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.
Wednesday, August 12
James River Water Authority, 132 Main Street, Palmyra, 9 am.
Neighborhood Meeting, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 4 pm. Community Development Department staff will host a neighborhood meeting to discuss a proposed rezoning request near Gum Spring. (public notice)
Louisa County Water Authority, 23 Loudin Lane, Louisa, 6 pm.
Thursday, August 13
Louisa County Planning Commission, long-range planning work session, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
Louisa County Planning Commission, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
“I don’t think that many people are going to spend any money or time to enter into a [transfer of development rights] library with the county, not knowing when or if a developer is going to call, not being able to develop their property and not knowing how much, if any, money is ever going to come of it.”
-Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon to the Agricultural, Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee last week, expressing concerns about whether a proposed transfer of development rights program can work. The TDR program is a key component of a larger growth management and rural preservation proposal currently being developed by county officials. But staff and two members of the planning commission are now questioning the TDR program’s feasibility.
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night convened for its lone August meeting, adopting rules for humanitarian shelters, green-lighting a rezoning that clears the way for a family subdivision and more. (meeting materials, livestream)
Supes ok rules for humanitarian shelters
After more than a year of discussion and debate, supervisors on Monday okayed new rules for homeless shelters, allowing the use county-wide with a conditional use permit (CUP), albeit with a tight time restriction, while providing a carveout for churches and nonprofits to open their doors as overnight shelters by-right in limited circumstances.
Since early 2025, county officials have been grappling with how to address homeless shelters in county code, a discussion sparked by the Louisa Homeless Coalition (LHC), a group with a mission of helping unhoused community members find shelter.
LHC had asked the county to loosen its old rules for homeless shelters—which the county called emergency shelters—to allow churches to provide overnight shelter, sans county zoning approval, at least during cold weather.
The group hoped to launch a program modeled after People and Congregations Engaged in Ministry (PACEM) in Charlottesville where a rotating group of churches provide shelter to unhoused community members during the coldest months of the year. Volunteers ran a pilot program with a few churches over the last couple winters but said county rules hampered their ability to recruit churches to participate.
Officials responded by drafting new regulations for homeless shelters, which they said were more inclusive, requiring a CUP for the use county-wide. The county’s old rules allowed the shelters by-right in a few zoning designations and with a CUP in A-2 zoning, where most of the county’s churches are located. Code prohibited the use in residential zoning.
The board held a public hearing to consider the CUP requirements in July and met pushback from representatives of LHC and a few churches. Some speakers argued the requirements infringed on religious liberty and that government shouldn’t interfere with congregants’ ability to carry out their faith.
One speaker called the extensive permitting requirements “overkill.” A few pressed for a compromise that at least allowed churches to operate shelters on a small-scale without a public approval process. Obtaining a CUP requires two public hearings and an affirmative vote by the board of supervisors.
After tabling action in hopes of brokering a compromise, supervisors appeared poised to adopt the CUP requirements as proposed but changed course during the meeting. They instead opted for a three-pronged approach that allows some shelters sans a CUP, although on an extremely limited basis.
The adopted ordinance calls a homeless shelter a “humanitarian shelter,” and defines the use, in part, as “a facility that provides temporary shelter and basic services to individuals or families without requiring leases or occupancy agreements.”
Any entity wishing to establish a humanitarian shelter can do so across the county with a CUP. But the shelter is permitted to operate for no more than 28 days in a calendar year. That restriction wasn’t part of the regulations advertised for the public hearing nor was it publicly discussed by the board prior to Monday’s meeting.
To obtain and retain a CUP, those operating shelters are required to adhere to a range of regulations. The regulations require operators to have an authorized representative on site whenever they’re open; 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, and information about how those services will be offered; provide narratives explaining how they’ll avoid “adverse impacts on surrounding properties and uses” and minimize reliance on county services; and provide a point of contact to respond to community concerns, among other requirements.
The new rules generally allow a humanitarian shelter only as an accessory or ancillary use but don’t explicitly prohibit standalone shelters.
The amendments provide a limited carveout for churches and nonprofits who want to provide overnight shelter, allowing them to operate as a shelter by-right no more than 7 nights a year and to house no more than three people, not including staff.
The board attached a handful of regulations to the carveout, requiring that churches and nonprofits have a supervisor on site whenever the shelter’s open; establish intake and screening procedures; and notify the county when they plan to operate, among other provisions.
In addition, churches and non-profits are permitted 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.
Before voting in support of the amendments, a few supervisors characterized them as a reasonable compromise.
“I don’t like the idea of Louisa County serving as a social experiment, but the idea is sound. I think this is a good example of listening to citizens and compromising. I hope it’s a good government decision,” Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter said.
Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones agreed.
“I think this gives residents a chance to feel confident in these guardrails. I know, in my district, I’ve had many concerned calls from people that want guardrails on this [use],” Jones said.
The board approved the amendments 6-1. Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes was the lone no vote. He said that government shouldn’t tell churches what they can do.
Board discusses potential annulment of Mineral Town Charter
Supervisors and county staff briefly discussed a potential effort on part of leaders in the Town of Mineral to annul the town’s charter, emphasizing that the future of the 124-year-old town rests with its town council and residents and that the county has no position on whether it chooses to dissolve.
Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said that he asked for the item to be placed on the agenda after “some elected officials” in the town reached out to him to discuss the annulment process and following a newspaper article on the subject. The Central Virginian in early August reported that Mayor Pam Harlowe had recommended surrendering the charter in an email to council members.
Adams said he wanted to publicly discuss how the annulment process works—it requires a vote by council and approval by town voters—and the county’s role in it. He also said he wanted to make it clear that the county doesn’t have a position on what the town decides.
“I do not live in the Town of Mineral. I have no say in what the Town of Mineral’s government does. The county does not have a position on any action that the town council [could take], and we have no interest in inserting ourselves into their political discussion,” Adams said.
County Attorney Patricia Smith briefly outlined the annulment process, noting that it would start with the town and county negotiating an agreement addressing “transfer of revenues, services, facilities, assets and assumption of existing town debt.” The process would then require council to pass an ordinance setting the stage for annulment and to petition Louisa County Circuit Court for a special election.
If a majority of town voters approved the annulment at the ballot box, the town would surrender its charter and become an unincorporated community in Louisa County. It would give up its status as an independent political subdivision, including its power to levy taxes, provide services and make land use decisions.
The General Assembly would then be tasked with repealing the charter during its next legislative session.
County Administrator Christian Goodwin said that should council opt to initiate the annulment process, the county would likely insist on specific due diligence, including conducting an audit of town finances.
“We started making a list internally of the things that we would be interested in ensuring that we fully understand as we move through the process if the process does go forward,” Goodwin said, noting that the county would want details on the town’s water and sewer infrastructure; financials, including revenues, expenditure and debt load; zoning; and staffing, among other items.
Like Adams, Goodwin emphasized that the county isn’t taking a position on whether the town should or shouldn’t dissolve.
“We certainly have no position on this. We’re just trying to prepare in case the town does want to move forward,” Goodwin said.
The annulment discussion comes as the town grapples with near-constant political drama, including infighting among council members and significant staff turnover. The turmoil has, at times, made it difficult to conduct town business.
Last week brought more turbulence as some council members expressed frustration that a couple of their colleagues had approached the board of supervisors about potential disincorporation, even though council hasn’t formally addressed the topic.
In a letter to Adams, Council Members Michelle Covert, Rebecca McGehee and Bob Spedden said that they were “shocked” to learn, through media reports, that other town leaders had reached out to a supervisor to talk about annulment. They said that they don’t support an effort to pull the charter.
“We provide this information to ensure you are aware that half of the Town Council was excluded from knowledge of this major proposed action involving the Town Charter, and that we certainly did not participate in any decision to approach the BOS for information about annulling our Town out of existence. We want to be clear this is not an avenue we, as members of the Town Council or as individual citizens, choose to pursue. Rest assured, we will not quit our Town or our Town Citizens,” the council members wrote.
McGehee, Covert and Spedden called a special council meeting for last Thursday, in part, to discuss “Town Charter Annulment,” per the meeting agenda. The meeting was subsequently canceled due to “an emergency,” according to the town’s Facebook page. Council is expected to take up the item at its regular meeting on Monday (August 10).
Last Wednesday, Council Member David Hempstead resigned his seat, effective immediately. In an email announcing his resignation, Hempstead complained about irresponsible spending on part of town leaders, among other issues.
A close political ally of Harlowe, Hempstead frequently butted heads with McGehee and Covert. Both women accused him of mistreating town staff and bullying fellow council members.
Prior to his resignation, Hempstead reached out to Adams about annulling the charter, according to emails obtained by Engage Louisa via a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA).
In a July 30 email, Hempstead told Adams that he was interested in speeding up the annulment process. He noted that a representative from the Virginia Municipal League had suggested that one potential way to do that involved enlisting the help of the county and Delegate Hyland “Buddy” Fowler, who represents the town in the House of Delegates. Under Virginia law, the General Assembly ultimately has the power to repeal a town’s charter.
“Given the state of things at the Town Hall, it is my opinion that going through the process that you emailed to me, would be entirely too long and potentially disastrous for the town’s finances,” Hempstead wrote. “I am sending all of this to you in hopes of finding a work around that can speed up the process.”
Adams didn’t respond to the email, per the correspondence shared under FOIA.
Supes green-light rezoning for family subdivision
Following a public hearing in which no community members weighed in, supervisors voted 7-0 to 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.
The rezoning clears the way for Brown, a long-time Louisa resident who runs a handyman business, to create a family subdivision on the property, providing his two sons and nephew plots to build homes. All three work for Brown’s business.
Attorney Torrey Williams told the board that Brown purchased the property last year without realizing that family divisions aren’t permitted in C-2 zoning. He subsequently hired a surveyor to draw up a plat with the family divisions and enlisted Williams to draft deeds for his relatives. When Brown submitted his plat for approval, he was told he couldn’t create a family subdivision given the zoning, Williams said, prompting the land use request.
In proffers attached to the rezoning, Brown agreed 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. Under family subdivision rules, Brown could’ve divided the property into as many as eight pieces, absent the proffers.
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 county code.
“They’re committed to building houses and living here,” Williams said.
During his presentation, Williams emphasized that the rezoning fits with the character of the neighborhood, noting that the property is surrounded by dozens of single-family dwellings and touched, on three sides, by A-2 zoned land.
“Ironically, the one side that doesn’t have A-2 zoning is actually a residential subdivision with about 16 homes on it,” Williams said.
Williams also argued that the property’s commercial zoning didn’t makes sense, in part, because it lacks access to public utilities and is situated on a “windy, curvy road” that’s not conducive to commercial entrances.
“It’s not in a growth area. It’s not in an area where this board or previous boards have designated for commercial development,” Williams said.
In pointing out that the property isn’t in a growth area, Williams acknowledged the county’s ongoing efforts to slow residential development outside of growth areas. But he contended that the rezoning doesn’t necessarily contradict those efforts, noting that county officials have expressed interest in preserving family subdivisions as a way to provide affordable housing for families who’ve lived in Louisa for a long time and want to stay.
“I think one of the things to consider as we move through this is: are we in a position as a county to provide affordable places for people who already live here and already work here and want to continue to live here and work here with their family? Do we have that ability to provide that for them? The family subdivision ordinance is that vehicle,” Williams said.
Before motioning to approve the rezoning, Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter, who represents the area, said Brown’s ask was reasonable.
“If you buy a piece of property and don’t know what it’s zoned, that’s not a wise purchase…We are not up here to fix people’s economic problems when they buy a piece of property, but we are here to listen to reasonable requests that have a reasonable proffer that seems to support what it is we are trying to do here,” McCotter said.
McCotter calls on VDOT, Clark and Dominion to present traffic safety plan for intersection of Kentucky Springs Rd, Haley Drive and Johnson Road by August 13
Amid a flurry of accidents, Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter on Monday called on the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Dominion Energy and Clark Construction to present a short-term traffic safety plan for the intersection of Kentucky Springs (Route 652), Johnson Road and Haley Drive (Route 700) by August 13, contending that the intersection isn’t safe.
“The intersection no longer serves residents and visitors safely nor effectively and that is evidenced by an accident count of almost one per day in the last two months,” McCotter said.
The intersection has become increasingly busy over the last couple years, thanks, in part, to the construction of Amazon Web Services’ (AWS) Lake Anna Technology Campus on 150 acres at the corner of Kentucky Springs Road and Haley Drive. At full buildout, the campus will include more than 1.7 million square feet of data center buildings. Clark is the general contractor for the campus.
Haley Drive also serves as the entrance to Dominion’s North Anna Nuclear Power Station, which draws nearly 1,000 employees daily and hundreds more during periodic refueling outages. Kentucky Springs Road is a major thoroughfare for residents who live on the lower end of Lake Anna and folks visiting the popular vacation destination.
That combination, McCotter said, has drawn more vehicles to the area than the roadways are designed to handle, a problem that’s only worsened since early July when a motorist hit a flashing yellow caution light at the intersection, prompting VDOT to remove it.
McCotter said that traffic at the intersection is likely to intensify in the next few months because of a planned maintenance outage at the plant. It’s past time for stakeholders to address safety issues, he said.
“Cuckoo District residents are very concerned with this situation. I have had almost countless conversations for months and months about this intersection with VDOT, Clark and Dominion Energy, and they have acknowledged that there’s a traffic safety issue. Very little has been done to solve it,“ McCotter said.
Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams echoed his colleague, noting that he’s been involved in numerous discussions over the last year with VDOT, Clark and Dominion about potential improvements, including installing a temporary traffic signal, but despite numerous accidents, those improvements haven’t materialized. Adams directed his criticism mostly at VDOT.
“I am personally disturbed by what I see as a lack of urgency on VDOT’s part to give us some solutions whether they’re permanent or temporary. As Supervisor McCotter said, we’re almost up to one accident a day and that’s not acceptable. I have expressed this to VDOT multiple times,” Adams said.
Following the discussion, the board passed a resolution formally requesting a status update on a traffic study VDOT’s conducting at the intersection and a copy of the study once its complete.
County staff and two members of the planning commission, who’ve been drafting changes to county code aimed at slowing residential growth and protecting farms and forestland, have raised red flags about a key component of their proposal as it potentially heads for a public hearing at the commission’s September meeting.
At a two-hour meeting of the Agricultural, Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee on Thursday night, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon, Agricultural Development and Land Conservation Coordinator Maggie Brakeville, Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks and Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin questioned whether a proposed transfer of development rights program (TDR) would work as currently configured, citing concerns about the state law that dictates how the program operates.
The program is one of few locally administered rural preservation tools permitted under Virginia law. It takes a market-based approach to preservation, allowing property owners to sell residential division rights on their land in rural areas to developers who want to increase the density of projects in areas designated for growth. Through the transfer of development rights, rural land is preserved, and growth is channeled where the community prefers it.
Staff, along with Hicks and Goodwin, have been working on a comprehensive package aimed at tempering new home construction outside of the county’s eight designated growth areas and protecting working rural land. The rural preservation and growth management package includes the TDR program.
As currently envisioned, the package would dramatically limit property owners’ ability to divide agriculturally zoned land outside of growth areas (A-1, A-2), in part, by upping the minimum acreage required to create a new parcel, from 1.5 acres to 15, and increasing road frontage requirements for new parcels on primary and secondary roads from 200-300 feet to 450-550 feet, depending on context.
A property owner with a 30-acre, A-2 zoned parcel outside a growth area that has 2,000 feet of road frontage can divide her land into seven pieces now. Under the proposed rules, she’d only be able to break the parcel into two pieces.
While the proposed changes would act as a “stick” to slow growth and protect rural land, the workgroup has marketed the TDR program as a “carrot.” Essentially, the program would allow property owners who lost development rights through changes in the zoning code—or who own land with divisions rights still intact—to sell those rights for use in growth areas.
So, the property owner who lost five division rights on her 30 acres as a consequence of the zoning code changes wouldn’t be able to divide her land for seven new homes in a rural area, but she could still realize economic value by selling those rights to a developer for use elsewhere.
To compel developers to participate, the workgroup proposed lowering by-right density thresholds on some parcels in growth areas and allowing developers to increase that density by purchasing TDRs.
A property owner with R-2 zoned land in a growth area that lacks access to public water and sewer, for example, can divide their land into 1.5-acre lots now. Under the proposed changes, the minimum lot size would be 2.5 acres, but the developer would be able to lower it to 1.5 through the purchase of TDRs.
The rules for residential land with access to public utilities in growth areas and Planned Unit Developments (PUD) would work similarly, albeit with different density thresholds. On A-1 and A-2 zoned land in growth areas, acquiring TDRs would allow a property owner to double the property’s by-right density while maintaining a 1.5-acre minimum lot size.
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.
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, as state code requires the locality to track, verify and certify 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.
Just as the growth management and rural preservation package is poised for public consideration, the workgroup has expressed serious reservations about whether the TDR component will work. At the Ag/Foretal Committee meeting on Thursday, the group recommended that county officials hold off on advancing the program—at least for now.
Coon and Brakeville pointed to several specific concerns about the program. Under Virginia law, they noted, the county isn’t permitted to buy development rights then sell them to developers later. Rather, the sales occur as parcel-to-parcel transactions. The property owner with land possessing a TDR sells it directly to the developer planning to use it.
But property owners wishing to sell TDRs first have to certify their division rights with the county—Coon said that could cost a couple thousand dollars because of the required due diligence—without knowing if they’ll get anything in return. Because the sale takes place among private entities, the price could vary dramatically, and sellers might not have any idea what their TDR is worth.
“I don’t think that many people are going to spend any money or time to enter into a TDR library with the county, not knowing when or if a developer is going to call, not being able to develop their property and not knowing how much, if any, money is ever going to come of it,” Coon said.
Coon and Brakeville argued that the system works better when the county can buy development rights from property owners and then sell them to developers, effectively controlling the market. They pointed out that only a handful of localities in the state have adopted a TDR program and none have been successful. But in Maryland, where state code allows localities to operate a TDR bank, the program has thrived, they said.
“If we could mimic a Maryland approach on TDRs, we would not be having this conversation. I’d say ‘let’s do it tomorrow and let’s adopt it and run with it.’ But it just doesn’t translate to the Virginia system…the banking system is what makes it work,” said Brakeville, who isn’t a licensed attorney in Virginia but holds a law degree from the University of Kansas.
But Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, the board of supervisors’ liaison to Ag, Forestal Committee, pushed back, arguing that the TDR program is a key piece of the growth management and rural preservation package and likely necessary to ensuring that significant revisions to the zoning code win board approval. He said that the proposed zoning changes essentially strip people of their property rights, but the TDR program makes that more palatable because it offers landowners an opportunity to get something back.
“If the board approves this, it’s going to be a taking…But if we’re going to take [division rights], we’re going to let you keep them as long as you’re willing to transfer them. Now [we] have done something that offers a carrot,” Williams said.
Williams said that he really isn’t interested in hearing that staff doesn’t think the program will work. Instead, he said, the county should be figuring out ways to make it successful. He zeroed in on the contention that landowners wishing to sell TDRs would have to spend a couple thousand dollars to qualify for the program, pressing for information about why that is.
Brakeville said that certifying a TDR with the county would require a survey, title search and related due diligence, per provisions laid out in the proposed ordinance. Because the county is tasked with acting as the broker for TDRs, Brakeville argued, it’s open to liability related to the transactions.
Williams disagreed, suggesting that staff’s overcomplicating the process and the county’s main job is to determine that a property has division rights to transfer. Other than that, he said, it’s “buyer beware.”
“In my professional opinion, it’s within [our] best interest to protect the interest of the county. And if the board [decides]…that’s not something you’re interested in then you’re welcome to remove it,” Brakeville responded.
Williams and other committee members also took issue with the idea that allowing the county to bank development rights and control their price is a better option.
“Let’s figure out if we have a structural barrier that we’ve got to fix at the state level, or if we’re just thinking that the county needs to be [setting] the prices…because I don’t think that’s what needs to happen at all,” Williams said, insisting that the system is better left in the hands of the private market.
For their part, Goodwin and Hicks said that they like the idea of the TDR program but fear it won’t work because of issues with state code. Goodwin, who worked as a legislative aide in the state senate for a decade, said that county leaders should outline their specific problems with the law and enlist a legislator to push for reforms.
Brakeville expressed a similar view, pointing out that this isn’t just a problem for Louisa—the program hasn’t worked anywhere in the state.
“I don’t think [adopting this program is] what best serves the county until we fix the state code…We need [to have] conversations with the other localities that have failed at this,” Brakeville said.
Despite staff and commissioners’ concerns about the TDR program, the Ag, Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee recommended that county officials press forward with the growth management and rural preservation package, voting unanimously to express support “for the general elements” of the proposal and “the direction [it’s] headed.”
Beyond the TDR program, a couple of committee members suggested they’re comfortable raising the minimum lot size for new parcel creation in agricultural areas to 15 acres, contending that it would help slow growth and preserve large swaths of rural land.
“If you’re just going to go to five acres, you’re eating up more farmland, and it’s not agriculturally viable. But if you’re going to go larger, that’s another deal,” said Committee Chair Jim Riddell, whose family has farmed in the county for six generations.
Dave Stone, a retired forester, said that, to preserve forestland for timber production, he’d prefer a slightly larger minimum lot size. But, he said, the 15-acre threshold seemed like a “workable compromise.”
“I’m happy it’s not 10 acres because that’s not good. That would just gobble up the land, and would not be sustainable [for] forestry,” Stone said.
The planning commission will discuss the growth management and rural preservation package during a work session at its Thursday, August 13 meeting. Commissioners could consider the proposal at a public hearing as soon as their September meeting.
Any changes to the zoning code require approval by the board of supervisors.
Check out the draft zoning code amendments here. Check out the proposed TDR ordinance here.
The Louisa County School Board appears closer to settling on a site for the county’s fifth elementary school.
The board at its August 4 meeting was briefed on the findings of a traffic study for the most likely location—a 91-acre plot that fronts Davis Highway (Route 22) just west of the Louisa County High School/Middle School campus. The school board acquired the property in 2019 with an eye toward future expansion.
FutureThink, an Ohio-based consulting firm, earlier this year recommended that the division build the school on the parcel, noting that its central location allows it to accommodate current and anticipated population growth and its access to public water and sewer infrastructure cuts down on construction costs.
The board of supervisors included $3 million in last year’s budget to cover planning for the project. It has tentatively allotted $52 million for construction in the FY28 Capital Improvement Plan.
School officials had said they planned to select a site for the school by June, but they haven’t formally voted on a location. The Davis Highway parcel is the only site that’s been the subject of serious public discussion.
Traffic concerns have emerged as a key stumbling block for the property as the Davis Highway corridor between the Towns of Louisa and Mineral is one of the county’s most congested slices of roadway, especially in the morning and afternoon when commuters travel to and from the existing school campus.
Community members and a few county leaders have expressed concern about green-lighting more traffic-intensive development along the corridor—be it another school or large-scale commercial or industrial endeavors.
But Thomas Ruff, a traffic engineer with Timmons Group, which conducted the study, said the corridor is functioning pretty well now, scoring a B for efficiency. Ruff said adding another school wouldn’t change that, assuming certain mitigation measures are in place, including new turn lanes and the use of school resource officers to direct traffic.
“Based on our traffic assessment, we do believe that this site and the entrance location do make this a great candidate for where a school could be located,” Ruff said.
The study acknowledged, however, that there’s congestion around school entrances now at peak times and that could be exacerbated in some instances.
Ruff said the proposed 700-student elementary school would likely generate 1,589 vehicle trips per day to and from the school, according to estimates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generator Manual.
Based on discussions with school staff, presumably regarding school bus routing and current traffic patterns, Ruff said that 50 percent of the traffic would come from the east, 20 percent would come from the west and 30 percent would come from the north via Chopping Road.
But Ruff insisted that siting the school on Davis Highway wouldn’t add traffic to Chopping Road. That’s because the vehicles are already traveling the road, he said, though he offered little insight into how he made that determination. Residents along Chopping Road have repeatedly complained about the onslaught of traffic on the curvy road, which is often used as a cut-through by large trucks.
As part of its study, Timmons recommended siting the entrance to the school roughly equidistant from an existing entrance to the middle school and the intersection of Chopping Road and Davis Highway. Ruff said the location isn’t likely to exacerbate existing traffic backups at the intersection because it’s far enough away.
Ruff also said that adding both an eastbound right turn lane and westbound left turn lane on Davis Highway is warranted, noting that his firm consulted with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in conducting the study.
“[With the addition of the elementary school], Route 22 will operate efficiently so traffic will be able to move through. The turn lanes will contain all of the turning movement that is needed to get in and out of the site,” Ruff said, emphasizing that the study assumes a school resource officer will be on site during peak travel times.
In addition, the study recommends leaving plenty of space between the school building and the roadway—Ruff said the setback would likely be about 1,000 feet—to allow traffic to queue and circulate in front of the facility and off Davis Highway. He said the setback would provide flexibility for shifting internal traffic patterns across the larger school campus.
Per a conceptual plan, the elementary school property would include a bus drop off loop in front of the school and a potential connector for drop off traffic.
Building the school next to the existing campus offers safety advantages, according to Ruff, most notably, consistency and predictably. Motorists would likely be aware that there’s a large school complex located along the roadway, he said, and wouldn’t be surprised by a change in the speed limit or increased traffic.
Beyond traffic, the Davis Highway site has raised other concerns, particularly related to the potential buildout of large-scale industrial infrastructure in the area.
Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line, an ultra-high voltage power line that’s slated to slice through central Louisa County on one of two proposed routes, could impact the campus.
While the project’s developers, including Dominion Energy, haven’t settled on a preferred route to submit to state regulators for approval, one option runs less than 1,000 feet from the potential elementary school site. That’s raised concerns among school officials and community members about the project’s potential impact on school operations and student health.
The school board in June passed a resolution in opposition to routing the line near its facilities. Board Chair Greg Strickland said at the time that school officials had reached out to Valley Link to express concerns about the line’s potential proximity to the high school/middle school campus and the proposed elementary school site. But he said those conversations had “fallen short.”
Valley Link proposed a pair of revised routes in May. But the company didn’t move the line away from the campus. It’s expected to select a preferred route and backup options this fall. The line and its route ultimately require approval from the State Corporation Commission.
The county has targeted the area for data center development, establishing Technology Overlay Districts (TOD) to the north and south of the school campus, which a Dominion spokesperson cited as justification for potentially routing the line near the schools.
The school board hasn’t offered an updated timeline for when it plans to finalize the elementary school’s location.
The Louisa County Planning Commission on Thursday night will convene for a pair of meetings. At a pre-meeting work session, the commission will continue a months-long discussion about potential changes to the zoning code aimed slowing residential growth, especially outside the county’s eight designated growth areas, and preserving farms and forestland (See article above). At their regular meeting, commissioners will hold eight public hearings, including one to consider amending how campgrounds are regulated in county code.
Commission to consider new regulations for campgrounds
The commission will hold a public hearing and consider whether to recommend that the board of supervisors approve new regulations for campgrounds.
As proposed, the regulations 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 proposed regulations permit the latter use by-right in some zoning designations.
Current county code doesn’t differentiate between large and small campgrounds, broadly defining the use and allowing it by-right in resort developments and with a conditional use permit (CUP) in agricultural zoning (A-1, A-2).
The proposed changes come as the county grapples with a surge of temporary workers in need of housing. To accommodate the workforce, unauthorized campgrounds have cropped up across the county, mostly in the form of a few RVs parked on private land.
As the home of Dominion’s North Anna Nuclear Power Station, the county has long drawn workers for short-term jobs, especially during periodic refueling outages at the plant. But the number of workers in search of affordable places to stay has escalated over the last couple years, a consequence of large-scale construction projects like data center development and fiber installation.
As Dominion undertakes a multi-billion-dollar modernization effort at North Anna, the facility is expected to draw even more workers during a pair of outages this fall and next spring.
To set guardrails for campgrounds but also help ensure that temporary workers have safe and affordable accommodations, the commission appointed a two-man work group, including Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles and Jackson District Commissioner Troy Painting, to work with staff to craft new regulations for the use.
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 housing.
“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.
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’d require at least three acres; a sign at the entrance with basic information about the facility; and a 100-foot buffer. They’d also be required to comply with all VDH regulations and any applicable building code rules. The facilities must 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 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 campgrounds would prohibit the use of the facility’s permanent address to enroll students in Louisa County Public Schools.
The draft amendments would also clarify that recreational vehicles are permitted to park overnight in approved parking facilities—like Walmart parking lots—so long as they meet certain criteria, including that the vehicles aren’t on site for more than 12 continuous hours at a time.
Any changes to the zoning code requires an affirmative vote by the board of supervisors. Supervisors could hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments as soon as September.
Commission to hold public hearing on commercial rezoning request
Commissioners will hold a public hearing and consider whether to recommend to the board of supervisors approval of Matthew and Wayne Byrd’s request to rezone, from agricultural (A-2 GOAD) to General Commercial (C-2 GAOD), three acres on the east side of Zachary Taylor Highway (Route 522) just south of its intersection with New Bridge Road (Route 208) (tax map parcel 28-109) in the Mineral Election District.
The rezoning would clear the way for the Byrds to use the property for a range of commercial endeavors. In his land use application, Matthew Byrd says that he plans to use existing structures—a single-family dwelling and non-residential building—for retail and office space.
The property is in the Lake Anna Growth Area Overlay District and designated for mixed-use development on the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It’s surrounded by property zoned commercial, agricultural and for a Planned Unit Development.
In proffers attached to the request, the Byrds agree to prohibit about 50 uses on the property, which are permitted by-right in C-2 GAOD zoning, including a funeral home, automobile dealership, dance hall and pawn shop. That leaves the applicant with a wide array of other potential uses, from a restaurant and grocery store to a bank and gas station.
In its report, Louisa County Community Development Department staff says that the rezoning makes sense, noting that the property is an area designated for commercial growth. Staff also says that it conforms with the Comp Plan’s vision for the area.
“The proposed rezoning mirrors the pattern of planned development in the surrounding area and supports the 2040 Plan’s objective of ‘encouraging compact cluster developments in growth areas.’ Furthermore, the proposed rezoning falls under the 2040 Plan’s guiding principle of ‘broadening the County’s tax base through the establishment of new businesses,’ while recognizing that ‘commercial developments are integral to the County’s current economic makeup.’ Rezoning the property to General Commercial (C-2 GAOD) is expected to have minimal impact on the area’s character and is consistent with the 2040 Plan’s vision for this mixed-use corridor,” the report says.
Rezoning the property for commercial development requires public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.
Other business: Commissioners will hold six public hearings on expanding Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.