and minor uses. A “campground, major” would be defined, in part, as “an area or parcel of land, managed as a unit, providing accommodations for a minimum of three (3) campsites for recreational shelters (tents, tent trailers, travel trailers, recreational vehicles and campers, etc.) while a “campground, minor” would accommodate less than three campsites.
Per the draft regulations, a major campground must be sited on at least 10 acres to accommodate three to five campsites with two more acres required for each additional site. The use requires an on-site administrative building or sign at the entrance with basic information, including a phone number for an on-duty manager. It also requires a 200-foot landscaped buffer to screen the property from view. In addition, a major campground must comply with Virginia Department of Health (VDH) regulations and the Statewide Building Code and submit a site plan to the county.
Major campgrounds would require a conditional use permit in agricultural and commercial zoning. They’d be prohibited in other zoning designations except Resort Development where they’re allowed by-right. Obtaining a CUP requires public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.
Minor campgrounds would also be required to adhere to a range of regulations. Per the draft, they must be sited on at least three acres; include a sign at the entrance with basic information about the facility; maintain a 100-foot buffer; and comply with all VDH regulations and any applicable building code rules. The facilities must also register with the Community Development Department, submit a site plan for administrative review and provide the current county code chapters governing noise and solid waste with all rental contracts, among other provisions.
Minor campgrounds would be permitted by-right, meaning without a public approval process, in agricultural zoning, though they’d have to comply with the regulations above. They’d be allowed by-right in Resort Developments and prohibited in other zoning designations. Any small-scale campground in agricultural zoning that violated county regulations would be required to obtain a CUP.
Regulations for both major and minor facilities would prohibit the use of the campground’s permanent address to enroll students in Louisa County Public Schools.
While most commissioners had little to say about the proposal, Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin said that he couldn’t support regulations that allow small campgrounds by-right. Goodwin argued that the proliferation of one or two RVs on private land is what prompted officials to explore ways to tighten the rules, and, in his view, the draft regulations would lead to more unauthorized campgrounds, instead of cracking down on the use.
“The plethora of one and two campers all over this county is absolutely impossible for current staff to oversee…I thought we wanted to get a rope around this, and I am not convinced we have,” Goodwin said
Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon countered that the county isn’t giving property owners free rein for unregulated camping on their property. Rather, the proposed regulations lay out clear rules for both property owners and code enforcement.
“There [would be] established standards that they’d have to abide by. They’d have to do it right and safely with electrical. They’d have to do it right and safely with VDH. They’d have to have a landscape plan,” Coon said.
Commission recommends approval of rezoning for family subdivision
Following a public hearing where no community members weighed in, commissioners voted unanimously to recommend that the board of supervisors approve Shaun Brown’s request to rezone, from General Commercial (C-2) to Agricultural (A-2), 12.98 acres (tax map parcel 44-58) off Fredericks Hall Road (Route 618) nearly three miles outside the Town of Mineral.
According to attorney Torrey Williams, who’s representing Brown, the long-time resident and small business owner purchased the property last year with plans to create a family subdivision so his two sons and nephew could build homes. Williams said that Brown subsequently found out that the subdivision is prohibited in commercial zoning, prompting the land use request.
In proffers attached to the rezoning, Brown agrees to divide the property into no more than four pieces, including the three designated for family members and a residue parcel. Williams said the residue would likely end up as a homesite for another nephew. Because the parcel is long and narrow, only one home would front the road.
Brown also proffered that the recipients of the family divisions would retain them for at least 15 years, instead of the five currently required by the county.
“They have no intention of selling them. They have every intention of building a home and living there,” Williams said, noting that Brown employs his sons and nephew at his handyman business.
The rezoning request comes as county officials are revising the zoning code with the goal of slowing residential growth, especially outside the county’s eight designated growth areas. Brown’s parcel isn’t in a growth area.
Williams acknowledged the county’s interest in curbing growth and preserving the community’s rural character, but he also noted concerns about affordability and fears that some residents won’t be able to stay in the community because of soaring housing costs. He said family subdivisions are an important tool in mitigating the issue.
“We are solving a problem that a lot of people have. How can we provide good housing for our family who grew up in Louisa, who live in Louisa, who work in Louisa and want to continue to be in Louisa?” Williams said.
In addition, Williams pointed out that Brown’s parcel is surrounded by dozens of other single-family dwellings so allowing a few more homes won’t have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. He also noted that the property isn’t viable for commercial development, in part, because it doesn’t have access to public utilities.
Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin, who represents the area, agreed.
“This does kind of rub against what we’ve been working on, cutting down residential growth in non-growth areas in the county…This is a special case. I can’t imagine that anything other than a standalone business could operate here because, in addition to the [lack of] utilities that Mr. Williams mentioned, this is not a thoroughfare. You aren’t getting much drive-by business here,” Goodwin said. “I do like the idea that we are providing affordable sites for people in a way that does not—since it is secluded—impact the rural character of the county.”
The board of supervisors will hold a public hearing on Brown’s request at its August 3 meeting.
Commission recommends approval of AFD additions
As Louisa County experiences steady residential and industrial growth, Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD) have emerged as a key mechanism to preserve working farms and forestland.
The AFD program allows property owners to voluntarily prohibit development on farm and timberland for 10-year periods. In exchange participating properties are ensured enrollment in the Use Value Taxation program, colloquially referred to as “land use.” The program places a special assessment on land used for agriculture, horticulture or forestry based on its “use value,” instead of its fair market value, translating into substantially lower tax bills. The districts also provide limited protections from government’s ability to encroach on agricultural activities.
Over the last six months, Louisa County has grown its AFD program by about 5,000 acres with another 5,000 moving through the public approval process. Assuming all those parcels are approved for participation, the districts will encompass more than 41,000 acres, nearly 13 percent of the county’s landmass.
The commission on Thursday night recommended that the board of supervisors expand the districts by some 900 acres, adding a 30.8-acre parcel to the Ellisville AFD and 33 acres, covering three parcels, to the Gold Mine Creek AFD. Both districts are in northwestern Louisa.
The commission also recommended the creation a new district, the Healing Springs AFD, near Gum Spring in southeastern Louisa. As proposed, the district includes 841 acres and encompasses two parcels.
Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks, who helped facilitate the proposed district and lives nearby, said his neighbors are excited about the preservation opportunities the AFD program offers.
“We had a neighborhood meeting for all the neighbors who may want to potentially join this [new district], and I’m sure we’ll see a number of applications in the months to come,” Hicks said.
Per state code, parcels used for agriculture and forestry can be added to an AFD so long as they adjoin the district’s core, defined as at least 200 contiguous acres; lie within a mile of the district’s core; adjoin land within a mile of the core; or are deemed “agriculturally and forestally significant” by the locality’s governing body.
If approved by the board, the proposed Healing Springs Agricultural and Forestal District will be the county’s 15th AFD.
Learn more about the county’s AFD program by attending an upcoming educational session on July 28 or August 12. Click here for details.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.