Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, Aug. 31 through Sept. 5

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Tuesday, September 1

Louisa County School Board, Central Office Administration Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm. (agenda, livestream)

Share

Quote of the week

“[Former Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry] was the only one on the board that voted against that data center. Willie’s looking pretty smart right now. He caught a lot of heat for that [vote].”

-Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter during a town hall last week, referencing his predecessor’s vote against establishing the Technology Overlay District, which cleared the way for Amazon Web Services to develop two data center campuses by-right. One of the campuses is adjacent to the North Anna Power Station in the Cuckoo District. It has sparked concerns about traffic, water consumption, noise and other impacts. Read more about the town hall below.

County pays $1.2 million for just over five acres to upgrade Lake Anna sewage plant

Louisa County’s plan to upgrade a troubled sewage plant near the shores of Lake Anna has prompted it to acquire some pricey real estate.

The county in mid-August purchased 5.17 acres off New Bridge Road (Route 208) behind Lake Anna Plaza for $1.2 million, according to Louisa County land records. The mostly vacant property adjoins a 2.5-acre plot that’s home to the New Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The plant treats sewage from businesses in the plaza and surrounding townhomes.

The county acquired the plant for just $90,000 three years ago with plans to upgrade and expand it to support future economic development along the Route 208 corridor. Under its previous owner, the facility, which discharges its effluent into the lake, frequently ran afoul of Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations. County officials have characterized the plant’s purchase and upgrade as necessary to protect the lake’s water quality, pointing to its shoddy operations under its previous owner, and insisting that it's better for lake-area development to rely on a county-owned plant than on-site treatment systems.

But the cost of the project has skyrocketed since the county pitched it six years ago. Per a 2020 estimate from its engineering consultant Dewberry, upgrading the plant from 20,000 gallons per day (gpd), its current capacity, to 100,000 gpd, roughly its permitted capacity, was expected to cost $7.5 million, according to Economic Development Director Andy Wade. Now the upgrade could cost almost four times as much, based on a 2025 estimate from the firm.

Wade attributes the jump to increases in construction material pricing and labor and supply chain issues. In the last two fiscal years, the board of supervisors has appropriated $28 million for the facility, including $21.5 million in April.

“[Cost increases are] not unique to Louisa and [are] impacting the water/wastewater industry everywhere,” Wade said in an email to Engage Louisa this spring. He added that the project could cost less than what the board has set aside, noting Dewberry’s latest estimate includes a 20 percent contingency.

Funding for the county’s land acquisition was included in the appropriation, according to Wade, though supervisors haven’t publicly discussed the deal. Under Virginia law, real estate acquisitions are exempt from the state’s open meeting requirements if public disclosure could impact the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. But, the board typically approves contracts to buy real estate in open session. That didn’t happen in this instance.

According to county land records, the acquisition, which closed on August 14, included two transactions. The county acquired 4.5 acres north and west of the existing plant for $900,000 and a little over a half-acre to its south and east for $300,000. The parcels were previously owned by BBCR, LLC and Shenandoah Investments, LLC, respectively. The firms are managed by Lake Anna developers John Carroll and Jeffery Remmers.

The county appears to have paid a premium for the property. The 4.5-acre parcel was part of a 5.9-acre tract, which the Commissioner of Revenue’s Office assessed at $1.6 million for tax purposes. Of that, $1.3 million is attributed to improvements while just under $300,000 is the value of the land.

In an email to Engage Louisa earlier this month, Wade said the improvements include the Lake Anna Yacht Club’s over-the-water boat slips, which didn’t convey with the purchase, meaning the county paid well over three times the land’s assessed value.

“We needed the land and actively negotiated with the seller for the best price to protect the interests of our taxpayers,” Wade said.

The .67-acre parcel acquired from Shenandoah Investments was part of an 8.23-acre tract encompassing improvements associated with Lake Anna Plaza. That property is assessed at $2.09 million with $221,000 attributed to the land’s value.

Wade said the county needs the land to replace the treatment plant. He pointed to an engineering report from Dewberry, which includes three potential upgrade options. Each proposal requires the acquisition of more property.

“The land is needed to build a new WWTP capable of treating 100k gpd. The existing lagoon system site is not large enough to accommodate the new WWTP. The lagoon system will continue serving the existing customer base until the new WWTP is commissioned,” Wade said.

While the county’s current plan is to upgrade the plant to 100,000 gpd per day, roughly its permitted capacity, it could expand the facility in the future, potentially upping it to 300,000 or 500,000 gpd, according to Wade.

The newly acquired property will provide enough space to treat 500,000 gallons, per county spokesperson Cindy King, and the planned upgrade includes the installation of underground pipes capable of handling that amount.

Should county officials opt to expand the plant beyond 100,000 gpd, they’d have to add other infrastructure, obtain a new permit from DEQ and secure local approvals, Wade has said.

Shenandoah Investments has also granted the county a permanent easement on parts of its property for access and utility lines.

The county began publicly discussing buying the plant about six years ago, but the proposed acquisition gained momentum—and stirred controversy—in connection with LA Resort, LLC’s (LAR) plan to build a mixed-use development, featuring luxury condominiums and a hotel, on a prime slice of lakefront real estate across the street.

The board rezoned 15 acres on the south side of New Bridge Road just west of the Route 208 bridge for LAR’s project three years ago in the face of staunch opposition from neighbors, who said the development would destroy the community’s rural charm and overwhelm local infrastructure.

As a proffered condition of the rezoning, LAR agreed to chip in up to $1.5 million to upgrade the plant to its permitted capacity and pay $250,000 in connection fees. Without the expansion, the project couldn’t move forward as proposed. At the time, Wade said the upgrade would cost $7.5 million, based on Dewberry’s 2020 estimate.

At the same meeting they approved the rezoning, supervisors agreed to buy the plant. Opponents of LAR’s project argued the acquisition was a subsidy for wealthy developers and a risky deal for taxpayers. They also questioned the wisdom of taking on an asset that was out of compliance with state regulations.

According to Wade, LAR and the plant’s existing customers will use about 65 percent of its permitted capacity. When the facility reaches 80 percent, the county will need to identify additional capacity, per state guidance. That could open the door to expanding the plant to either 300,000 gpd or 500,000 gpd.

LAR has yet to break ground on its project.

Beyond the new facility, supervisors have forked over cash to maintain the existing plant. Last year, they appropriated $500,000 to the Louisa County Water Authority (LCWA), its operator, to repair the lagoon system.

In a letter to the county, LCWA General Manager Pam Baughman said the work was necessary to bring the plant into “more consistent compliance” with state regulations.

Share

At town hall, McCotter talks traffic, taxes, data centers and more

Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter on Wednesday fielded questions on everything from traffic to taxes during a brief town hall at the Louisa County Library.

The event, which drew about 20 people, was billed as an opportunity to recognize select Cuckoo District residents for their contribution to the community and for McCotter’s constituents to talk with their elected and appointed representatives. Cuckoo District Planning Commissioner George Goodwin and School Board Member Steve Harris also attended.

The Cuckoo District includes most of Lake Anna below the Route 208 bridge and stretches south past the village of Cuckoo in east-central Louisa.

After McCotter presented a few constituents with awards in honor of their community service, he fielded questions for about 40 minutes. Attendees raised concerns about a range of topics, including traffic around the lake; taxes and real estate assessments; and potential changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth and preserving the community’s rural character.

Several attendees expressed frustration with traffic safety at the intersection of Kentucky Springs Road (Route 652) and Haley Drive (Route 700). The intersection serves as a gateway to both Dominion Energy’s North Anna Nuclear Power Station and Amazon Web Services’ (AWS) Lake Anna Technology Campus, a data center complex that, at full buildout, will feature more than 1.7 million square feet of the warehouse-like facilities.

Amazon began construction at the campus in late 2024, drawing hundreds of workers and dozens of dump trucks daily. The onslaught has exacerbated issues on an already-congested corridor, which accommodates workers traveling to and from North Anna, Lake Anna residents and tourists visiting the popular vacation destination.

The intersection has grown increasingly dangerous in the last couple months after a truck hit its flashing caution light and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) removed it. McCotter said at a recent board of supervisors meeting that the intersection was the site of an accident nearly every day.

With Dominion preparing for a pair of refueling outages this spring and fall, which are expected to draw nearly 3,000 temporary workers, McCotter said the company has stepped up to help solve the traffic issues. Temporary traffic lights were installed in late August.

But some attendees wondered what took so long.

“It seems like those portable lights could’ve been put up months ago,” one Cuckoo District resident said.

McCotter pinned the delay on VDOT.

“This was super frustrating for me because in my world--in the business world--you get something done as fast as you possibly can with a good solution. This is not that world. This is the world of VDOT. So, you have to work at their pace. There’s a lot of paperwork,” McCotter said.

A few attendees wondered why AWS wasn’t funding road improvements since data center construction has dramatically increased traffic in the area.

While he didn’t say so directly, McCotter suggested the county has approached AWS about helping with upgrades.

Data center development has emerged as a key concern among residents in the Cuckoo District and beyond. AWS is developing a pair of data center campuses—one adjacent to North Anna and the other in central Louisa near the Northeast Creek Reservoir. EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure is preparing to build a third campus at the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park.

In addition to concerns about the impact of construction traffic on rural roads, residents have said they’re worried the facilities will drain the local water supply, raise their power bills and detract from the community’s rural character.

McCotter has sent mixed signals about where he stands on data centers. At Wednesday’s meeting, he pointed out that he wasn’t on the board when it approved the Technology Overlay District (TOD), a special zoning designation established three years ago to lure the lucrative facilities. The district allowed AWS to develop its campuses by-right, meaning without a public approval process. Some residents have said they’ve been blindsided by data center development in their neighborhood.

“[Former Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry] was the only one on the board that voted against that data center. Willie’s looking pretty smart right now. He caught a lot of heat for that [vote],” McCotter said, referencing Gentry’s vote in opposition to establishing the TOD.

Still, McCotter hasn’t been a vocal critic of data centers. At a board meeting several months ago, he sat quietly as Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams vigorously defended the county’s efforts to attract the industry. Williams said the board is wearing the move “like a badge of honor.”

McCotter on Wednesday addressed the revenue data centers are expected to bring to county coffers, mostly from real estate taxes on the buildings and business personal property taxes on the pricey computer equipment inside.

In response to a question about when citizens would start seeing tax relief thanks to the facilities, McCotter pointed to a plan to get rid of the individual personal property tax—colloquially called the car tax—over the next few years. He noted the board cut the tax by 15 percent during this year’s budget cycle.

“I don’t like the personal property tax myself. I feel like if you’ve already bought [a car, motorcycle or boat], why do you need to keep paying taxes on it,” McCotter said.

McCotter also suggested that the county could tap data center revenue to fund major road improvements around the lake, noting he’d like to see roundabouts at the intersections of Kentucky Springs Road and Haley Drive/Johnson Road and Kentucky Springs Road and New Bridge Road (Route 208) near the Lake Anna Food Lion. He said the county could chip in money to pay for the multi-million-dollar projects to supplement hard-to-come-by state funding.

For a quicker and cheaper fix, McCotter said the Kentucky Springs Road-Haley Drive intersection could get a temporary roundabout, but he didn't offer a timeline for the project.

Lake Anna resident Libby Sandridge raised a concern frequently voiced by Cuckoo District residents who live in lakeside subdivisions: skyrocketing real estate assessments.

A realtor by trade, Sandridge said the county consistently over-values homes around the lake, leading to soaring real estate taxes that are taking a toll on folks on fixed incomes.

“We’re being hit hard at the lake on our assessments. Most people can’t sell their home for what [it’s assessed at]. My neighbor just sold her house. It sold for $50,000 under its tax assessment, and that’s what’s happening at Lake Anna,” Sandridge said, adding, “It’s like you’re paying rent back to the county to live in your home, especially if your house is paid for and you’re retired.”

McCotter said that he shares residents’ concerns about assessments but pointed out the board of supervisors doesn’t control them. That job belongs to the county assessor, who works in the Commissioner of the Revenue’s Office and operates independent of the board.

But supervisors play a key role in determining how much residents pay, setting the real estate tax rate as part of the annual budget process. Real estate taxes are calculated by multiplying a property’s assessed value by the tax rate.

Even as assessments have soared over the last five years, especially for homes near the lake, the board has resisted calls to lower the rate, which has sat at 72-cent per $100 of assessed value for over a decade. McCotter didn’t say whether he’d like to see the board cut the rate to offset the impact of assessments.

Sandridge also expressed frustration with what she sees as frivolous spending, specifically by Louisa County Public Schools, whose budget typically comprises about 55 percent of the county’s annual operating budget.

“I just think that there’s got to be something there that can be tweaked or cut or something…I have a granddaughter that went [to LCPS] and she came home with a new t-shirt every week,” Sandridge said.

Harris suggested that Sandridge attend a school board meeting and share her concerns. While school officials craft the division’s budget, the board of supervisors funds it.

Mineral District resident Chris Liles brought up one of the hottest topics in county government: a proposed overhaul of the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth and preserving the county’s rural character.

The planning commission is preparing for a public hearing in October on a raft of changes, including upping, from 1.5 acres to 15 acres, the minimum acreage required to create a new lot in agricultural zoning outside of growth areas; dramatically increasing road frontage requirements for new parcels; and hiking setback requirements for new and existing lots to ensure homes in rural areas are built farther off the road.

Along with those changes, commissioners and county staff have proposed two programs designed to incentivize residents to preserve their land: a transfer of development rights (TDR) initiative, which allows landowners in rural areas to sell their division rights to folks who want to develop property in growth areas, and a termed purchase of development rights (PDR) program in which the county pays landowners to prohibit development on their property for 10-year periods.

Liles took issue with both programs. He said the TDR initiative didn’t seem like it would work in Louisa, noting that county staff and a couple commissioners, including Goodwin, openly questioned the program’s feasibility at a recent meeting. Liles wondered why it’s still being considered.

Goodwin offered a brief explainer of the rural preservation initiatives and said that county officials “are still working through” the TDR component. He encouraged folks to get involved in the process. The commission will discuss the program at a September 10 work session.

McCotter declined to comment on any aspect of the rural preservation proposal. Changes to the zoning code require approval by the board of supervisors.

“Am I going to comment on it? No. I’m not going to. I don’t need to because we haven’t seen anything yet. We’re going to rely on the good folks at the planning commission to bring it to us. At that time, we’ll have a good debate, and we’ll figure out what we want to do,” McCotter said.

Share

Louisa Town Council defers action on request to build more duplexes in Tanyard

The Louisa Town Council on Tuesday night deferred action until its September meeting on a controversial request to build more duplexes in Tanyard.

Curtis Moore, Patrick and Judith Hanley, and RTW Construction Corp., the joint owners of two lots on Barnstormer Circle, a cul-de-sac on the subdivision’s eastern edge, have asked council for a special use permit (SUP) to build two duplexes on their .756-acre property (tax map parcels 41C-1-28, 41C-1-28A),

RTW Construction is owned by R.T. “Toni” Williams, Jr., who represents the Jackson District on the Louisa County Board of Supervisors. Williams’ son, attorney and developer Torrey Williams, plans to build the duplexes and rent them as he does with other property in the town.

But the plan has sparked intense opposition from some Tanyard residents, who argue that allowing the construction of for-rent duplexes will alter the character of their neighborhood, which is mostly comprised of owner-occupied, single-family homes.

Though the dwellings would sit across the street from a pair of duplexes permitted by a previous council, neighbors argue the proposed units pose a unique threat because they’re designed as rentals and would bring a commercial use into a residential area.

Neighbors have also expressed concern about additional traffic on the narrow cul-de-sac and potential runoff from construction in an area that has struggled with stormwater management.

Tuesday night’s public hearing was part of a rare joint meeting between council and the town’s planning commission. After commissioners voted not to make a recommendation on whether council should approve or deny the application, council discussed the issue for about 20 minutes, deciding to delay action, in part, to allow as many council members as possible to weigh in.

Of the five voting members of the town’s governing body, only three were present and able to vote. Council Member Graven Craig attended the meeting but recused himself from participation, citing a conflict of interest. Council Member Vicky Harte, a Tanyard resident and staunch critic of the project, was absent.

Mayor Ashley Michael, who only votes if there’s a tie but runs council meetings, said she’d like to give Harte an opportunity to participate and that delaying action would give council more time to evaluate the project. Other council members agreed, voting 3-0 for deferral.

“This provides council an opportunity to dig a little deeper as needed. You have a council member who’s not able to be here, [and] I would love to make sure that she’s included in that evaluation…What we need to ensure is that any decision that we’re making is not arbitrary or capricious, and that we are making a decision based off the facts of what we have in front of us. That is how we protect this town. That is how we protect our citizens,” Michael said.

The public hearing marked the second time council has considered the application. The first came in January 2025 when a split body voted 3-2 to deny the request.

Following that decision, Torrey Williams sued the town on behalf of the property’s owners. In a 30-page complaint, the plaintiffs argued that council’s decision was “unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and unconstitutional,” contending that the body denied the SUP because the duplexes would be rental units, not owner-occupied dwellings.

The suit asserts that the dwellings would be directly across the street from two existing duplexes and that the plaintiffs offered proffers to mitigate any impacts on neighbors, which council failed to consider.

Williams and Craig are law partners in the Main Street law firm, CraigWilliams. Craig has recused himself from any discussion of the case and votes related to the SUP.

The case was scheduled for a hearing in June, but Williams and the town jointly requested a continuance.

“The parties believe that, at this time, the best course of action is for this matter to be continued generally,” Williams said in a May 20 letter to Louisa County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Sanner.

While Williams attended Tuesday’s meeting, he didn’t present his request to council as applicants typically do during public hearings. Instead, Town Attorney Jeff Gore summarized the application and answered questions.

Gore said the SUP would permit two duplexes, comprised of four units, on the property. Before developing the land, Williams plans to subdivide it into four parcels so each dwelling sits on its own lot, Gore said.

Under town code, Williams could subdivide the land into four pieces and build a single-family home on each parcel by-right, meaning without council approval, assuming setback requirements and other standards are met, Gore said. But duplexes are classified as multifamily dwellings and require an SUP.

In a proffer statement, the applicant agreed to restrict the duplexes to one dwelling per lot, limit them to one-story and construct them in a similar style and design as the duplexes across the street.

The applicant also agreed to limit the occupants of each dwelling to two vehicles and bar overnight on-street parking; plant an evergreen buffer along the property’s boundaries if existing vegetation is disturbed; utilize town trash service and store trash cans out of sight; pave the driveway; and restrict any storage to the rear of the property.

Gore said the application was generally the same as the request council rejected last year except for the addition of a few conditions to address neighbors’ concerns.

“Beyond what is already in state code and town ordinance, these conditions would be enforceable by the town just like any other zoning requirement,” Gore said.

Five Tanyard residents weighed in during the public hearing to oppose the request. Several reiterated concerns about allowing rental units in the neighborhood, arguing it would detract from the character of the community.

“If you lived in a neighborhood of single-family homes, such as Tanyard or Countryside, and somebody purchased the lot adjacent to yours and divided it into four postage stamps to squeeze in four apartments, how would you feel? Do you think that would be right,” said Tanyard resident Larry Kavanagh, who developed the subdivision 40 years ago.

Rick Meyer, president of the Tanyard Property Owners Association, acknowledged that some Tanyard property owners have occasionally rented their homes. But he insisted that’s fundamentally different than what Williams proposes, characterizing it as a “strictly commercial enterprise.”

“Tanyard is home to more than 70 families and more than 200 residents. It’s also a place where people walk, run, trick or treat, and attend yard sales. It’s an established single-family neighborhood with a strong residential character. We only have one entrance and one exit. It’s difficult to understand why they would seek to build duplexes in an established single-family neighborhood when the vast majority of residents have already made clear, including [on a] petition [signed] by two-thirds of the members of Tanyard Property Owners Association last time, that they [don’t] want to change the character of Tanyard so radically,” Meyer said.

Community members zeroed in on some potential impacts of the project. Debbie Woodward, wife of Louisa District Supervisor Manning Woodward, said she’s worried about additional traffic on the small cul-de-sac.

“If each dwelling has two cars, that will be eight more cars on Barnstormer. Barnstormer Circle is the smallest minimum size allowed for a cul-de-sac at 69 feet in diameter,” Woodward said, suggesting more vehicles could raise public safety concerns.

Gore said that he wasn’t aware of any concerns from Louisa County Fire and EMS.

A couple speakers urged council to set aside concerns about Williams’ pending lawsuit and instead focus on what neighbors want.

“Guess what? I’ve been sued in life, and my wife’s been sued. Such is life,” Pierce Stone, a 36-year Tanyard resident, said.

While council members acknowledged neighbors’ concerns, a few noted that they could run into similar issues whether four duplexes are built or four single-family dwellings, which are permitted by-right. They argued that the proffered conditions at least give the town some say in the property’s development.

“We can have some control over what’s going on. I think Tanyard would be better off if we had that, instead of letting [the developer] build by-right and build four houses in there,” Council Member Roger Henry said.

Council Member Sylvia Rigsby agreed, noting the conditions allow the town to control the number of vehicles on-site and where they can park. The developer could build houses, sans those restrictions, without council approval right now, Rigsby said.

Rigsby also challenged the idea that rental units are a commercial use.

“While the entity that owns the land may be a commercial business, as in in the business of rentals, the use of the property is still residential because there will be residential units,” she said.

A couple council members pointed out that, aside from the existing duplexes, another lot on the street has an SUP that permits multifamily housing.

Council members ultimately delayed action until their September 29 meeting with several suggesting they want to give Harte a chance to weigh in.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, August 24 through August 29

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Tuesday, August 25

Industrial Development Authority, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 8:30 am.

Human Services Advisory Board, 114 Industrial Dr., Louisa, 10:30 am.

Thursday, August 27

Lake Anna Advisory Committee, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm.

Friday, August 28

Louisa County Electoral Board, Louisa County Office of Elections, 103 McDonald St., Louisa, 10 am.

Other meetings/events

Monday, August 24

Louisa Town Council, special meeting, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda)

Tuesday, August 25

Louisa Town Council and Planning Commission, public hearing, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda)

Share

Quote of the week

“I am sure that several of [my fellow election officers] hold beliefs that oppose my own, but despite a polling place being an inherently political space, it is not one that feels divided. Instead, I felt united with my fellow poll workers, all of us having volunteered our time and effort to support the Commonwealth’s electoral system, and all hoping that our efforts would be rewarded with a people better represented by their government.”

-Roxie Pearl Beebe-Center on her experience as an election officer in Louisa County during the August 4 primary. Roxie is a rising fourth-year student at the University of Glasgow and a summer correspondent for Engage Louisa. Check out her account of her day working at the polls in the article below.

Election 2026: A look at what’s on the ballot this fall

In less than a month, voters across Louisa County will start casting ballots in high-stakes midterm elections that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for the next two years. Voters will also have a chance to weigh in on three proposed amendments to the state’s constitution, and residents in the county’s two incorporated towns—the Towns of Louisa and Mineral—will each elect a mayor and members of their town council.

While Election Day isn’t until Tuesday, November 3, Virginia’s 45-day early voting period kicks off on Friday, September 18. With that in mind and a lull in the county’s meeting schedule—the board of supervisors only meets once in August—now seemed like a good time to preview what’s on the ballot his fall.

Check out the roundup below and stay tuned for more election coverage as campaign season shifts into high gear post-Labor Day.

US Senate

At the top of the ballot, Virginians will choose who’ll occupy one of the state’s two seats in the United States Senate: three-term incumbent Mark Warner, a Democrat from Alexandria, or his Republican challenger, Bert Mizusawa, who resides in Fairfax. Senators serve six-year terms.

Warner, who served as Virginia’s governor from 2002-2006 and was a pioneer in the telecommunications industry, is the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. His campaign website says he’s worked to keep America safe and delivered for Virginia, touting his sponsorship of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Passed in 2021, the law provided billions of dollars to expand high-speed internet in rural areas and upgrade roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

Mizusawa, a retired Major General in the US Army, is making his second run for federal office, after failing to secure the Republican nomination in the 2nd Congressional District 16 years ago. This time around, the West Point graduate garnered 51 percent of the vote to finish atop a three-candidate field in the August 4 primary to earn the right to run against Warner. Warner didn’t face a primary challenge.

Mizusawa’s campaign website highlights his career in the military and his background in public policy, describing him as a leader with “steady judgment, and a lifelong commitment to the public good.” An issues page emphasizes that he’ll focus on fiscal responsibility, supporting the military and expanding the use of nuclear power.

In his last bid for Senate in 2020, Warner beat Republican Daniel Gade by about 12 points. Virginia hasn’t voted red in a federal election in more than 20 years. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates the contest as “solid Democrat.”

5th Congressional District

Perhaps the marquee matchup on November’s ballot is in the 5th Congressional District where one-term incumbent John McGuire, a Republican from Goochland, faces a spirited challenge from former Congressman Tom Perriello, a Charlottesville Democrat. Independent Cooke Costa Harvey, a farmer from Amherst, is also in the race.

Perriello previously represented a slightly different 5th, which didn’t include Louisa, for one term, narrowly winning the seat in the Barack Obama-led blue wave of 2008, then narrowly losing it two years later in the heyday of the Tea Party.

During his stint in Congress, Perriello voted for the Affordable Care Act, controversial legislation that overhauled the nation’s health insurance system and fueled Tea Party backlash. His campaign website touts the vote as “courageous,” noting the law expanded health insurance coverage in his district and made it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

A Yale-educated lawyer and son of a renowned Charlottesville pediatrician, Perriello has since served as a diplomat in Africa. In 2017, he launched a failed bid for governor, losing to Ralph Northam in the Democratic primary.

McGuire, a former Navy SEAL, is a familiar face to many Louisa voters. He represented the county in the House of Delegates for six years and served a brief stint in the state senate before winning a seat in Congress. His brother and close political ally, Rusty McGuire, has served as Louisa’s commonwealth’s attorney for more than a decade.

En route to Washington, McGuire ruffled feathers in his own party, ousting former Congressman Bob Good in a bitter Republican primary two years ago, bolstered by an endorsement from President Donald Trump, who was then seeking a return to the White House.

McGuire has made his allegiance to Trump a centerpiece of his political rise. His campaign website says he’s “America First. Always.” and “Pro-Life. Pro-God. Pro-Gun. Pro-Trump.”

McGuire currently serves on the House Armed Services Committee and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and counts himself as a member of the DOGE Caucus. DOGE refers to a controversial Trump administrative initiative, briefly led by billionaire Elon Musk, that aimed to improve government efficiency. It led to the ouster of thousands of federal workers and significant funding cuts for some federal programs.

In campaign outreach, Perriello has portrayed McGuire as a bought-and-paid-for politician who’s more interested in doing the bidding of wealthy donors than fighting for his constituents. Perriello has vowed to “lower costs, tackle corruption. and restore commonsense” to Washington, according to a campaign press release.

For his part, Harvey has promoted his candidacy as a way to break the stranglehold of the two-party system, which, he argues, is failing Americans.

“The core of my running for office is that the two political parties prevent us from moving forward as a united people,” Harvey said in a video on his campaign Facebook page.

The sprawling 5th stretches from Louisa, western Hanover and Albemarle at its northern edge to the North Carolina border, encompassing all or part of 24 localities. The mostly rural district has been friendly terrain for Republicans, favoring McGuire by 15 points over Democrat Gloria Witt two years ago.

But this time around, Democrats are hopeful things will be different with the national party signaling it intends to invest in the race. To date, Perriello has outpaced McGuire in fundraising, pulling in about $2.1 million to McGuire’s $1.73 million, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.

Still, the Cook Political Report isn’t betting on the 5th flipping blue. It rates the race “solid Republican.”

Towns of Louisa and Mineral

Voters in the Towns of Louisa and Mineral will head to the polls to elect a mayor and members of their respective town councils.

In Louisa, three of five council seats are on the ballot—two as part of a regularly-scheduled election to fill four-year terms and one as a special election to fill the unexpired term of former Council Member Daniel Crawford. Crawford resigned earlier this year to return to his native southwest Virginia. His term runs through 2028.

Council Members David Purcell and Graven Craig are running unopposed for the four-year terms. Purcell was appointed to council this summer to temporarily fill the seat vacated by his nephew, John Jerl Purcell IV. The younger Purcell stepped down ahead of his move to a home outside the town with his term set to expire at the end of the year. Craig was appointed earlier this year to temporarily fill Crawford’s seat until the special election.

In the special election, Council Member Vicky Harte will square off against political newcomer Durvin Corker.

A one-term incumbent, Harte had initially said she wouldn’t seek reelection, expressing frustration with what she viewed as unfair committee assignments. But she reversed course ahead of the special election’s August 14 filing deadline.

Harte said on Facebook that she opted to run for the two-year stint—instead of pursuing her current seat—because she’s considering a bid for the Louisa District seat on the board of supervisors next year.

All four candidates are familiar faces in the town. Craig is a partner in the Main Street law firm, Craig Williams, and previously served as chair of the Louisa County Republican Committee. Purcell grew up in the town and runs JS Purcell Lumber, one of the community’s oldest continuously operating businesses. Harte is a retired nuclear engineer and community activist. Corker is a contractor.

Harte, Corker and Craig reside in the Tanyard subdivision. Purcell lives in the Donnelly Dale neighborhood.

In the mayor’s race, Ashley Michael, who won a one-year stint in office in a special election last November, is the only candidate vying for the job. Michael is a human resources executive, who’s lived in the Countryside neighborhood for about a decade.

In Mineral, all six seats on town council are up for grabs with eight candidates in the race.

The field includes a mix of fresh and familiar faces. Current Council Members Afton Von Tye, Rebecca “Becky” McGehee and Michelle Covert are all running to retain their seats while former Council Member Blair Nipper is hoping to return to the body.

First-time candidates Christopher Dillard, Maggie Larson, Cara Lundgren-Stowe and Nicole Washington are also running. Washington previously served as Mineral’s town manager and, depending on who you ask, might currently hold the job. Larson serves on the town’s planning commission. Dillard and Lundgren-Stowe are newcomers to town politics though Lundgren-Stowe’s husband, Ryan, is a recent appointee to the planning commission.

The field initially included nine candidates, but former Council Member David Hempstead withdrew, according to General Registrar Cris Watkins.

Hempstead resigned from council earlier this month. In an August 5 email announcing his resignation, he expressed frustration with what he sees as irresponsible spending on part of the town.

Council Member Robert “Bob” Spedden, an Air Force veteran, is the lone candidate in the mayor’s race. Current Mayor Pam Harlowe, who won a one-year term in a special election last November, opted not to seek re-election. Council Member Bernice Kube also chose not to run for another term.

Over the last few years, the town has been embroiled in near-constant political drama, punctuated by infighting among council members and high staff turnover. That combination has, at times, made it difficult to conduct town business.

Hempstead and Harlowe have privately pressed for the town to begin the process of annulling its charter—a lengthy affair that requires an agreement with Louisa County, a formal vote by council and approval by town voters—but McGehee, Covert and Spedden have expressed opposition to the move. In a letter to Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, the trio vowed not to “quit [the] town, or [the] town citizens.”

Whether the 124-year-old town should explore relinquishing its charter could be a key issue in the upcoming election.

Constitutional Amendments

Voters will have a chance to weigh in on three proposed amendments to the state’s constitution. Under Virginia law, the constitution can only be changed if the General Assembly twice passes a proposed amendment, with a legislative election intervening, then voters back the measure at the ballot box.

The Democratic-controlled General Assembly advanced three proposed amendments in the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions. Each will appear on the ballot this fall.

The first ballot question centers on reproductive rights. It asks voters if the constitution should be amended “to (i) protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; (ii) protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and (iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?” (Click here for an explainer from the Virginia Department of Elections).

Currently, Virginia’s constitution doesn’t explicitly addresss reproductive rights nor does it explicitly protect or prohibit certain kinds of health care procedures or decisions. The proposed amendment became a priority for Democrats after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a 50-year court precedent that constitutionally guaranteed the right to an abortion. Democrats in Virginia and elsewhere have turned to state constitutions to safeguard abortion rights.

The second ballot question asks voters if Virginia’s constitution should be amended to “(i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?” (Click here for an explainer from the Virginia Department of Elections).

In 2006, Virginians voted to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But, less than a decade later, the US Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry, making state-level prohibitions unenforceable. Proponents have promoted the measure as necessary to protect same-sex couples’ right to marry should the Supreme Court ever reverse its decision.

Voters will also weigh in on whether citizens who’ve been convicted of a felony should automatically have their voting rights restored once they’re released from incarceration. Currently, Virginia bars those with felony convictions from voting for the rest of their life unless the governor restores their rights.

Aside from a felony conviction, Virginians can lose their right to vote, at least temporarily, if a court deems them “mentally incompetent.” The proposed amendment would clarify that a court must find that a person doesn’t understand the act of voting to take away their right to vote.

With the right to vote, a person also has the right to be a juror, the right to be elected to an office, and the right to be a notary public.

The ballot question asks if the state’s constitution should “be amended (i) to provide for the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth, (ii) to revise the qualifications of voters so that a person convicted of a felony is not entitled to vote during his period of incarceration but is automatically invested with the right to vote upon release from incarceration, and (iii) to update the existing prohibition on voting by persons found to be mentally incompetent to instead apply to persons who have been found to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting?” (Click here for an explainer from the Virginia Department of Elections).

Dates to know

Election Day: Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Vote at your precinct’s polling location, 6 am to 7 pm.

Early Voting: The 45-day in-person early voting period begins Friday, Sept. 18 and runs through Saturday, October 31. Vote at the Louisa County Office of Elections, 103 McDonald Street, Louisa.

Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm (excluding Monday, October 12 when county offices are closed in observance of a federal holiday).

Saturday: October 24 and October 31, 9 am to 5 pm.

Sunday: October 18 and October 25, 11 am to 4 pm.

Vote by mail: The last day to request an absentee ballot is Friday, October 23 by 5 pm. Click here for an application. Ballots can be returned by mail or dropped in a secure drop box at the Office of Elections.

Register to vote: The last day to register to vote by regular ballot in the November 3 election is Friday, October 23. However, Virginia has Same Day Voter Registration including on Election Day. Voters who register to vote after the Oct. 23 deadline and vote the same day must cast a provisional ballot. Click here to register to vote or check your registration status.

Questions about voting? Call the Louisa County Office of Elections at 540-967-3427 or click here.

Share

On the frontlines of democracy: A day at the polls as an election officer

By Roxie Pearl Beebe-Center

Tuesday, August 4th marked Election Day in Louisa County.

As part of Virginia’s 5th Congressional District, Louisa held a dual primary election to determine which Republican and Democratic candidate would advance to the November 3 General Election. The election also included a Republican primary for United States Senate with three candidates competing for the right to represent their party in the General Election.

Home from university for the summer and inspired by the example of my mother and a few neighbors, I volunteered to train as a poll worker and assist with the primary election. This article is an overview of how the training process works, and what voting looks like from behind the ballot table.

A conversation with a neighbor or a cursory glance at Facebook will offer ample anecdotal evidence that many Americans—and many Louisa County residents—have apprehensions about the election process and the potential for dishonesty.

I hope that a personal account of the Officer of Election training process and Election Day serves to assuage concerns surrounding the legitimacy of election results and demonstrate the lengths to which Louisa County strives to make voting accessible.

Voting itself takes only a few minutes—as a voter, you’re checked in, handed a ballot, shown to a privacy booth, and then instructed to feed your ballot into the voting machine and take a sticker on the way out. For those who work the polls, Election Day preparations begin weeks before. My initial training was three weeks before the election, in mid-July.

After arriving at the Louisa County Office of Elections with the required application filled out, signed, and dated, including a direct deposit form, I am made to sign and swear an oath. The Officers of Election are paid around $200 or more for Election Day in Louisa, depending on the role, unless they choose to forgo payment. The oath is a straightforward pledge to uphold the duties involved in assisting with an election.

Then, an elections office staffer asks my party affiliation. I hesitate until she clarifies that my answer will have no bearing on my voter registration and it’s asked only to satisfy Virginia’s requirement to have an even party split for staffing at polling places. I identify my party preference and offer to drive to any precinct in Louisa. Staff places me accordingly, in precinct 702, at the Central Virginia Assembly of God Church near Gum Spring. I sign in for training and stick my red, white, and blue nametag to my shirt. It reads: “Election Official: Roxie– May I help you?”

I fill out a nearly identical nametag—in slightly neater script—just before 6 in the morning on August 4th, and stick it to the red shirt I had laid out the evening before, along with my blue jeans and white sneakers. The anticipation for the day makes the 4 am wake up time easier to bear. Stimulated by overexhaustion, I grabbed my boxed lunch, laptop, and purse on my way out the door and drove through the dark to Gum Spring. My self-sympathy waned when I discovered that most of my fellow poll workers woke up around 3:30 in the morning.

Just after 5 am, we begin to set up what we weren’t able to the previous evening. Only 12 hours before, we had organized what we could, unfolding the plastic tables and setting them in a horseshoe shape.

All election-specific materials are kept in the “cage,” a wheeled, steel mesh and blue tarpaulin container. This cart is chained to the plastic, protective shell for the voting machine, or ballot tabulator, which is the device that scans a voter’s filled-in ballot.

Both the cage and the voting machine, in its secure case, arrive at the polling place locked and sealed with a chain of custody seal. So too do the Poll Pads, the special iPads with only a single application that serve as electronic poll books. When any is accessed, it must be unlocked, with at least two Officers of Election present, the chain of custody seal broken, and the seal number recorded. Chain of custody seals provide a record for the movement of important equipment and information, substantiating each person who has accessed the equipment, when, and for what purpose.

When our precinct began the set-up process the preceding evening, we could not break the seals on either the tabulator or the Poll Pads, as the seals are not to be broken until Election Day. Instead, after arranging the check-in, ballot, and voting tables, we hung up the provided signs outlining Louisa County’s precincts and voters’ rights around the polling place. We unfolded the voter privacy screens and secured the pens to them with tape and string. Also removed from the cage were the “Vote Here” and “Prohibited Activities” signs, both of which would be placed outside the polling place in the morning.

We delegated these morning-of tasks and confirmed the stations we’d each fill. The Electronic Pollbook Officer checks voters in, the Ballot Officer hands them their ballot, the Privacy Booth Officer ensures that a person’s vote is kept secret from other voters, and the Voting Machine Officer instructs voters on how to place a ballot into the voting machine in order for it to be counted.

The Provisional Officer sits just out of the voting traffic to assist those who need to cast provisional ballots—that is, those whose information and eligibility has to be confirmed by the Electoral Board before their vote is formally counted. Two officers also act as the Chief and Assistant Chief, who facilitate the day’s processes. Poll workers are expected to be comfortable with all officer positions and cycle throughout the precinct over the course of the day.

We ran the necessary extension cords and displayed the Election Day Information Board—a trifold board reminiscent of an elementary school science fair presentation that instructs how to fill in a ballot bubble, what forms of ID can be used at voter check-in, what the sample ballots look like, and the cellphone policy. While voters may not make or receive phone calls in the voting booth, they’re allowed—even encouraged—to look up candidate information or take selfies, so long as photos don’t include others casting ballots.

This preparation helps the next morning go smoothly. Each Officer of Election must swear an oath before beginning their tasks: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will perform the duties for this election according to law and the best of my ability, and that I will studiously endeavor to prevent fraud, deceit, and abuse in conducting this election.”

Every step of Election Day is dictated by the detailed instructions provided by the Louisa County Office of Elections, which are consistent with the Code of Virginia as well as guidance provided by the State Board of Elections.

As we were instructed in training, we undertake most tasks in pairs, with one officer reading the instructions while the other carries them out. After breaking the chain of custody seal on the voting machine with the Chief, the Assistant Chief makes ‘Enter’ and ‘Exit’ signs. The Ballot Officer and the Provisional Officer count and recount the ballots before setting them on the ballot table. I break the seals on the electric green, plastic cases that contain the Poll Pads before plugging them in and syncing them up.

I record the seal number on the allotted document and print the Poll Pad ‘zero tapes.’ These are exactly what they suggest—slips of paper that prove that no voter check-ins for the election have been conducted via the electronic pollbook prior to the opening of the polls. This receipt is held and returned to the Office of Elections once the polls close in the evening. Zero tapes are one of the many checks and balances that ensure ballots and votes are balanced throughout the election process.

In addition to the zero tape for the Poll Pads, multiple zero tapes are printed for the voting machine, which are signed by all the Officers of Election at the precinct and one of which is displayed on the Election Day Information Board for voters to see as they enter the polling place. These zero tapes verify that no ballots have been scanned by the machine. “I Voted” stickers are unrolled and set just past the voting machine for voters to take as they return to their cars.

Once we’ve set up our stations and donned our Election Official badges and pins, it is nearly 6 in the morning. With the polls about to open, I make a few cups of coffee in the church’s kitchen and acquaint myself with my fellow pollworkers, most of whom have been working the polls for years. Eager for the sun to rise and to start greeting voters, we discuss what the day will hold.

I set my book beneath my chair at the check-in table, where I’ll be serving as the pollbook officer, and then walk outside of the church. In the darkness of the early morning, the church interior glows impossibly bright, illuminating the American flag and the candidate signage. There are eight signs for Republican candidates and four for Democrats.

I’ve been warned by my mother and fellow pollsters not to expect many voters, as the election is a primary, but I can’t help but expect a before-work rush. After all, our precinct is just off Route 522, a major thoroughfare. While dozens of cars rush by in either direction, few pull into the parking lot, and we excitedly ready ourselves on the occasion that one does.

Just after 6, I greet my first voter and ask for a form of identification, as I’ve been trained to do. The basic Officer of Election training—which I have undertaken, as this is my first election—is rigorous and consists of at least three separate training sessions that cover the technology and processes involved in administering an election.

This first voter hands me her driver’s license. While a license is the form of voter identification I am most frequently offered throughout the day, the list of accepted identification is far more extensive than I had been aware of prior to my training. It includes: an expired driver’s license, an employer-issued photo ID, a U.S. Military ID, a valid student ID issued by a Virginia high school, a valid student photo ID issued by an institution of higher education in the U.S., a U.S. Passport, any federal or Virginia ID, a valid tribal ID, a nursing home resident ID, if from a government facility, a current utility bill or bank statement stating your name and address, or any current government document stating your name and address.

In the case that a voter can’t present any of the listed forms of identification, they can sign an ID confirmation statement that contains their name and address and use it in place of an ID. Anyone not registered to vote must vote provisionally.

As this first voter has handed me a Virginia driver’s license, I can use Poll Pad’s scanning function to scan the barcode on the back and pull up the correlating pollbook entry. I remind myself that all check-ins won’t be this easy. Other forms of identification aren’t compatible with the Poll Pad scanning function, so Officer of Election trainings also instruct Pollbook Officers how to look up voters manually.

Just as I’ve been instructed, I ask the voter to state her name and address, confirm it visually, and then repeat it aloud. This repetition ensures that any onlookers or fellow poll workers can prevent a voter from being checked in twice. The address stated needs to match the address in the pollbook, not the one on the ID, in the exceptional case where the two aren’t the same.

Once I corroborate the voter’s identity, I must ask a follow-up question specific to a dual Virginia primary election: “would you like to vote in the Democratic or Republican primary?” As Virginia is an open primary state, voters can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, regardless of how they’ve voted in the past. When the primaries are held on different days, constituents can vote in both. As the primaries were held concurrently on August 4th, voters had to select either a Republican or Democratic ballot.

In training, staff had warned us to prepare ourselves for potential pushback to this question. A person might feel exposed divulging their voting preference to a room full of strangers, and I myself had balked at the question in early voting. This voter is unfazed, and after selecting her ballot preference on the Poll Pad, I hand her a ticket, much like a take-out food order receipt, with her name on it, and which I have highlighted according to her ballot.

The Office of Elections has instructed Pollbook Officers to highlight the otherwise black-and-white check-in tickets—blue for a Democratic ballot and red for a Republican one—in order to make it easier for Ballot Officers, who hand voters their respective ballots, to determine which one to pick up.

Our first voter fills out her ballot in the privacy booth and walks it over to the tabulator, where she feeds it into the machine until it thanks her with a satisfying cha-chunk. The number displayed on screen changes from 0 to 1, and each pollworker congratulates her for being the first voter of the day. It’s several minutes until the next voter walks through the doors, and at 10 minutes until 8, we’ve welcomed 9 voters.

The trickle of voters is steady, but maddeningly slow. I use the pauses to text my friends from high school, urging them to vote, if not to perform their civic duty then out of sympathy for me, their friend, desperate for a flurry of activity on an otherwise monotonous day. Most of them are unaware that it’s an Election Day.

At 9 o’clock, as we have in the previous hours and as we will in the coming ones, we sound off. We double-check that the number of voters matches the number of ballots handed out as well as the number of votes recorded in the tabulator.

By 10 in the morning, I’m beginning to wonder if I’ll encounter any of the exceptional circumstances we were prepared for in Officer of Election training. There have been no protected voters (such as certain government officials or those in witness protection), voters who may only vote in federal elections, or voters who are registered in different precincts or districts and must be redirected. One voter, an older gentleman with no wallet or ID, signs an ID confirmation statement.

By midday, we workers of precinct 702 have long exhausted the United States trivia packet provided for our entertainment by the Office of Elections. Several of us have read and re-read the instruction packets. We’ve had fewer than 60 voters, despite the traffic outside. The church is silent, excepting the pouring rain, which one of my fellow election officers predicts will deter people. The day seems to drag—the Ballot Officer rests her eyes, the Provisional Officer reads her Bible, and the Assistant Chief eats a banana.

The day carries on with little excitement. When the polls officially close at 7 pm, the tabulator has recorded 153 ballots cast—more than expected, but still a sorry percentage of the nearly 3,300 voters listed in the precinct’s pollbook.

Closing the polling place is the inverse of the morning’s procedures. The unused ballots are counted again, the tabulator and Poll Pads shut down and resealed with chain of custody tags. The posters and signs are folded and returned to the cage, and the chairs and tables put away.

The paperwork, however, takes far longer. The total number of voters, as well as the votes for each candidate, must be tallied physically and digitally and checked against the end-of-day tapes that are printed from the tabulator and Poll Pads. Each officer checks the numbers and signs them.

Paperwork is packed away carefully in numbered envelopes that are sealed and signed before they can be dropped off at the Office of Elections and verified. It is after 8 pm when we lock and reseal the cage. We bid each other exhausted goodbyes and return to our cars and our rainy drives home.

Being an Officer of Election, though tiring, was deeply rewarding. The training process was extraordinarily rigorous. Every trainee’s questions were answered, and important points were emphasized to the point of rote memorization.

Before this experience, I was unaware of how few constituents exercise their right to vote, especially in a primary, as well as how many measures Louisa County takes to make voting as accessible as possible. I would eagerly work as an Officer of Election again, and would encourage anyone interested in the process or hesitant about the accuracy of elections to do the same. The exactness of the instructions and the meticulousness with which they are carried out set me at ease.

Additionally, working the polls made me more hopeful about our political climate than I have been in a long time. Because Virginia requires an even party split between those working in a particular precinct, at least half of my fellow Officers of Election must align themselves with a different party than I do. I am sure that several of them hold beliefs that oppose my own, but despite a polling place being an inherently political space, it is not one that feels divided. Instead, I felt united with my fellow poll workers, all of us having volunteered our time and effort to support the Commonwealth’s electoral system, and all hoping that our efforts would be rewarded with a people better represented by their government.

Roxie Pearl Beebe-Center is a Louisa County resident and a summer correspondent for Engage Louisa. She’s a rising fourth-year student at the University of Glasgow where she’s studying English literature and theology.

Share

The Louisa County Office of Elections wants you!

The Louisa County Office of Election is looking for community members to serve as election officers for the November 3 General Election. If you’re interested in serving, reach out to the Office of Elections at 540-967-3427. The office will provide all the training you need.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, August 17 through August 22

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Wednesday, August 19

Community Policy Management Team, Executive Board Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.

Other meetings/events

Monday, August 17

Mineral Town Council, special meeting. Mineral Town Hall, 312 Mineral Ave., Mineral, 6:30 pm. (agenda)

Tuesday, August 18

Louisa Town Council, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda)

Share

Quote of the week

“If you take action to maintain the rural nature of the county and slow residential growth, there are going to be increased costs whether that is driveways [or] electricity…It’s going to happen.”

-Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon in response to concerns about how a proposed 250-foot setback requirement for new homes in the county’s rural areas would impact affordability. Read more about proposed changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth and preserving the county’s rural character in the article below.

PC ready for public hearing on zoning changes aimed at slowing residential growth, preserving rural land; TDR program needs more work

The Louisa County Planning Commission on Thursday night signaled it’s ready to hold a public hearing at its October meeting on sweeping changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth, especially outside the county’s eight designated growth areas, and preserving farms and forestland.

Most notably, the changes would raise the minimum lot size for new parcel creation from 1.5 acres to 15 acres in agricultural zoning (A-1, A-2) outside of growth areas, increase road frontage requirements for new lots on existing state roads or federal highways to at least 450 feet and up setback requirements for new homes to a minimum of 250 feet.

County staff and several members of the commission have touted the changes as a way to temper residential development in the county’s rural areas by limiting how many times property owners can divide their land.

They say the proposed changes would reduce the fragmentation of rural working land, helping sustain farming and timber operations. They also contend the moves would help preserve rural character by pushing the development that does occur farther apart and off the road.

At a work session on Thursday, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon hit on points he’s repeatedly made—the county is growing at a steady clip, adding about 1,000 residents a year, and, according to UVA’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, ranks among the five fastest growing localities in the state.

Coon said the county is adding more than 430 new homes annually with nearly half being built outside its growth areas. That development, he said, is growing the county’s budget, due to the increased demand for services, and eating up farm and forestland.

The proposed changes are part of a larger growth management and rural preservation package that commissioners and county staff have been working on for the last six months.

After multiple work sessions, the commission appeared on track to consider the package at a public hearing in September, but opted to delay consideration for a month to give staff and a couple commissioners more time to work on one of its key components—a transfer of development rights initiative (TDR) that’s been described as the “carrot” to the proposed zoning code changes’ “stick.”

While the plan’s goal is to slow growth and protect agricultural land, it would dramatically impact rights that property owners currently have by restricting their ability to break up rural tracts and sell off pieces for residential development.

Enter the TDR program.

The program would take a market-based approach to preservation, allowing landowners who lose development rights due to zoning code changes—and those who own rural land with divisions rights still intact—to sell them to developers working on projects in growth areas.

If a property owner lost three division rights because of the increase in the minimum lot size or road frontage requirements, for example, they could still transfer those rights to a developer looking to increase the density of a project in a growth area and receive cash in return. Similarly, a property owner could opt to sell their rights to divide their farm, instead of holding on to them for potential development in the future.

Via the transfers, the rights would be extinguished forever regardless of whether the county changed its zoning code in the future. Hence, the program would preserve rural land in perpetuity while channeling growth to areas where the county wants it.

That is, if it works.

The program looked to be on life support as recently as two weeks ago when the workgroup that’s been crafting it—Coon, Agricultural Development and Land Conservation Coordinator Maggie Brakeville, Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks and Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin—recommended not advancing it—at least for now. (Read more about the program here and here).

At an August 6 meeting of the Agricultural Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee, Coon and Brakeville expressed doubts that the program would be successful, mostly because state code requires the transfers to occur via parcel to parcel transactions, instead of allowing the county to buy and bank the rights then sell them developers later. Under the former model, TDR programs have found little success elsewhere in the state.

Staff said the arrangement would mean that folks wishing to sell their development rights would likely have to spend a couple thousand dollars on due diligence, like surveys and title searches, without knowing if there’s a buyer and how much their TDRs are 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.

If few landowners participate, there’d be little product on the shelf for developers to buy.

To increase its chances of success, the workgroup recommended lobbying the General Assembly for changes in state law.

But Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, the board’s liaison to the Ag. Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee and a strong proponent of the initiative, pushed back, saying that he doesn't want to hear why the program won’t work, he wants staff to figure out ways to ensure that it will. The workgroup agreed to continue work on the draft ordinance over the next month.

Coon and Brakeville have also been working on what they call a “termed” purchase of development rights program (PDR), in which the county would offer preservation payments to landowners who enroll in Agricultural and Forestal Districts and agree not to develop their land for at least 10 years.

Brakeville has argued the program could serve as a bridge to permanent conservation easements. The PDR program isn’t part of the package that’s expected to be the subject of a public hearing in October. (Read more about the program here).

Here’s a look at the proposed changes to the zoning code and an update on where the TDR program stands.

Proposed zoning code changes

With an eye toward protecting working farmland and preserving the county’s rural character, the proposed revisions to the zoning code include three interconnected measures: increasing the minimum lot size for new parcel creation; increasing the amount of road frontage necessary to create a new lot; and increasing setback requirements for new homes. The measures would only apply to agriculturally zoned property (A-1, A-2) outside of the county’s eight designated growth areas.

The amendments propose upping, from 1.5 acres to 15 acres, the minimum acreage required to create a new lot. Property owners would still be allowed to utilize parcels smaller than 15 acres that existed before the code changed, but they’d be barred from dividing property into lots smaller than 15 acres after the effective date.

County code currently allows parent parcels in A-1 zoning to be divided into three pieces and parent parcels in A-2 zoning to be divided into seven pieces, provided the parcels meet minimum acreage requirements and other standards. Increasing the minimum lot size would limit parcel creation and leave more open space between new development.

For example, a property owner with a 30-acre parcel that’s zoned A-2 could currently divide it into seven new lots, assuming all other criteria are met. If the minimum lot size was hiked to 15 acres, they could split it into two pieces. A parcel that’s smaller than 30 acres couldn’t be divided.

The proposal couples larger lots with an increase in road frontage requirements. County code currently permits property owners in A-1 and A-2 zoning to create two lots from a parent parcel if they front an existing state/federal road for a minimum of 200 feet. Beyond that, each permitted lot must have 300 feet of road frontage. The draft rules up the minimum requirement to 450-550 feet, depending on context.

The plan would increase setback requirements, or how far a home must be built off a road. Currently, homes must be at least 50 to 60 feet from a primary or secondary road. Under the proposal, that would increase to 250 feet.

The proposed amendments would also tweak width and depth requirements for new lots on agriculturally zoned land outside of growth areas and change some road frontage, setback and related requirements for new internal subdivision roads.

In addition, the amendments would change the county’s family subdivision ordinance Under current code, landowners can subdivide property zoned agricultural and residential into two or more parts for the purpose of sale or gift to a member of their immediate family. In most circumstances, the person to whom the property is sold or gifted must retain it for at least five years before it can be sold unless it’s subject to “an involuntary transfer such as foreclosure, death, divorce, judicial sale, condemnation or bankruptcy.”

State law permits an individual to receive one family subdivision parcel per locality during their lifetime. Family divisions don’t count against a parent parcel’s by-right divisions and are exempt from road frontage requirements because they can be accessed off an easement or private lane.

The draft code provision retain the minimum lot size of 1.5 acres for family divisions while establishing a combined ownership and retention period of at least 15 years with a requirement that the property’s under the same ownership for at least five years before its eligible for a family division.

If a property owner creates a family division on a parcel she’s owned for five to nine years, the recipient of the parcel would be required to hold onto it for a minimum of 10 years before it could be sold. For property that’s been under the same ownership for a decade or more, recipients would be subject to a five-year retention period.

The draft revisions also prohibit the use of private lanes as a mechanism to create an additional lot when road frontage requirements aren’t met. The proposed rule doesn’t apply to family divisions.

To facilitate the TDR program, the zoning code revisions would lower by-right density thresholds in growth areas to compel developers to buy division rights. 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.

The proposed code revisions would also mandate that PUDs include commercial space and establish rules to ensure that the commercial component is delivered in a timely manner. Aside from purchasing TDRs, residential density in a PUD could be increased by offering community benefits like workforce housing or infrastructure improvements.

Before agreeing to advance the plan to a public hearing, a few commissioners shared their thoughts.

Jackson District Commissioner Troy Painting expressed concern about the 250-foot setback requirement, noting that it could make building a home more expensive. He pointed to the increased cost of the driveway and to run electricity to the dwelling.

Coon reiterated a point he’s made throughout the code revision process: slowing growth and preserving rural character will raise the cost of housing.

“If you take action to maintain the rural nature of the county and slow residential growth, there are going to be increased costs whether that is driveways [or] electricity…It’s going to happen,” he said, emphasizing that while building homes along the roadside is cheaper, it doesn’t protect rural view sheds.

Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin suggested that when it comes to curbing growth, some people will be “slowed”—be it a prospective homebuyer in search of affordability or a property owner hoping to divide their land. He made clear he’s eager to move forward with the proposal.

Finding a path forward for TDR

While the proposed zoning code overhaul includes changes designed to facilitate the TDR initiative, the workgroup acknowledged during Thursday’s work session that the program isn’t ready for primetime.

At the Ag/Forestal Committee meeting earlier this month, Coon and Brakeville emphasized that state code presents several hurdles for the program—namely it doesn’t permit the county to buy development rights and bank them, which would allow landowners to immediately realize economic value from their TDRs instead of having to wait for a developer to come along.

They said the program has found the most success in states that allow TDR banks, like Maryland. Under its system, Virginia has struggled.

Brakeville noted that state code does allow localities to extinguish development rights through tax abatements, which occur over a set number of years. With the help of that mechanism, she said, a few counties have been able to establish functional TDR programs, but the option wouldn’t work in Louisa because of the way the county approaches and evaluates land division.

Brakeville, who isn’t a licensed attorney in Virginia but holds a law degree from the University of Kansas, has also argued that, as a party to TDR transactions, the county must ensure ample due diligence is performed before a transfer occurs to protect itself from potential liability.

But Williams has countered that staff should take a “buyer beware” approach in crafting the TDR ordinance, essentially arguing that the county’s chief role is determining if a parcel is eligible for the program and has division rights to sell. The rest, he suggested, should be left up to the private sector.

With that in mind, Hicks and Coon said they’re focused on revising the draft ordinance. They’re likely to nix an initial proposal that required the county to certify TDRs for sale and place them on a county-maintained list that would be distributed to those interested in buying them.

Hicks said the program could rely, at least in part, on private TDR brokers who connect buyers with sellers, keeping the transactions out of the county’s hands until participants are ready to close a deal. He suggested the change could limit the county’s legal exposure.

But Brakeville seemed to take a different view.

“So the county will still have to do some due diligence as it is a party to the transaction. It will just be that the buyer and the seller will connect themselves and then come to the county having already done title searches, surveys and that type of thing,” Brakeville said. “It doesn’t necessarily negate any of the county’s due diligence. It just shifts when the due diligence would happen.”

Brakeville acknowledged that, by its nature, the TDR program is complicated. But, she said that staff is doing its best to “uncomplicate it.”

“We are trying to figure out a system that will be the easiest for buyers, sellers and county residents to understand,” Brakeville said.

Hicks added that he’d like for the county to keep a list of TDR transactions—all of which would be public record and recorded at the courthouse—so buyers and sellers could easily see what the rights are trading for.

“That is to prevent Louisa citizens from being taken advantage of,” Hicks said.

Beyond the mechanics of the transaction itself, Hicks emphasized the program’s interdependence with the proposed zoning code changes. The workgroup proposes decreasing by-right density in growth areas to compel developers to buy TDRs so they can increase density and ensure their projects are financially viable. The transfer of those rights from rural areas to growth areas curbs residential development on farms and forestland and channels it to where the county wants it.

Folks developing land for single-family dwellings in growth areas would likely use some TDRs, Hicks said. But he argued that the biggest opportunity for preservation comes from dense developments featuring apartments and townhomes—projects that could gobble up dozens or even hundreds of TDRs at a time. Hicks suggested the county must be committed to that sort of development in areas with the infrastructure to support it for the program to thrive.

“I see [Planned Unit Developments] as the greatest complement to the TDR system because [they open the door to] the greatest [opportunity for] preservation throughout the county. It gets more citizens’ selling {development rights]. That’s our true win over time. But that brings up the conversation of our growth areas. What are we inviting into our growth areas?” Hicks said.

Next steps

Any changes to the zoning code as well as the adoption of a TDR program requires public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.

As things currently stand, the planning commission will hold a work session to review the proposed TDR program at its September meeting. Assuming commissioners agree to advance the initiative, they’ll hold two public hearings on the growth management and rural preservation package in October: one on the proposed changes to the zoning code and another on the TDR ordinance.

Provided the commission doesn’t table the items and opts to make a recommendation to the board for approval or denial, supervisors could consider the package as soon as November.

Share

PC roundup: Commission tables action on campground regs, oks commercial rezoning at Wares Crossroads

Aside from discussing the growth management and rural preservation package, the planning commission last Thursday took up a few other items. (work session materials, video) (regular meeting materials, video)

Planning Commission tables action on new rules for campgrounds

The planning commission on Thursday night voted 5-0 to table action on new regulations for campgrounds that would tweak the county’s definition of the use and differentiate between large and small facilities, allowing the latter by-right under some circumstances.

Instead of voting on whether to recommend that the board of supervisors approve or reject the proposed rules, commissioners instead opted to direct staff to continue working on how to address campgrounds in code, including potentially axing the proposed provisions for smaller campgrounds while adding provisions for temporary workforce housing.

The commission plans to discuss the item at a work session in September. Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles and Louisa District Commissioner Matt Kersey missed the meeting.

Amid concerns about a proliferation of unauthorized campgrounds cropping up around the county—mostly in the form of a few RVs parked on private land—the board of supervisors earlier this year directed the commission to consider revisions to code to clarify how the county defines a campground and establish guardrails for the use.

The discussion appears to have been sparked, at least in part, by the surge of temporary workers coming to the county and in need of temporary housing.

For years, the county has drawn workers for periodic refueling outages at Dominion Energy’s North Anna Nuclear Power Station. But the influx seems to have escalated in recent months, a potential consequence of large-scale construction projects like data center development.

In addition, Dominion is in the process of implementing more than $2 billion in upgrades at North Anna, including replacing condensers and other equipment. Those projects are expected to bring nearly 3,000 temporary workers to the plant during a pair of three-month maintenance outages this fall and next spring, according to the company.

After discussion at multiple work sessions, the commission was set to make a recommendation to the board on proposed amendments that would define campgrounds, in part, as “an area or parcel of land, managed as a unit, providing accommodations…for recreational shelters (tents, tent trailers, travel trailers, recreational vehicles and campers, etc.).” The definition establishes two categories for the use: “campground, major” and “campground, minor.”

The former refers to larger facilities that include three or more campsites. Among other requirements, they must be sited on at least 10 acres and include a 200-foot buffer. The latter encompasses smaller venues with a maximum of two campsites, situated on at least three acres with a 100-foot buffer. Both would be required to comply with Virginia Department of Health regulations and other relevant state rules.

The proposed rules would permit major campground with a conditional use permit (CUP) in agricultural and commercial zoning while barring the use in most zoning designations. Minor campgrounds would be permitted by-right, albeit with restrictions, in agricultural zoning but barred elsewhere. Both uses would be allowed by-right in resort developments.

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 CUP in agricultural areas.

Allowing minor campgrounds by-right with restrictions in agricultural zoning is apparently an effort to sanction temporary workforce housing on a limited basis while establishing guardrails for the use.

A few commissioners took issue with that approach, suggesting that campgrounds and workforce housing shouldn’t be blended, and staff needs to reevaluate the proposal.

Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin was the most vocal critic, vehemently opposing the minor campground provision.

Goodwin said that permitting property owners to rent a couple RVs for indeterminate stays doesn’t comport with the traditional idea of a campground and flies in the face of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for the county. He contended the proposal would only exacerbate the proliferation of temporary dwellings, instead of reining in the problem.

“The Comprehensive Plan addresses preserving the rural nature of the county. This will not be doing that. This will be creating the rural nature of the Appalachian part of the state, as we stereotypically know it,” Goodwin said.

Goodwin also expressed concern that neighbors wouldn’t get a say in what’s happening next door if the facilities are allowed by-right, meaning without a public approval process.

“By-right means that neighbors don’t get a chance to state their concerns or their support. They don’t get to talk about privacy. They don’t get to talk about neighborhood safety. They don’t get to talk about what it does to the value of their property next door. All valid topics that neighbors ought to have a chance to talk about,” Goodwin said.

Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway, a retired electrical engineer at Dominion, said that he’s never been able to wrap his mind around the idea of minor campgrounds and suggested that he’d like to see the definition of major campground tweaked if the goal is to accommodate workforce housing.

Specifically, he suggested that the 10-acre minimum wouldn’t be necessary because RVs could be placed close together as temporary workers tend to use the vehicles mostly for sleeping, not as a means of relaxing in nature.

Alternatively, Disosway said, the commission could consider adopting definitions for campgrounds and workforce housing, instead of combining the uses.

A few community members weighed in during the public hearing, expressing mixed views on the proposal.

In an email to the commission, Louisa District resident Joshua Turner seemed to support the concept of minor campgrounds but raised concerns about the minimum acreage and buffer requirements. He suggested those rules shouldn’t necessarily apply to property owners who have multiple contiguous parcels.

Turner said in a previous email to the commission that his family had offered “workforce campers” to temporary workers on multiple parcels for about six years before the county received an anonymous complaint and shut them down for violating the zoning code.

He said that each site was served by an approved drain field, well and electricity and his family wants to comply with code to provide much-needed temporary housing again.

“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.

Sammy Kelley, who operates Christopher Run Campground on Lake Anna, shared a different view. As the proprietor of one of the county’s largest campgrounds, he said he’s concerned that allowing a by-right carveout for small venues could negatively impact his business and that of similar establishments.

“I’m concerned that if these new campground definitions and requirements are accepted, people will be led to believe that having a minor campground is a simple way to make money…I understand why people in the county would want to start a minor campground. With taxes, groceries and other expenses going up every year, it seems to be an easy way to bring in additional income without a lot of work. However, [it could] take revenue away from existing campgrounds that had to put in more time and effort to establish their business,” Kelley said.

Kelley also raised questions about the proposal’s compliance with state law.

In the end, the commission agreed to go back to the drawing board, directing staff to evaluate whether “campground, minor” should be eliminated as a proposed use; whether “workforce housing” should be added as a use, and how it should be defined and regulated; and how the county should regulate major campgrounds.

Commission recommends approval of commercial rezoning at Wares Crossroads

Commissioners held a public hearing and voted 5-0 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 said 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.

Ian Cole, an associate planner with Louisa County’s Community Development Department, told the commission that the rezoning aligns with the character of the neighborhood and conforms with the Comp Plan’s goals and vision.

“The proposal mirrors the plan’s objective of broadening the county’s tax base through the establishment of new businesses,” Cole said. “On a broader scale, the property is situated between three major projects: the commercial gateway project to the west, the Planned Unit Development of Wares Crossroads to the south and the Cutalong Resort Development to the east.”

Commissioners reacted favorably to the request, only asking a couple questions.

Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks asked if the applicant would be able to erect new structures on the property if the existing buildings didn’t meet its needs. Cole said yes.

Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin noted that the property adjoins Reef Capital Partners’ Tributer Resort, a PUD and resort development that’s already home to a golf course and, at full buildout, will feature a second course, about 1,000 dwellings and a range of high-end resort amenities. Goodwin wondered how the property’s developer had responded to the Byrds’ plan. Matthew Byrd said that his cousin, Wayne Byrd, had talked with Reef and their conversations had gone “very well.”

No one weighed in for or against the rezoning during the public hearing.

The board of supervisors will hold a public hearing on the request at its September 8 meeting.

Planning Commission rejects request to tweak electronic sign rules

Commissioners opted not to consider changes to an ordinance restricting the use of electronic signs on agriculturally and residentially zoned property, arguing that limiting the signage supports their goal of preserving the county’s rural character.

The board of supervisors in July asked the commission to evaluate potential tweaks to the ordinance after Gregory Wyatt, the chairman of the Board of Trustees at Mt. Olivet Baptist Church in eastern Louisa, raised concerns about the regulations. Wyatt said his church wanted to replace an existing sign with an electronic sign, noting that many of the church’s members are elderly, and it’s easier for them to change the message on an electronic sign.

The board adopted the regulations last year amid concerns that bright lights from electronic signs present safety concerns for motorists and detract from the community’s rural character. Churches and other entities that already have electronic signs aren’t barred from using them, but the ordinance prohibits new electronic signs.

A draft amendment included in the meeting materials would allow churches to pursue a special exception from the board of supervisors to install an electronic sign.

After some discussion, commissioners decided that elderly church-goers struggling to change a sign’s message wasn’t a compelling reason to recommend changes to the ordinance.

“I don’t think electronic signs enhance the rural character of the county, particularly not at night. In a rural area, you appreciate a dark sky,” Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway said.

Commission recommends approval of expanding AFDs

The planning commission on Thursday night held public hearings and voted unanimously to recommend that the board of supervisors add a combined 3,660 acres to six Agricultural and Forestal Districts.

AFDs are a conservation tool that allow landowners engaged in farming or forestry to voluntarily prohibit develop on their land for 10-year periods. In exchange, participating parcels are ensured enrollment in “land use” taxation and afforded limited protections from government’s ability to encroach on agricultural activity.

The commission recommended that the board of supervisors add 360 acres to the Patrick Henry AFD, 638.5 acres to the Gold Mine Creek AFD, about 1,000 acres to the Ellisville AFD and roughly 675 acres to the Trevilian Station AFD, all in central and western Louisa. Commissioners also recommended expanding the Indian Creek AFD by 340 acres and adding 646 acres to the South Anna AFD in southeastern and south-central Louisa, respectively.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, August 10 through August 15

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)

Share

Quote of the week

“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.

BOS roundup: Supes ok rules for humanitarian shelters, talk Mineral charter and more

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.

Share

Staff, two commissioners raise red flags about proposed transfer of development rights program

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.

Share

School Board appears closer to finalizing site for new elementary school

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.

Share

PC preview: Commission to hold public hearings on campgrounds and more

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.

Share

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, August 3 through August 8

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Monday, August 3

Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. The board will convene in closed session at 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)

Tuesday, August 4

Louisa County School Board, Central Office Administration Building, 953 Davis Highway, Mineral, 7 pm. (agenda, livestream)

Thursday, August 6

Agricultural, Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm.

Other meetings/events

Tuesday, August 4

Primary Election Day, polling places across Louisa County, 6 am to 7 pm.

Louisa County voters on Tuesday have an opportunity to choose the Democratic and Republican nominees for the 5th Congressional District seat and the Republican nominee for one of Virginia’s two seats in the US Senate. Click here for the Republican primary sample ballot. Click here for the Democratic primary sample ballot. Questions about voting? Click here or call the Louisa County Office of Elections at 540-967-3427.

Share

Quote of the week

“We are solving a problem that a lot of people have. How can we provide good housing for [a] family who grew up in Louisa, who live in Louisa, who work in Louisa and want to continue to be in Louisa?”

-Attorney Torrey Williams to the Louisa County Planning Commission on the importance of family subdivisions. Read more about a rezoning request that would clear the way for a family subdivision in the article below.

After tabling action last month, board to consider CUP requirements for humanitarian shelters

After tabling action last month, supervisors on Monday night will consider amending county code to require that churches and other entities wishing to provide overnight shelter to unhoused community members, or others temporarily in need of a place to stay, obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regardless of their zoning designation and adhere to a range of regulations.

Under current code, emergency shelters—the county’s name for homeless shelters—are permitted by-right in general commercial (C-2) and some industrial zoning inside growth areas. The shelters require a CUP in agricultural (A-2) zoning though code doesn’t prescribe specific regulations for the use. They’re prohibited in residential zoning.

The board held a public hearing on the proposed amendments last month during which nearly a dozen community members weighed in, including representatives from several churches and the Louisa Homeless Coalition (LHC).

Most speakers objected to requiring churches to obtain a CUP, with some arguing it infringes on religious freedom. Many urged supervisors to allow churches to offer overnight shelter—at least on a limited basis—sans an extensive public approval process.

Volunteers with the homeless coalition had asked the county more than a year ago to exempt churches from the existing CUP requirement 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 with a few churches over the last two winters, but volunteers said their efforts were hampered by the county’s rules. They asked county officials to loosen requirements for churches—at least during cold weather.

Officials instead crafted proposed amendments that tweak how code defines a homeless shelter, require a CUP for the use county-wide and mandate specific regulations.

During the two-hour public hearing, supervisors listened to community members’ concerns and occasionally engaged in back-and-forth discussion with speakers, ultimately agreeing to delay action to give the coalition time to talk with county staff about other options. That included potentially permitting the use by-right with restrictions, a regulatory framework that wouldn’t require a lengthy public approval process but would codify guardrails for shelters.

The agenda packet for Monday’s meeting only includes the amendments considered last month. It doesn’t include any alternative proposals for regulating the use outside of the CUP process or for carving out churches.

Lin Kogle, a volunteer with LHC, said in an email to Engage Louisa that representatives from the coalition met with Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams after the board’s July meeting to discuss a path forward. She said a “majority” of coalition members now believe the county’s CUP proposal is, as she put it, “the best we’ll get.”

“Chris provided a detailed pros/cons list for us to [compare the CUP option and the by-right option]. He, more or less, convinced us that the CUP is the better option of the two…[a] CUP exemption doesn’t seem possible,” Kogle said, adding that she personally hopes the CUP proposal passes, but not everyone involved with the coalition agrees.

“Chris has done major research and work on this, and I have confidence in his recommendation,” Kogle said.

As proposed, the 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.

Coon said at last month’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 regardless of zoning 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.”

Churches and non-profits would be allowed 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.

Kogle shared an email that the coalition sent to churches to notify them of the expected change to county rules and offer assistance in applying for a CUP. The email notes that churches would only be required to apply for a CUP once and that the process is free. It also emphasizes that county staff has designed a “simplified application” to streamline the process.

“NOW - LHC would like to start working with churches who want to provide shelter this coming winter,” the email says, directing recipients to reach out to Kogle, LHC Chair Duane Sergent or David McWilliams, the pastor at Zion United Methodist Church, for more information.

Obtaining a CUP requires a multi-month public approval process, including public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body. The county also requires applicants to hold a neighborhood meeting to answer questions and address community concerns.

During the process, CUP applications are frequently tweaked to add regulations that address specific concerns from neighbors. That means the process could yield more regulations for some applicants than what’s currently proposed by the county.

The permits aren’t guaranteed. They ultimately require approval by the board of supervisors, a point of concern for McWilliams during last month’s public hearing.

“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.

Several speakers last month also raised concerns about forcing churches to navigate a lengthy bureaucratic process simply to provide overnight shelter to a handful of unhoused community members during bad weather—the initial intent of the exemption request. Mountain Road District resident Mary Kranz, whose church participated in the LHC pilot program, called the CUP requirement “overkill.”

It’s unclear if any churches immediately plan to pursue the permit.

Share

As Mineral leaders mull effort to annul town charter, BOS to discuss process; Supes to hold four public hearings

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night will convene for its lone August meeting with a busy agenda, including four public hearings, on tap.

Supes to discuss potential effort to annul Town of Mineral charter

For the second time in five years, leaders in the Town of Mineral have expressed interest in giving up the town’s charter.

The board of supervisors on Monday night will discuss what the process for disincorporating the 124-year-old town would look like, per provisions in state code, and the role county government would play.

Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said in an email last week that Mayor Pam Harlowe and Council Member David Hempstead had both reached out to him to talk about annulling the charter, prompting the discussion.

Originally established as Tolersville in 1890, the town incorporated as Mineral in 1902, an homage to the then-thriving mining industry. The town is currently home to 555 residents, according to a 2024 population estimate from the US Census Bureau.

Should the town give up its charter—a move that requires voters’ approval—it would cease operating as an independent political entity and become an unincorporated community in Louisa County.

The town in recent years has been embroiled in near-constant political drama, marked by infighting among council members and significant staff turnover. That combination has made it difficult to conduct town business with council meetings routinely devolving into petty bickering and town leaders—on more than one occasion—summoning the Louisa County Sheriff’s Office to keep the peace at meetings.

Most recently, council members failed to agree on an annual budget and instead passed a continuing resolution that funds the town for only two months. A split council has fired then attempted to rehire Nicole Washington as town manager. Washington is in the process of suing the town for $300,000 for allegedly violating her employment contract, among other claims.

In May, the town’s treasurer quit, alleging in her resignation email that she was subjected to a “hostile and toxic work environment” and “observed numerous practices that [she believes] are inconsistent with professional, ethical, and operational standards.”

The ongoing drama apparently prompted Harlowe to recommend that the town disincorporate. According to The Central Virginian, the mayor suggested the move in a July 20 email to council during a discussion about Washington’s employment status.

“Let’s give up the charter ASAP,” Harlowe said, per the paper.

Council in 2021 voted to begin the process of annulling the charter at the request of then-Council Member Ed Jarvis. Jarvis pointed out at the time that when the town was established, it had its own police force and school system but now only offers trash pickup. He wondered what residents were getting for the taxes they pay.

The vote sparked pushback from residents, including Harlowe, and council subsequently reversed course. Harlowe didn’t respond to a request for comment on why she thinks the town should give up its charter now.

The annulment process

According to a memo from County Attorney Patricia Smith, state code requires towns to follow a specific process to surrender their charter, which ultimately requires voters’ backing.

For starters, council must enter into an agreement with the board of supervisors of the county in which the town is located, which lays out a framework for dissolving. The agreement must include provisions for transferring to the county the town’s revenue, facilities, real estate, services and any other assets and for the county’s assumption of any debt held by the town.

The agreement may include the establishment of a special debt district, encompassing property within the town. The property could be subject to a special tax levy for up to 20 years to repay any debt.

Once the agreement is in place, council may adopt an ordinance, by a majority vote of its members, to petition the circuit court to order a referendum asking town voters if the charter should be annulled and repealed.

Upon adoption of the ordinance, the town is required to notify the county or commonwealth’s attorney and the chairman of the board of supervisors and to publish, for four successive weeks in a local newspaper, a summary of the ordinance.

The circuit court then sets a date for a special election. Per state law, the election must occur on a Tuesday and may coincide with a general election, but not a primary.

If a majority of town voters support relinquishing the charter, the annulment takes effect on January 1 of the year following the election unless the town and county jointly petition the court for a different date.

The town then surrenders its charter, falling entirely under the jurisdiction of the county. It no longer operates as an independent political subdivision with the power to levy taxes, provide services and make land use decisions.

The General Assembly is tasked with formally repealing the charter during the next legislative session.

While state code requires a locally-initiated charter annulment to follow a specific and lengthy process, the General Assembly has the power to revoke a town’s charter on its own accord—a power it rarely uses.

That nearly happened to the Town of Pound four years ago when Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, who represents the area, advanced a bill to repeal Pound’s charter. The move came as the town navigated an embezzlement scandal, serious problems with its water system and dysfunction among council, according to Cardinal News.

Kilgore’s bill gave the town a year to clean up its act or lose its charter. After Kilgore saw improvements in the town, the General Assembly repealed the legislation.

Also in 2022, the legislature repealed the charter for the Town of St. Charles in Lee County because it no longer had a functioning government. No one had run for office in the town for two election cycles nor had the town collected taxes.

Since 1997, four towns have voluntarily given up their charter via referendum: Clover in Halifax County, Castlewood in Russell County, Columbia in Fluvanna County and, most recently, Glen Lyn in Giles County.

While the county would play a key role should Mineral opt to move forward with the annulment process—hence Monday night’s discussion—Adams emphasized in his email that the town’s future lies in residents’ hands.

“While I do represent the citizens of the Town of Mineral on the BOS, I am not a town resident therefore I have no input on the final decision made by the Town Council or voters [should the issue] go to a referendum. This decision will ultimately be made by the Mineral Town Council and voters who reside in the Town,” he said.

Supes to consider rezoning for family subdivision

Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider whether 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.

Attorney Torrey Williams told the planning commission at its July meeting that Brown is a long-time resident and small business owner who 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 county code.

“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 [a] 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 single-family dwellings so allowing a few more homes wouldn’t alter 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.

The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend that the board of supervisors approve the rezoning.

Board to hold three public hearings on expanding AFDs

Supervisors will hold a trio of public hearings focused on expanding Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD), a conservation tool that allows landowners who use their property for farming or forestry to voluntarily prohibit development for 10-year periods.

In exchange, participants are ensured enrollment in “land use” taxation. The districts also provide limited protections from government’s ability to encroach on agricultural activities.

In the first public hearing, supervisors will consider adding a 30.8-acre parcel to the Ellisville AFD. In the second, they’ll consider expanding the Gold Mine Creek AFD by 33 acres, encompassing three parcels. Both districts are in northwestern Louisa County.

In the third public hearing, the board will consider establishing a new Agricultural and Forestal District: the Healing Springs AFD near Gum Spring. If approved, the district would include two parcels, covering 841 acres. It would be the county’s 15th AFD.

Supervisors to consider two budget supplements, tourism support funding for LAAC

Supervisors will take up three budget-related items on Monday night.

They’ll consider approving two supplements to the Fiscal Year 2026 budget, including $20,000 to cover a cost overrun for off-road fuel at the Louisa County Landfill and $192,800 for unanticipated expenditures under the Children’s Services Act, a state-mandated program that provides services to at-risk youth and their families. Of that, $124,835 will come from county funds while the remainder comes from the state.

The board will also consider appropriating $3,800 in Tourism Support Funding to the Lake Anna Advisory Committee (LAAC), an inter-jurisdictional panel that includes representatives of Louisa, Spotsylvania and Orange Counties. The committee is tasked with maintaining no-wake buoys and managing hydrilla on the 13,000-acre waterway, among other duties.

LAAC plans to use the money to remove 11 old buoys and install nine new buoys that comply with state regulations. The proposed resolution says that the appropriation would “help protect residents and visitors while enjoying recreational experiences that support tourism.”

“Lake Anna is one of Louisa County’s premier tourism assets, attracting visitors throughout the year for boating, fishing, and other recreational activities, and maintaining safe waterways is essential to preserving and enhancing the visitor experience,” the resolution says.

Louisa County draws its Tourism Support Funding from the transient occupancy tax, a seven percent levy tacked onto visitors’ bills when they stay the night at a hotel, bed and breakfast or short-term rental. Per state law, about 40 percent of the revenue the county pulls in from the tax must be spent on tourism-related initiatives.

The Tourism Advisory Committee recommended that the board of supervisors approve the funding at its July meeting.

In addition to county support, LAAC has also received state funding for buoy maintenance. The biennial state budget approved in June includes $30,000 in both FY27 and FY28 to maintain buoys and manage hydrilla at the lake.

Other business:

• Board to adopt 2026 Strategic Tourism Plan: Supervisors are set to adopt the 2026 Strategic Tourism Plan. The plan establishes “goals focused on strengthening tourism infrastructure and marketing, participation among tourism-related businesses, enhancing events and year-round visitor experiences, developing place-based tourism opportunities, and aligning local efforts with the Commonwealth of Virginia’s tourism strategies,” according to the proposed resolution. Additionally, it identifies opportunities and challenges for tourism locally and provides supporting resources, including the Tourism Advisory Committee’s bylaws and the state’s Strategic Tourism Plan. Read the plan here.

• Supervisors to discuss Rural Long-Range Plan for transportation: Supervisors will discuss the Rural Long-Range Plan (RLRP) for regional transportation. First drafted in 2018 and currently being updated by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), the RLRP is the region’s long-term vision for transportation improvements in the rural portions of the district, which include Louisa, Fluvanna, Greene, Nelson and the non-urban areas of Albemarle. The plan is aimed at identifying existing transportation conditions, evaluating future needs, and establishing transportation priorities to guide planning, programming, and future funding opportunities, per a memo to the board of supervisors. It currently includes six draft goals centered on improving safety, integrating various modes of transportation, supporting economic development, maintaining and enhancing existing transportation systems, coordinating transportation with land use decisions and reducing the impact of transportation projects on natural resources. Learn more about the plan here.

• Supervisors to discuss Opportunity Zones: The board will discuss whether it wants to recommend that the state nominate any eligible areas of the county as federally-designated Opportunity Zones. Established in 2017 with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the zones comprise certain economically disadvantaged census tracts and are designed to spur development via federal tax incentives. Currently, the county doesn’t have any Opportunity Zones, but the state is collecting information from localities on their interest in nominating specific tracts. Read more here.

• Board to hear presentation from FCCLA: Supervisors will hear a presentation from Virginia Family, Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA). According to its website, FCCLA is the nation’s leading career preparation and workforce readiness organization for students pursuing careers in education & training, hospitality & tourism, arts & design, personal finance, human services, and public service through family and consumer sciences education.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

Quiet coming week in county government

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

According to Louisa County’s website, there are no public meetings in the coming week, July 27 through August 1.

Share

Quote of the week

“I am very grateful that somebody’s actually listening and actually [looking beyond] Amazon telling them that all these things aren’t true.”

-Austin Newsom on the news that his lawsuit against Amazon Data Services related to the tech giant’s construction of a data center campus off Route 33 across the street from his home is moving forward in federal court. Read more about the suit in the article below.

Louisa resident’s lawsuit against Amazon over data center construction near his home moves forward in federal court

A Louisa resident’s lawsuit alleging that Amazon Data Services’ (ADS) ongoing construction of a data center campus in central Louisa County has damaged his home and hurt his small business is moving forward in federal court.

U.S. District Court Judge Jasmine Yoon in early July denied a motion from ADS, an affiliate of Amazon Web Services, to dismiss the lawsuit. Austin Newsom and his business, Central VA Marine, filed the suit in Louisa County Circuit Court last August. It was subsequently moved to U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Yoon ruled that Newsom’s private nuisance claim can move forward. She dismissed on procedural grounds a separate claim seeking injunctive relief but noted that Newsom is free to pursue an injunction as relief for the alleged nuisance. Yoon’s ruling isn’t a decision on the merits of the case, only whether it can proceed.

The suit stems from Amazon’s construction of the Northeast Creek Technology Campus, the first phase of a sprawling data center complex that the tech giant is building on a 1,444-acre tract south of Jefferson Highway (Route 33) and east of Mt Airy Road (Route 644) near the Northeast Creek Reservoir. Amazon plans to build 10 data center buildings, three substations and ancillary structures in the project’s initial phase, which is expected to be complete by 2031, according to court filings.

Newsom, who lives directly across the street from the campus, alleges that, through its construction, Amazon has “obstructed and interfered” with “reasonable and comfortable use” of his property, including contaminating his water supply, causing structural damage to his home, subjecting him to loud noise, light pollution and dust, and driving customers away from his boat repair business, among other ills.

As part of the suit, Newsom asks the court to grant a preliminary injunction, which wouldn’t stop construction but, as litigation proceeds, would bar Amazon from “further invasion of [his] property rights.” The company “would be free to continue construction” but not in a way that “unreasonably interfere[s] with the use and enjoyment of Newsom’s property,” per a motion and supporting memorandum filed in May.

The suit also seeks at least $1 million plus interest and any other relief the court deems appropriate. A hearing on Newsom’s motion for a preliminary injunction is set for August 19.

The suit comes as a growing number of residents have soured on data center development, expressing concerns that the warehouse-like facilities, which power cloud-computing and artificial intelligence, are a threat to the local water supply, a strain on the power grid and a detriment to the community’s rural character due to noise and light pollution and an onslaught of heavy truck traffic on rural roads during years of construction.

County officials have maintained that the facilities are an economic boon, expected to generate millions of dollars in tax revenue annually on a relatively small footprint.

Amazon is building two data center complexes in Louisa—one off Route 33 across from Newsom’s home and the other on 150 acres adjacent to the North Anna Power Station near Lake Anna. EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure plans to develop a third campus at the 697-acre Shannon Hill Regional Business Park off Interstate 64 in south-central Louisa.

The suit

Newsom’s initial complaint describes Amazon’s construction of its data center campus as an “ongoing nuisance,” claiming it’s caused physical damage to his home, subjected him to noise, light pollution and dust, impacted his mental health and hurt his boat repair business.

The complaint alleges that excavation, via heavy equipment, has physically damaged Newsom’s property. Specifically, it claims that heavy construction has caused vibrations that cracked Newsom’s home; disrupted “natural drainage” leading to flooding in a nearby roadway; and spewed dust and debris, negatively impacting air quality.

The complaint also claims that, shortly after construction started at the campus in March 2025, Newsom “began experiencing issues with the water at his house, which had previously not existed.”

“Namely, the water will turn brown intermittently. Mr. Newsom reasonably fears for his health and is reluctant to drink the water at his home,” the complaint says.

The complaint further contends that construction-related vehicles traveling to and from the campus have damaged roads, created safety hazards and impeded access to Newsom’s property, “frequently obstruct[ing] the roadway.”

Newsom has “suffered from a barrage of noise and light pollution,” according to the complaint, as “extraordinarily loud” noise emanates from the construction site at hours not permitted by county code and “flashing blue lights are nearly continuously displayed,” including at night.

The complaint claims that Amazon “has flouted Louisa County Code in its construction” of the data center campus, pointing specifically to a provision in the county’s noise ordinance, which prohibits noise related to construction activity from exceeding certain limits at the property line “from sunset until 7:00 a.m., except in the case of emergency,” and “from sunset to 6:00 a.m.” in July, August and September.

Taken together, the suit contends that the “constant nuisance” created by the construction site has taken a toll on Newsom’s mental health. It also claims that it’s devalued his property.

Beyond those alleged impacts, the suit contends that Central VA Marine, a boat repair business that Newsom owns with a partner, has lost customers because of Amazon’s construction activities. Newsom operates the business out of a shop adjacent to his home.

According to court filings, the business caters to a clientele of high-end recreation boat owners “that expect a clean and professional environment for the care of their vehicles.” Instead, the suit alleges, “dust and din” from the data center campus have turned the shop into a “chaotic workplace” and made “customer service and boat repair nearly impossible.” On multiple occasions, the suit claims, customers towing boats to and from Newsom’s property have nearly been involved in accidents.

“In fact, several of Central VA Marine’s customers have stated that they will not return to have their boats serviced at the Newsom property until construction of the Northeast Creek Data Center is complete, directly and severely impacting Mr. Newsom and his business,” the complaint says.

Amazon asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing Newsom failed “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” per Yoon’s 24-page opinion. The company contended, in part, that Newsom didn’t back up his claims with enough facts to plausibly infer that its activities had endangered his health or unreasonably interfered with the use of his property. But Yoon ruled that Newsom had sufficiently met the standard to bring a private nuisance suit.

“In the aggregate, the allegations about the various interferences are enough to plausibly infer that Amazon’s Data Center activity obstructs Plaintiffs’ reasonable and comfortable use of the Newsom Property,” Yoon wrote in the July 10 opinion.

In an interview last Friday, Newsom said that he’s grateful the case is moving forward.

“I am very grateful that somebody’s actually listening and actually [looking beyond] Amazon telling them that all these things aren’t true,” Newsom said.

Raising concerns in Louisa County and beyond

Newsom has been a critic of Amazon’s project over the last few months, sharing his story on social media and with several media outlets. In a story on WTVR in May, Newsom complained of constant noise from dump trucks traveling to and from the campus, and dust from the construction site blanketing his property. The story showed Newsom on his front lawn with a decibel meter measuring the roar of trucks as they continually pass his home.

Newsom and his family have also spoken out on Facebook, posting a video of muddy water running from a faucet, which they contend is a consequence of the heavy construction across the street.

Newsom’s plight has caught the attention of Erin Brockovich, an environmental and consumer activist made famous more than three decades ago when Julia Roberts portrayed her in an Academy Award-winning film bearing her name.

Newsom recently appeared on a livestream with Brockovich where he talked about his experience living across the street from a massive data center construction site and his efforts to get more information about the project from Louisa County, in part, through a Freedom of Information Act request.

In a mid-July Facebook post, Newsom said that, for over a year, he’s repeatedly raised concerns to the county about Amazon’s activity with the belief that he’d get a “fair resolution.” But he said his complaints have been “ignored and dismissed,” prompting him to share his story.

“I believe the residents of Louisa County and the Commonwealth of Virginia deserve to hear my experience firsthand and to ask their own questions about what is happening. I encourage everyone to look at the facts, review the public records, and come to their own conclusions rather than relying solely on what they are told,” Newsom said.

Newsom said on Friday that he’s reached out to county officials on numerous occasions to lodge complaints about the construction site, including Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, who represents the area. But, he said, those conversations haven't led to meaningful action.

“I just got a bunch of run-around, a lot of excuses, and not one resolution to anything,” Newsom said, noting that his concerns about dust had prompted the county to request more street sweepers, but that didn’t resolve the problem.

Adams said in a brief interview on Friday that he’s communicated with Newsom and his wife multiple times and worked to remedy or, at least, mitigate the impacts of the project.

He shared an email chain in which he reached out to Clark Construction, the general contractor for the campus, requesting that they deploy a water truck to address a complaint from Newsom about dust as well as a Facebook exchange in which he said he’d speak with Amazon and Clark about loud music emanating from the site early in the morning and Newsom’s wife thanked him.

Adams also said that he’d rectified Newsom’s concern about a bright light on Amazon’s property shining into a bedroom in his home.

“I’ve always tried to be responsive, just as I have [with] any constituent. I have a lot of empathy when something’s negatively impacting any of my constituents…I know the issue with the light in their child’s bedroom and the loud music that was coming from some construction workers was resolved because I helped resolve it. I know that the dust issue has certainly been mitigated because I helped get that mitigated with the water [truck],” Adams said.

Regarding Newsom’s concerns about his drinking water, Adams said that he doesn’t know what the issues are with the well, but he’d recommended that Newsom contact the Virginia Department of Health, which regulates public and private drinking water sources.

In an email on Friday, Louisa County said it has fielded complaints about noise and dust from the data center campus and “followed up on those concerns with the appropriate parties.” To date, the county said, it hasn’t taken any enforcement action.

“The County will continue to review specific complaints and take appropriate action if a violation of an applicable ordinance is identified. The County does not intend to comment on the merits of the pending litigation,” Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said.

Share

After just 10 months on the job, Louisa town manager resigns

After just 10 months on the job, Louisa Town Manager Stuart Turille has resigned, effective immediately.

In a resignation letter submitted to the town last Wednesday (July 22), Turille didn’t provide any reason for his departure. He said he’d seen “much growth” in the town during his tenure, “particularly in the morale and spirit of the Town staff and the community.”

“It is my sincere hope and belief that I have contributed to that growth, in some small way, and positioned the organization and Town for all the future success I am sure lies ahead,” Turille said.

In a statement released Wednesday afternoon, the Town of Louisa said that Turille is “no longer serving in the role of Town Manager” and wished him “all the best in his future endeavors.”

Turille’s departure comes the day after Louisa’s town council convened for its July meeting. Turille was in attendance for most of the meeting before council convened in closed session, in part, to discuss “personnel matters regarding performance, evaluation or job assignments of specific employees,” according to a disclosure required by Virginia’s open meeting law.

When members emerged from closed session, Turille didn’t rejoin the meeting. Council subsequently voted 5-0 to hire the Berkley Group, a Bridgewater-based local government consulting firm, to assist the town in finding an interim town manager.

In the absence of a town manager, Louisa’s charter tasks the mayor with ensuring that the manager’s duties are carried out “if the Town Council has not acted otherwise.”

“The Town Council remains committed to ensuring a smooth transition and the continued delivery of quality services to the residents and businesses of the Town of Louisa. Information regarding interim administrative leadership and the process for selecting a new Town Manager will be shared as it becomes available,” the town said in its statement.

Council hired Turille as town manager last September, touting his deep experience in local government. He replaced interim Town Manager Craig Buckley, who served for about nine months, following the resignation of former Town Manager Liz Nelson in late 2024.

Beyond his brief tenure in Louisa, Turille made quick exits from his three previous jobs, according to media reports. He served for just eight months as manager of the City of Southport in North Carolina before resigning and immediately leaving his post. He led Pittsylvania County as county administrator for just over a year before stepping down with the board of supervisors waiving the 30-day notice required by his contract. He served as manager of the City of Petersburg for nine months, resigning a week after city council placed him on administrative leave for reasons that remain unclear.

When asked about his employment history after he took the job in Louisa, Turille suggested that he didn’t mesh with leadership in some of his previous positions because, as he put it, he’s interested in making things better, “not just maintain[ing] the status quo.”

The town has seen significant staff turnover over the last couple years. After Nelson’s departure in late 2024, it lost its clerk and treasurer and struggled to share basic updates on town government, including minutes from council meetings. The dearth of public information drew criticism from some community members, who questioned the town’s transparency.

Just prior to bringing on Turille, council hired a new clerk and treasurer. Over the last year, it’s launched a new website and an app and started posting video of council meetings.

Share

Displaying red ribbons to stop Valley Link

Community meeting focused on opposing proposed transmission line set for July 28

By Roxie Pearl Beebe-Center

Residents opposed to Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line have launched a new effort to protest the project—the Red Ribbon Campaign.

The brainchild of long-time Louisa residents Amy Seay, Helene Purcell and Robin Horne, the campaign urges folks in Louisa County and beyond to fly red ribbons on fenceposts, mailboxes, front doors, and in shop windows in the hope that the colorful protest will raise awareness about the proposed 765-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and demonstrate community disapproval of the project. The ribbons also act as a display of solidarity across the nine counties that could be impacted if state regulators give the project a green light.

Why red ribbons? The color, like the campaign, sends a simple message—stop. Just as red road signs and traffic lights signal drivers to stop, red ribbons across Central Virginia urge Dominion Energy and the project’s other developers to halt their plans for the overhead transmission line.

Horne has called Louisa home for “over 30 years” and is “afraid that these lines are going to destroy [the county].”

The Red Ribbon Campaign’s organizers are part of a larger coalition of residents working to block the line. The group will hold a community meeting this Tuesday, July 28, at Moss-Nuckols Elementary School at 6 pm to share information about what citizens can do to fight the project.

The colossal power line, rolled out in February, is slated to run approximately 115 miles across the rural Virginia Piedmont on one of multiple proposed routes. Valley Link, the developer, is a partnership between Dominion Energy, Transource and FirstEnergy Transmission.

Valley Link has said the line is necessary to meet the growing demand for power across the region, driven largely by data center development. The company says on its website that it aims “to build the infrastructure that keeps your lights on and powers the future while keeping bills as low as possible.”

The power line would connect planned substations in Culpeper County at its northern end and Campbell County at its southern end. In Campbell, it would link to an existing 765-kV line, channeling power generated in the Ohio River Valley. The proposed venture has an estimated cost of at least $1 billion, according to the company.

The physical cost of the transmission line would be immense, with 200-foot rights of way along its route and four or five 150-to-175-foot-tall steel towers erected every mile.

Louisa County residents have expressed concern about the scar the project could carve across the region, as well as the potential implications for property values, personal health, and the environment. To many, such a large project threatens to destroy the sanctity of rural land and rural life. Some have pressed Valley Link to underground the line.

The project is still in the planning stages, and Valley Link intends to approach Virginia’s State Corporation Commission (SCC) with an official proposal later this year. In a letter to potentially impacted residents shared earlier this month, Valley Link said it will present its preferred route and any proposed alternatives at a virtual meeting this fall.

The company said residents would receive postcards with information about the meeting. The SCC’s deliberation process is anticipated to take about a year, and, if approved, the transmission line would aim to power up in 2029.

Valley Link’s forthcoming application to the commission will be discussed at Tuesday’s meeting. Attendees will have an opportunity to sign a petition to present to the SCC, which already boasts over 4,000 signatures; sign letters to Governor Abigail Spanberger; and, of course, collect red ribbons for display.

The event will feature several speakers, including Louisa County Board of Supervisors Chair Duane Adams; Mike Regan, an Orange County resident who has led advocacy efforts against the project; and Theodora M. Scarato, director of the Electromagnetic Fields [EMF] Program at Environmental Health Sciences and Special Expert to the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Scarato will address community concerns about the impact of EMF and magnetic fields on health and share her research on their effects on wellbeing and the environment. Throughout her career, Scarato has worked to fortify government policy on cell tower and cell phone radiation exposure limits.

Organizers expect that Scarato will provide a perspective on the ecological and biological effects of transmission lines, which differs from that voiced by Valley Link. On its website, the company says that “scientists across the globe have studied the potential health impacts of EMF since the 1970s and found no cause-and-effect link between EMF exposure from power lines and negative health impacts.”

For the founders of the Red Ribbon Campaign, the potential impact of the Joshua Falls to Yeat line is personal. An earlier transmission line proposal was set to run through Amy Seay’s family farm in Fluvanna County. Her daughter and grandchildren are the fourth and fifth generation to live and farm the land now threatened by Valley Link. Seay hopes that the Red Ribbon campaign will ensure that this legacy won’t be splintered.

“One ribbon might not seem significant, but when hundreds of people are tying one to a mailbox, their fence, their gate, so forth and so on, it becomes a visible reminder that communities are just united in this, and I think that’s really the power of a grassroots movement,” Seay said.

To learn more about The Red Ribbon Campaign and the proposed Valley Link transmission line, check out Tuesday’s meeting at Moss-Nuckols Elementary School, 2055 Courthouse Road, Louisa, at 6 pm.

A Louisa County resident and summer correspondent for Engage Louisa, Roxie Pearl Beebe-Center is a rising fourth-year student at the University of Glasgow where she’s studying English literature and theology.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

Quiet coming week in county government

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

According to Louisa County’s website, there are no public meetings in the coming week, July 20 through July 25.

Other meetings/events

Tuesday, July 21

Louisa Town Council, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda packet)

Share

Quote of the week

“I’m not an advocate of any more discharges into Lake Anna, however, this one is a bit more nuanced since it is into the [Waste Heat Treatment Facility]—the private property of Dominion Energy. I don’t think they would agree to it unless it was carefully vetted. I also think the staff at [the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality] was very thorough in their review of the application, especially with the ground water monitoring requirement. Overall, I am satisfied the permit application process was adhered to and that the discharge permit should allow the DEQ to hold the permittee accountable.”

-Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter to Lake Anna Life & Times, discussing the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s issuance of a controversial discharge permit that clears the way for Amazon Web Services to release thousands of gallons of treated wastewater per day into a stream that empties into Lake Anna. The water will be discharged after it cools equipment at AWS’s Lake Anna Technology Campus, a data center complex under development in McCotter’s district. Read more in the article below.

With eye toward rural preservation, planning commission gets details on proposed purchase of development rights program

The Louisa County Planning Commission is expected to hold a public hearing as soon as its September meeting on proposed changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth, especially outside the county’s eight designated growth areas, and preserving working farmland and the community’s rural character.

The hearing comes as county leaders grapple with how to best address population growth, which they contend is ballooning the budget due to the escalating demand for services, and usurping farm and forestland, a consequence of the steady pace of new home construction.

Over the last five years, Louisa has ranked among the five fastest growing localities in the state based on percentage of population growth, according to the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. Since the 2020 census, the county has grown nearly 13 percent, adding about 1,000 residents per year. It’s population now tops 42,000.

While some new residents have flocked to the county’s designated growth areas, including waterfront subdivisions around Lake Anna and the fast-growing Zion Crossroads area off Interstate 64, a sizable number have settled in its rural reaches. According to data compiled by county staff, Louisa is adding about 430 new homes a year with just over half built outside its growth areas.

Those figures have alarmed leaders in the agricultural community, who argue that subdividing ag land for new home construction is threatening the future of the family farm. They point out that breaking up large tracts makes sustaining large-scale farming operations increasingly difficult and brings more people closer to the smells and sounds of agriculture, which can lead to conflict and increased regulation.

At public meetings over the last few months, Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, who lives and farms in eastern Louisa, has sounded the alarm about residential growth in his district, the only one of the county’s seven voting districts that doesn’t include a designated growth area. Williams has said the district, which spans a large swath of northeastern Louisa, is seeing rapid residential construction, and he’s ready to “expend political capital” to curb it.

“The county is undergoing some tremendous change right now. We’ve already undergone a lot…We’ve probably almost lost the county. We’ve got to do some things if we’re going to maintain some of the rural nature,” Williams said in January.

The planning commission at a work session next month is expected to consider the first draft of potential changes to the zoning code that would sharply limit 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 acres, the minimum acreage required to create a new parcel and increasing road frontage requirements for new lots, 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.

The commission is also considering dramatically increasing setback requirements for new homes on both new and existing lots, from 50-60 feet to 250. Together, the road frontage requirements and setbacks would push homes farther off the road and farther apart. Staff and commissioners say the moves would help preserve viewsheds and the community’s rural character.

While 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. Those enticements would incentivize preservation, opening the door for landowners to realize economic value in ways other than selling rural land for development.

At a work session earlier this month, the commission delved 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 takes a market-centered approach to preservation, allowing landowners in agricultural areas to sell their division rights to folks developing property in growth areas.

For more about the proposed TDR program, check out last week’s edition of Engage Louisa. Read on for a closer look at a how a termed PDR program would work.

A twist on purchasing development rights

Under a traditional purchase of development rights program, a locality buys residential or industrial development rights on farm and forestland while landowners maintain ownership and continue to use the land. Through the acquisition of development rights, the programs essentially conserve farms and forestland in perpetuity, limiting future uses.

PDR programs have served as a key preservation tool in parts of the state facing significant development pressure. Fauquier County in Northern Virginia, for example, has purchased development rights on some 13,500 acres of farmland, preserving it for agricultural use, even as residential growth burgeons nearby.

In Louisa, county officials are floating what they call a “termed PDR,” an initiative they say would be the first of its kind in the state. Under the program, landowners would agree not to divide their property for residential development temporarily—for a 10-year period—and, in return, receive a set amount of compensation from county coffers.

Agricultural Development and Land Conservation Coordinator Maggie Brakeville, who has played a key role in developing the program, has pitched the initiative as a bridge to permanent conservation measures, allowing property owners to familiarize themselves with their conservation options while ensuring development doesn’t take place on their land—at least in the near term.

“Our long-term goal is conservation easements. We are just looking for a way that would get us there, knowing that, often times, conservation easements are scary for people. But, maybe if we preserved for 10, 20 or 30 years under the tiered program, we would then be ready for a conservation easement,” Brakeville said during a presentation in December.

To encourage long-term conservation, Brakeville has said the program would include extensive landowner education, covering farm transition plans and estate and trust planning with the goal of “preserv[ing] the farm for the next generation.”

The initiative would build on the county’s popular Agricultural and Forestal District (AFD) program, which allows landowners to voluntarily agree not to develop or divide farm and timberland for 10-year stretches. In exchange, the program ensures the property’s enrollment in “land use” taxation. “Land use” is a statewide program that’s locally authorized. It provides significant tax breaks for parcels used for agriculture and forestry.

The termed PDR would add an enticing incentive for forgoing development, beyond land use taxation, which is available to rural landowners whether their property is enrolled in an AFD or not—cash payments.

As Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon explained it during the work session, the program would offer annual compensation for participating parcels with payments calculated by multiplying a parcel’s assessed value by the real estate tax rate, currently 72 cents per $100. For example, a 20-acre parcel that’s assessed at $100,000 would qualify for a $720 payment.

Because property in land use is taxed at significantly less than its assessed value, the preservation payment would cover both a property owner’s tax bill and provide extra money, Coon said.

Coon also laid out the parameters for participation, which are designed to preserve working rural land susceptible to development. The program would be limited to A-1 and A-2 properties outside of designated growth areas and require enrollment in an AFD. Parcels already in a conservation easement wouldn’t be eligible. If the parcel has a dwelling, it must be at least 10 acres to participate, Coon said.

The program would require landowners to sign a contract with the county, which would mostly limit the use of participating parcels to farming and forestry-related endeavors.

How would the program be funded?

County officials have said they intend to fund rural preservation efforts by tapping anticipated revenue from data center development though they’ve had limited public discussion about exactly how much funding a termed PDR program could receive.

At a meeting of the board of supervisors’ finance committee earlier this year, county staff said the board could potentially tap some $900,000 in building permit fees recently received from Amazon Web Services (AWS) to jumpstart the program.

From there, the board has signaled it’s prepared to make large-scale investments in rural preservation, potentially dedicating as much as 15 percent of the revenue it annually pulls in from data centers to protect farms and forestland.

At several public meetings, Finance Director Wanda Colvin has offered projections for tax revenue the county expects to receive from a pair of AWS campuses. The revenue would mostly be generated by real estate taxes on the buildings and business personal property taxes on the pricey computer equipment inside.

While the projections are subject to change based on multiple factors, including the pace of development, how many of the warehouse-like facilities are ultimately built and how often AWS replaces its equipment, Colvin has said the campuses could generate nearly $2 million for county coffers this fiscal year and over $6 million in FY28.

As they’re built out, that figure is expected to rise to $26.3 million in FY29, $35.6 million in FY30 and more than $40 million by FY36. Staff has said the projections are based on revenue from 25 data center buildings and they came up with the estimates with assistance from AWS.

Assuming the money materializes, the county would be flush with cash to fund preservation efforts within the next five to 10 years. But it’s not here yet.

Depending on how much money is initially available and how many landowners sign up, Coon said the county could implement a competitive process to determine which parcels qualify for compensation, relying on a “waterfall” method that factors in road frontage, total acreage and available residential division rights.

“By evaluating these factors together, via a progressive waterfall process, the county can prioritize the properties most susceptible to future development while ensuring preservation funding is distributed fairly and objectively,” Coon said.

Parcels that don’t initially qualify could remain in the queue should more funding become available and property that gets funding could re-enroll at the end of its 10-year contract.

While the termed PDR program offers temporary preservation incentives, Coon and Brakeville have emphasized that it’s designed to serve as a bridge to long-term measures, like conservation easements, which generally preserve property in perpetuity.

As the county’s funding for preservation grows, Coon said at the work session, it could potentially offer incentives and assistance to facilitate permanent conservation easements.

Next steps

The planning commission will discuss draft changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth in rural areas at its August meeting and potentially hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments and make a recommendation to the board as soon as September. It’s unclear when county officials will formally consider the termed PDR program and the path it would take for approval.

In an email to Engage Louisa last Thursday, Coon said that staff is “still determining the implementation mechanism for the PDR program” and isn’t prepared to offer a “definitive adoption process or timeline at this point.”

Per state law, changes to the zoning code require public hearings in front of both the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body. It’s unclear if the PDR program would require changes to the zoning code. Either way, it would require a greenlight from supervisors.

Share

DEQ issues controversial discharge permit for AWS data center campus by Lake Anna

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) last week issued a controversial discharge permit to Amazon Web Services (AWS), clearing the way for the tech giant to release thousands of gallons of treated wastewater per day into a stream that empties into Lake Anna.

Before it’s released, the water will be used to cool equipment at AWS’s Lake Anna Technology Campus (LATC), a data center complex that, at full buildout, will include more than 1.7 million square feet of the warehouse-like facilities, which power artificial intelligence, cloud-computing and other web-based services.

AWS requested the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit a year ago. DEQ released a draft permit last November, which drew dozens of comments from concerned community members during a pair of public comment periods and two public hearings.

The permit, effective August 1, allows AWS to release treated, non-contact cooling water, at a rate of 280,000 gallons per day, into Sedges Creek, an ephemeral stream that runs through its 150-acre campus, which adjoins Dominion Energy’s North Anna Power Station. The stream empties into Dominion’s Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF), also known as the “private side” or “warm side” of Lake Anna, near the Aspen Hill subdivision. Dominion releases lake water used to cool the power station into the impoundment.

Community members raised a variety of concerns about AWS’s discharge plan, mostly centered on its potential impact on the lake. They expressed concern about the volume of the effluent; how hot it would be; the pollutants it could contain; and the potential for negative impacts on wildlife and recreation. Residents also voiced concerns about the campus’s potential impact on groundwater, the frequency with which DEQ would test the discharge for pollutants; and what some viewed as a lack of transparency in the public approval process.

DEQ maintained throughout the process that the permit is designed to protect water quality, setting limits on pollutants in the discharge, including physical and chemical properties, metals and temperature, and establishing monitoring and enforcement procedures.

In a 23-page document that both summarized public comment and responded to community concerns, the department explained that the discharge would be the by-product of AWS’s direct evaporative cooling system, in which water interacts with warm air, absorbing heat through evaporation. The cooled air is then directed through the data centers to ensure equipment doesn't overheat.

Water that hasn’t evaporated will be recycled up to six times. What’s left over, or “spent,” will be treated with a mixture of sulfuric acid, sodium bisulfate, calcium chloride and sodium hydroxide, among other chemicals, and released. DEQ says those chemicals will also be removed during the treatment process.

To ensure compliance, the discharge will be monitored daily for some pollutants, including pH, total residual chlorine, dissolved oxygen and temperature, and monthly for others. AWS will be required to submit monthly reports to document its daily monitoring activity.

According to DEQ, AWS is expected to employ its evaporative cooling method only during the hottest months—April through October—when the temperature reaches about 88 degrees. It anticipates using the system in one to 12-hour intervals and discharging spent water at a maximum rate of 140,000 gallons a day, half its treatment system’s capacity. The company will rely on ambient air temperature for cooling when the temperature doesn't reach the upper 80s.

DEQ staff said the temperature of the discharge is expected to match the ambient temperature of the water as it enters the system, noting that the evaporative cooling process absorbs heat. Still, the permit stipulates that the discharge can’t exceed 89.6 degrees and requires monitoring daily.

AWS will initially rely on water from commercial wells for cooling. It will switch to public water once the county finishes an 11-mile pipeline to the Northeast Creek Reservoir, likely by early 2027.

The department made some modifications to the draft permit in response to community concerns, particularly related to the facility’s potential impact on groundwater. Data centers are known for using large quantities of water to cool their equipment and neighbors said they’re worried about the facility’s impact on the local water supply.

The permit requires AWS to submit to DEQ, within 90 days of its effective date, a map identifying all private residential wells located within a one-mile radius of the campus and a “Residential Impact Complaint Procedure” by which owners of existing wells can submit a complaint should their water supply be impacted by tapping groundwater for cooling.

Within 120 days of the permit’s effective date, AWS must provide financial assurance to DEQ of $25,000 per private residential well within a one-mile radius plus an additional $500,000 “to support the resolution” of any impacts on neighbors’ water supply. The financial assurances must be in place until 12 months after the campus stops using groundwater as its cooling source.

The permit also bars AWS from discharging cooling water that isn’t sourced from the Northeast Creek Reservoir into Sedges Creek and requires the company to notify the agency at least three days in advance of its shift from groundwater to the reservoir.

The public approval process has served as a platform for some Lake Anna residents to vent their frustration with data center development. During the initial 30-day public comment period late last year, residents expressed concern with what they believe is a lack of transparency with both DEQ’s permitting process and data center development in Louisa County more broadly.

Many commenters said they didn’t know about the draft permit until just before the comment period closed, and that they weren’t aware that AWS planned to discharge cooling water into a small stream that empties into the lake.

Some residents voiced frustration with the process local officials employed to bring data centers to the county, which allowed AWS to build two facilities—including the Lake Anna campus—by-right, meaning without a public approval process.

“I happened to see [the public notice] on Facebook 5 hours before your deadline. Nothing about the data center had been shared before the building began, and we are living with huge environmental changes. The ramifications of these changes were never discussed with the community,” Aspen Hill resident Bernadette Wyckoff said in an email to DEQ.

Neighbors’ frustration was on full display at a public hearing in June, which DEQ convened to allow community members who previously submitted public comment to follow up on their concerns. Some attendees, who hadn’t previously commented, said that they didn’t know they wouldn’t be allowed to speak.

“We are citizens of this area. We care about the environment. We care about [Lake Anna] and we also expect that, as a state agency, you would care,” one attendee said from the audience at the end of the meeting.

Representatives from DEQ maintained that they were adhering to state code in restricting the public hearing to speakers who’d previously participated. A public notice for the hearing stated it would be limited to speakers who submitted comment earlier in the process.

In its summary document, DEQ emphasized that it followed state law in advertising the initial public comment period, including twice publishing notices in The Central Virginian, posting notice online and directly notifying Louisa County and the Town of Mineral.

Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter, whose district includes the Lake Anna Tech Campus, said last week that he’s comfortable with the permitting process and believes the final permit will adequately regulate discharge from the facility, according to Lake Anna Life & Times, a newspaper owned and operated by McCotter and his wife.

“I’m not an advocate of any more discharges into Lake Anna, however, this one is a bit more nuanced since it is into the WHTF—the private property of Dominion Energy. I don’t think they would agree to it unless it was carefully vetted. I also think the staff at VDEQ was very thorough in their review of the application, especially with the ground water monitoring requirement. Overall, I am satisfied the permit application process was adhered to and that the discharge permit should allow the DEQ to hold the permittee accountable,” McCotter told the paper.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: July 13 through July 18

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.

Share

Quote of the week

“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.

Board axes sales tax referendum, tables action on CUP requirements for humanitarian shelters

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.

Share

Planning Commission digs into proposed TDR program, prepares for public hearing on campground regulations

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.

Share

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: July 6 through July 11

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Monday, July 6

Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. The board will convene in closed session at 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)

Wednesday, July 8

Louisa County Water Authority, 23 Loudin Lane, Louisa, 6 pm.

Thursday, July 9

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)

Friday, July 10

Tourism Advisory Committee, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 2 pm.

Other meetings/events

Monday, July 6

Mineral Town Council, special meeting, Mineral Town Hall, 312 Mineral Ave., Mineral, 6:30 pm.

Share

Quote of the week

“Unlike traditional funding methods that rely primarily on property taxes, this approach broadens the funding base by allowing residents, visitors, commuters, and others making taxable purchases within the County to contribute toward eligible school capital projects.”

-Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon in a memo to the board of supervisors, discussing a potential one percent hike in the sales and use tax to fund school construction. The levy would require approval from voters, and the board on Monday night will consider whether to place a referendum on the ballot this November. Read more in the article below.

Welcome to our summer correspondent

Engage Louisa is excited to welcome our summer correspondent, Roxie Pearl Beebe-Center. A Louisa County resident, Roxie is a rising fourth-year student at the University of Glasgow where she’s pursuing a double major in English Literature and Theology. Check out Roxie’s coverage of the upcoming Republican and Democratic primaries in the 5th Congressional District below. Thank you, Roxie, for sharing your talents with us this summer!

Supervisors eye new tool to fund school construction

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors is eyeing a new tool to fund construction of the county’s fifth elementary school.

The board on Monday night will consider asking voters to weigh in on whether the county should add a penny to the 5.3-cent sales and use tax, which would be earmarked for school construction.

In a last-minute state budget deal approved in late June, lawmakers in Richmond gave localities the power to raise the sales tax by up to one percent to fund school capital projects so long as voters in the county or city where the tax would be levied approve the change in a ballot referendum.

Local governments for years have advocated for additional ways to raise revenue for costly school construction beyond real estate and personal property taxes, which provide the lion’s share of local funding. But, until last month, the General Assembly had only extended that power to nine localities, mostly in Southside Virginia.

Supervisors will consider advancing a resolution on Monday that authorizes the county to petition Louisa County Circuit Court to order a referendum for the November 3 General Election. Per state law, the court must green-light the ballot question at least 81 days ahead of Election Day. This year, that’s August 14.

School officials say the new school is necessary due to climbing enrollment with three of the county’s four elementary schools at or near capacity. The school board hasn’t said where it plans to build the facility, but a consulting firm in May recommended siting it in the center of the county, specifically on a 91-acre plot adjacent to the high school/middle school campus.

Supervisors included $3 million to begin planning for the school in last year’s Capital Improvement Plan and tentatively allotted $52 million for construction in the next fiscal year. The proposed resolution says money from the tax—should voters approve it—would be used for “eligible school capital projects, including the financing, design, construction, furnishing, and equipping of a new elementary school serving Louisa County Public Schools.”

In a memo to the board, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon described the potential levy as a way to diversify funding sources for large capital projects and reduce the tax burden on property owners. He also emphasized that it would “preserve property tax capacity.”

“Every dollar generated through a dedicated sales tax is a dollar that does not need to be generated through another local revenue source,” Coon wrote.

The tax would be tacked on to the sale of most goods and some services, from the purchase of refrigerators and cleaning supplies to boat rentals and stays at overnight lodging. Per state law, it wouldn’t apply to “food for human consumption” or “essential personal hygiene products” like diapers and feminine products. “Food for human consumption” refers to most food purchased at a grocery or convenience store but excludes alcohol, tobacco and hot foods for immediate consumption.

“Unlike traditional funding methods that rely primarily on property taxes, this approach broadens the funding base by allowing residents, visitors, commuters, and others making taxable purchases within the County to contribute toward eligible school capital projects,” Coon wrote.

It’s unclear how much money the additional tax would generate for the school annually. The county currently receives one percent of the sales and use tax with the rest going to state coffers. In Fiscal Year 2027, the county’s share is expected to top $7.9 million, inclusive of the tax on groceries, which would generally be excluded.

It’s also unclear when the tax would sunset. State law requires the referendum to include a specific expiration date. If a locality intends to finance a capital project via bonds or loans, the date must coincide with the final payoff date. Otherwise, the governing body is authorized to choose a sunset date that isn’t more than 20 years beyond the effective date.

County officials have said they’d prefer to pay for the school in cash, as opposed to issuing 30-year school bonds, which can’t be paid off early. They’ve said paying cash is an option, thanks to anticipated revenue from data center development.

Draft ballot language included in the resolution reads: “Shall Louisa County be authorized to levy an additional one percent (1%) local sales and use tax for school capital projects, including the construction of a new elementary school serving Louisa County Public Schools, with the tax to expire on ________________, 2046?”

Coon said in his memo that the expiration date is a “placeholder for Board discussion and direction.”

If the referendum ultimately lands on November’s ballot and a majority of voters support it, the board would then pass an ordinance enacting the tax and set its effective date. Per state law, the levy must take effect on the first day of a month at least 120 days after its enacted.

Board to consider green-lighting $1.355 million budget supplement, mostly for raises for county, school employees

In other state budget-related action, the board on Monday night will consider green-lighting a $1.355 million budget supplement, mostly to cover the cost of raises for county and school employees.

The biennial state budget passed in late June includes a four percent pay hike for school employees and a three and a half percent raise for state-supported county employees for the current fiscal year—a slightly higher pay bump than the three percent allotted in the county’s budget.

The board’s Finance Committee, which includes Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams and Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, recommends matching the state’s raise, which would require the extra money.

The state covers a portion of the salaries for some school and county employees and, in turn, would cover part of their raises. The county is on the hook for the entire pay hike for employees whose salaries aren’t subsidized by the state.

Of the $1,355,480 supplement, $714,000 would go to school staff with the remainder allotted for county employees. Roughly $587,000 would come from state funding with the rest coming from county coffers. To cover its share, the board would tap $492,000 left over from the FY26 budget and pull $276,000 from long-term capital reserves.

Share

Board to hold public hearing on CUP requirements for humanitarian shelters, consider MOUs for turf field use

Aside from budget-related matters, the board will consider a relatively crowded agenda on Monday night, including five public hearings.

Board to hold public hearing on CUP requirements for humanitarian shelters

After a lengthy delay, the board of supervisors on Monday night will hold a public hearing on whether to require churches and other entities, regardless of their zoning, to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to provide overnight shelter to unhoused community members or others temporarily in need of a place to stay.

The proposed code amendments would require applicants to meet a range of regulations to open their doors as overnight shelters, from detailing intake processes to documenting how they’ll address “adverse impacts” on neighbors.

The public hearing comes nearly a year after the planning commission recommended imposing the restrictions over strong resistance from representatives of the Louisa Homeless Coalition (LHC), who argued the rules should exempt churches, and objections from the Rutherford Institute, a right-leaning organization that advocates for religious liberty.

In a letter to the commission, two attorneys from the Charlottesville-based legal advocacy group, which litigates cases involving constitutional rights and civil liberties, said the proposal risks violating churches’ constitutional protections and state and federal law. They contended there’s no compelling government interest in requiring churches to obtain a CUP to operate a shelter, and local government should get out of the way and allow congregants to minister to “the least of these.”

Louisa’s county attorney, Patricia Smith, said prior to the commission’s hearing that she “didn’t find any legal issues” with the proposed amendments.

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 its 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 two winters ago, but volunteers said their efforts were hampered by the county’s CUP requirement. They requested that the county carve out churches from the permit requirement—at least during harsh weather. Some residents argued at public meetings that churches are willing to provide a service that the county won’t provide, and local government should allow congregants to act on their faith without intrusion.

But the commission mostly shrugged off those arguments, instead recommending code amendments that tightly regulate overnight shelters regardless of who’s pursuing the use.

The proposed amendments, which the board is slated to consider on Monday, 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.

The draft ordinance defines 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.

Board to consider MOUs for turf field use, other Parks and Rec rental fees

After pushback from two prominent youth sports leagues, who argued proposed fees to use a pair of new turf fields behind Louisa County Middle School would make them inaccessible, supervisors on Monday night will consider approving Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) that would instead govern the leagues’ use of the facilities.

County staff in early April recommended that the county charge $30 an hour, with a minimum two-hour reservation, for use of each field and another $10 to use the lights. The fees would’ve applied to any entity not directly affiliated with Louisa County Parks and Recreation (LCPR) or Louisa County Public Schools (LCPS). In keeping with current county policy, staff said that qualifying community-based organizations would get a 50 percent discount.

Staff said the fees were necessary to protect the taxpayer-funded assets, contributing to the cost of their upkeep and supervision. The board of supervisors spent more than $6.6 million on the fields, a project that spiraled about $2.8 million over budget.

But representatives of the Louisa Youth Athletic Association (LYAA), the county’s lone tackle youth football league, and the Louisa Area Soccer Association (LASA), argued that, even with the discount, the fees would cost them thousands of dollars more than the $5 to $10 a day they currently pay to use the county’s grass fields.

Covering those costs, representatives of the leagues said, would require substantial hikes in their registration fees. Both leagues said they try to keep registration fees low to ensure kids can participate.

In response to those concerns, supervisors directed staff to negotiate MOUs with the leagues that reduced the fees while establishing guardrails for the fields’ use.

The proposed MOUs up for consideration on Monday would require LYAA and LASA to pay $625 per season for use of both turf and grass fields and set access limits for practices and game days. Both leagues would incur per-use charges if they requested additional time on the fields. LYAA plays football in the fall while LASA has a spring and fall soccer season. (LASA MOU, LYAA MOU)

Both leagues would have the option to reduce their fees through partnerships with LCPR for clinics, tournaments or other community events.

The draft agreements also require the leagues to carry $1 million in commercial liability insurance per occurrence and $2 million in aggregate.

Beyond the MOUs, the board will consider adopting a broader package of rules, procedures, policies and fees for LCPR and LCPS-owned facilities available for public use through the Parks and Rec Department. The package includes proposed rental fees for the facilities, rules and regulations governing their use and reservation applications. The fee schedules establish charges for residents and non-residents with the latter paying double for most fields. (policies and fee schedules)

While the MOUs significantly reduce the cost to use the turf fields for LYAA and LASA, the proposed fee schedule hikes the charges for community members not affiliated with either league. Under the proposal, residents reserving one of the fields for an hour would be on the hook for $75 to $85 plus $10 if they use lights. Staff initially proposed a $30 per hour rental fee with a minimum two-hour reservation.

Fees to access other facilities would mostly remain flat for folks who live in the county, including $5 to $10 daily charges for grass fields; $50 to rent the Betty Queen Center (BQC) Great Room with a three hour minimum; and $40 to use the pavilions at the Louisa Town Park, Buckner-Bumpass Park and BQC for three hours. The fee for the BQC meeting room, however, would jump from $20 to $50 an hour.

The fee schedule also includes a $250 per day fee for use of the Louisa Fairgrounds. The county in December inked a MOU with the Louisa Volunteer Fire Department, which owns the fairgrounds, enabling it to control the facility for the next 10 years free of charge.

The county would require $1 million in commercial liability insurance per occurrence and $2 million in aggregate for community-based sports organization. Currently, it requires $300,000 in liability insurance to access sports facilities.

The county presently offers a 50 percent discount on rentals, excluding pavilions, for county employees and community-based groups that meet two of three criteria: they’re a 501 3(c) nonprofit; they serve the youth or elderly; and/or they’re free and open to the public. The proposed facility use package doesn’t appear to include that policy.

Supes to consider adding 520 acres to AFDs

Louisa County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts continue to grow.

Already this year, supervisors have voted to expand the county’s AFDs by about 4,900 acres. On Monday night, they’ll consider tacking on another 520 to four of the 14 districts. Those districts include the Cuckoo AFD in southeastern Louisa; the Green Springs AFD in western Louisa; and the Gold Mine Creek and Ellisville AFDs in the northwestern part of the county.

AFDs are a conservation tool that allow landowners to voluntarily prohibit development on their property for 10-year periods. In return, participating parcels are assured 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.

In addition, AFDs place limits on local governments’ ability to enact ordinances that “would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or farming and forestry practices,” per state code.

Since joining county staff last September, Agricultural Development and Land Conservation Coordinator Maggie Brakeville has prioritized growing the districts. Brakeville was hired to identify ways to preserve working rural lands as the county experiences significant residential and industrial growth.

The county is on track to break the record for the most acres added to AFDs in a single year. That standard was set in 1998 when the districts grew by 9,693 acres. Assuming Monday’s additions are approved, the board will have green-lit nearly 5,400 acres worth of additions this year with another roughly 4,400 moving through the public approval process, good for a total of 9,778.75 acres. If all the additions move forward, the land enrolled in AFDs countywide will top 41,000 acres.

Share

Planning Commission to continue discussion of growth management, rural preservation tools

The Louisa County Planning Commission on Thursday will hold a pair of meetings. At 5 pm, commissioners will hold a work session where they’ll continue a discussion of proposed growth management and rural preservation tools and address how “campground” should be defined in county code. At the regular 7 pm meeting, the commission will hold four public hearings with 3 focused on expanding Agricultural and Forestal Districts and one on a rezoning that would clear the way for the creation of a family subdivision.

Commission to discuss growth management, rural preservation tools at work session

At its pre-meeting work session, the planning commission will continue a months-long discussion of potential changes to county code aimed at slowing residential growth and protecting working rural land, delving into the details of a pair of proposed rural preservation programs.

The board of supervisors earlier this year tasked commissioners with identifying ways to curb new home construction, especially outside of the county’s designated growth areas, and to preserve farmland in the face of steady population growth.

According to the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, the county currently ranks as the fourth fastest growing locality in the state, based on percentage of population growth. Since the 2020 census, it’s grown more than 12 percent, adding about 1,000 residents a year.

Those stats have alarmed board members who argue that the influx of newcomers—and new home construction—is threatening the community’s rural character, usurping farmland and growing the budget, thanks to the escalating demand for services.

As evidence, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon has said that the county’s adding about 430 homes per year with just over half being built outside of growth areas. Coon has also highlighted climbing school enrollment, especially at the elementary school level, where three of four schools or at or near capacity. The board is planning to start construction of a fifth elementary school in the next three years with an estimated price tag of at least $55 million.

Led by a two-man work group, comprised of Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin and Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks, the planning commission has been crafting what it describes as a “holistic” growth management and rural preservation plan that combines significant changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing growth with tools and incentives designed to channel the growth that does occur away from rural parcels to areas where there’s infrastructure to support it.

Staff has identified breaking up large tracts of land into smaller pieces as a key indicator of future residential development and emphasized that it fragments farmland, making it more difficult to maintain large agricultural operations. In turn, the work group has proposed limiting property owners’ ability to divide land by increasing the minimum lot size for new parcels in agricultural zoning (A-1 and A-2) outside of growth areas from 1.5 acres to as many as 15 and upping road frontage requirements for new lots from 200-300 feet to 450. They also recommended limiting divisions to once every two to five years.

To incentivize landowners not to develop property in rural areas, the commission and county staff have discussed establishing a pair of rural preservation programs: a termed purchase of development rights (PDR) initiative, 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) program, which allows landowners in agricultural areas to sell their division rights to folks looking to develop property in growth areas.

“Together, these tools provide a balanced approach to land preservation. PDR provides a direct, near-term financial incentive for landowners to limit development, independent of market demand. TDR provides a long-term, market-based mechanism to shift development potential to more appropriate locations. Both tools reduce pressure to subdivide rural land. Both tools reinforce the County’s broader growth management strategy by preserving rural land while supporting growth in designated areas,” a memo included in the meeting materials says.

The commission is expected to dig into both initiatives on Thursday. The memo offers some insight into how the programs could work.

PDR program

The termed PDR program would build on the county’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD), a conservation tool that allows landowners to voluntarily prohibit development on their property for 10-year periods, and, in exchange, ensures the property’s 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 termed PDR initiative would up the ante for choosing preservation, making landowners with agriculturally zoned property that’s enrolled in an AFD, but not already in a conservation easement, eligible for annual compensation from the county. The potential compensation would be calculated by multiplying the parcel’s assessed value by the real estate tax rate, currently 72 cents per $100. For example, a 30-acre parcel that’s assessed at $100,000 would qualify for a $720 cash payment.

The program would require participating landowners to sign a contract with the county, which would mostly limit enrolled property to farming and forestry-related endeavors. The memo says the county could establish minimum acreage thresholds for participation.

County officials have said they intend to fund rural preservation efforts by tapping anticipated revenue from data center development though they haven’t publicly discussed exactly how much funding a termed PDR program could receive.

Depending on how much money is available and how many landowners sign up, the county could implement a competitive process to determine which parcels qualify for compensation, per the memo, prioritizing “properties providing the greatest long-term preservation benefit.”

Parcels would first be scored based on their road frontage, then total acreage, then available residential division rights, with the parcels that score highest winning funding. Parcels that don’t initially qualify could remain in the queue should more funding become available.

In previous public discussions, staff has said that, while the program offers short-term preservation incentives, it’s designed to serve as a bridge to long-term measures, like conservation easements, which generally preserve property in perpetuity.

TDR program

While the PDR program would allow for direct payments from the county to landowners, the TDR program would take a market-centered approach in which landowners with property in agricultural areas could sell their division rights to developers hoping to pursue projects in growth areas, essentially limiting future development on the rural parcel while directing growth where the county prefers it.

Following procedures laid out in state code, the county would establish sending zones, where division rights could be sold or retired, and receiving zones where developers could buy them, with the former encompassing property in rural areas, primarily A-1 and A-2 zoned land outside of growth areas, and the latter taking in land in growth areas, including parcels zoned agricultural and residential.

Coon said last month that property owners with land in a sending zone who want to sell one or multiple by-right divisions would notify the county. They’d then be placed on a list that would be provided to developers interested in acquiring division rights and could sell them if they chose.

Per the memo, developers wishing to build houses on agriculturally zoned property in a growth area could double its by-right development capacity via the TDR program. 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 they meet minimum lot size 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.

For residentially zoned property (R-1, R-2) inside growth areas, the work group recommends 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 on 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, per the memo, up to a 100 percent increase.

For Planned Unit Developments (PUD), generally dense, mixed-use projects, the work group recommends 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.

Staff has said that lowering residential density thresholds in designated growth areas is necessary to facilitate the TDR program while also arguing that concerns about increasing the costs of housing by reducing development in rural areas could be, in part, offset by creating dense and diverse housing in growth areas.

The county’s ability to facilitate more affordable housing options in growth areas could hinge on whether the TDR program is successful. Otherwise, the proposed changes could contribute to soaring housing costs with most new homes consisting of single-family dwellings on estate-style lots.

TDR programs have gained little traction elsewhere in the state. Only three localities have a TDR ordinance in their code: Arlington, Stafford and Frederick Counties in Northern Virginia. Over a decade, Arlington completed only 10 TDR transactions.

The commission could consider the entire growth management and rural preservation package at a public hearing as soon as next month, according to Coon. The board of supervisors could consider the package in September or October.

Other business

Aside from discussing growth management tools the commission will consider other business. Here’s a quick roundup.

• Commission to talk campgrounds: At its work session, the commission will discuss changing the definition of campground in county code to address the demand for temporary workforce housing, driven by workers coming to the county for periodic refueling outages at Dominion’s North Anna Power Station and temporary construction jobs. The commission will consider creating a pair of definitions for the use: one that regulates large campgrounds and another that addresses smaller venues with no more than three campsites. The discussion will include both how to define the uses, where to permit them and what regulations should apply. (draft ordinance)

• Commission to consider rezoning for family subdivision: At their regular monthly meeting, which kicks off at 7 pm, commissioners will hold a public hearing and consider whether to recommend to the board of supervisors approval of Shaun Brown’s request to rezone, from General Commercial (C-2) to Agricultural (A-2), 12.98 acres off Fredericks Hall Road (Route 618) about two miles outside the Town of Mineral (tax map parcel 44-58). Brown purchased the property to create a family subdivision for his two sons and nephew before learning the subdivision is prohibited in commercial zoning. In voluntary proffers attached to the rezoning request, Brown agreed to limit divisions of the property to three in addition to the residue parcel and to require his sons and nephew to retain their parcels for at least 15 years, instead of the five currently required under the county’s family subdivision rules.

• Commission to hold public hearings on expanding AFDs: Commissioners will hold three public hearings on expanding Agricultural and Forestal Districts, a conservation tool that allows landowners to voluntarily prohibit development on their property for 10-year periods. The commission will consider whether to recommend that the board of supervisors approve the addition of 33 acres, covering three parcels, to the Gold Mine Creek AFD and 30.8 acres, encompassing one parcel, to the Ellisville AFD. Both districts are in northwestern Louisa County. The commission will also consider whether to recommend the creation of a new district: the Healing Springs AFD in southeastern Louisa. The district would include two parcels covering 841 acres. If approved by the board, it would be the county’s 15th AFD.

Share

Election 2026: A look at the primary candidates in the 5th Congressional District

by Roxie Pearl Beebe-Center

Five candidates are on the ballot in the upcoming primary elections for Virginia’s 5th Congressional District, which includes Louisa County and all or part of 23 other localities in Central and Southside Virginia.

Virginia typically holds primaries on the third Tuesday in June. But the Democrat-controlled General Assembly pushed this year’s election back nearly two months—to Tuesday, August 4—to accommodate a late-game effort to redraw the state’s 11 congressional districts ahead of high-stakes midterm elections this fall. The Virginia Supreme Court ultimately upended that plan, leaving the current districts intact.

The August primary will feature both Republican and Democratic contests. Virginia has open primaries, meaning all registered voters can participate. But voters are only permitted to cast a ballot in one race with the winners squaring off in the November 3 General Election.

The 45-day early voting period kicked off June 18. In-person early voting is available at the Louisa County Office of Elections through Saturday, August 1. Voters can also request an absentee ballot by mail. On Election Day, August 4, polling places across Louisa County are open from 6 am to 7 pm. (Click here for more information about voting).

Republican primary

On the Republican side, one-term incumbent John McGuire III, a Goochland resident and former Navy SEAL, will face political newcomer and Louisa County resident Melanie Lucero.

McGuire ousted former Congressman Bob Good in a bitter Republican primary two years ago. His victory was aided by an endorsement from President Donald Trump, who was then running for his second term in the White House. McGuire secured another endorsement from Trump this year.

McGuire sits on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. On his campaign website, he defines himself as a “fearless, unapologetic, Christian conservative.”

Prior to serving in the House of Representatives, McGuire represented District 56 in the Virginia’s House of Delegates for six years and the 10th state Senate District for one, both of which included Louisa.

He positions himself alongside Trump and Republican leadership in Congress, and identifies tax cuts, reducing federal spending, fighting inflation and government overreach, as well as border security, as his central focuses.

McGuire cites the Wintergreen Emergency Egress Act, American Dream Act, and his support for the Working Family Tax Cuts bill as significant accomplishments in Congress. He has been criticized for his preference for “tele-town halls” over in-person meetings with constituents.

Further, McGuire has admitted to attending Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, 2021, but maintains he didn’t participate in the subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In 2024, McGuire was the lone vote in the Virginia Senate against a bill that would raise the state’s legal marriage age from 16 to 18.

Lucero is a real-estate broker who resides on Lake Anna. Before founding The M Group, which lists residential real estate around the lake, Lucero served as an intelligence analyst in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Lucero’s campaign website states that she is “committed to the Trump agenda,” and she has focused her campaign on affordability, especially for farmers. Additionally, Lucero supports efforts to tighten immigration restrictions, pass legislation to cease all federal funding of abortions, protect the Second Amendment, maintain the Trump administration’s tariffs, and repeal the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare).

Lucero has previously stated that “career politicians are a joke,” claiming her status as a political newcomer sets her apart from McGuire and other Republican politicians.

Democratic primary

Three candidates are vying for the Democratic nomination: Former Congressman Tom Perriello of Charlottesville; Suzanne Krzyzanowski, a physician from Bedford County; and Louisa County resident and writer Rob Tracinski.

Perriello, who is widely regarded as the frontrunner in the race, previously served as the 5th District’s representative in Washington from 2009 to 2011 after defeating long-time Republican incumbent Virgil Good. At the time, Virginia’s congressional districts had different contours, and the 5th didn't include Louisa. Perriello mounted a gubernatorial campaign in 2017 that was ultimately unsuccessful.

Perriello’s current campaign emphasizes affordability for Virginia families. If elected, he says he’ll aim to double the minimum wage, expand paid medical leave, and further his support for the Affordable Care Act, which he voted for in 2010.

Perriello has openly criticized McGuire’s virtual town halls. While in Congress, he opposed a ban on assault weapons, supported sustainable energy, and voted for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to the Affordable Care Act. The amendment would have prohibited the use of federal funds in health plans that include coverage for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life. He has since been open about the fact that he regrets the vote, saying to Huffington Post in 2017 that it was “the worst vote of [his] career.”

After his stint in Congress, Perriello, in 2015, was appointed by then-President Barack Obama as Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region of Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He represented American interests in a region that encompasses the DRC, Rwanda, and Burundi, and concluded his role as U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan in January 2025.

Perriello touts endorsements from Gov. Abigail Spanberger, Lt. Gov. Ghazala Hashimi and Virginia’s two U.S. senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine.

Krzyzanowski is a career family physician, who has practiced medicine in Central Virginia for two decades. With her background in healthcare, her campaign focuses on opposing Medicaid cuts resulting from the Trump Administration’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” Krzyzanowski’s website identifies a need for a “universal healthcare system that covers all our citizens.” She believes that an ideal universal healthcare system would help not only patients, but the economy—eliminating the need for costly “coders, billers and middle managers.”

On her campaign website, Krzyzanowski describes her Catholic faith as “fundamental to who I am” and asserts that a universal healthcare system is not out of reach for the United States, which she calls “the greatest country in the world.”

Tracinski is a writer and political commentator who was formerly part of the Tea Party, a right-wing movement that gained prominence in the early years of the Obama administration. In an interview with The Daily Progress earlier this year, Tracinski highlighted his less-progressive past as an advantage should he make it to the General Election. He contended it would help him appeal to “the more conservative areas of the 5th District.”

In his campaign announcement, Tracinski cited the Trump administration, which he believes is “out-of-control” as his motivation for running. His most recent book, published last September, is titled Dictator from Day One: How Donald Trump Is Overthrowing the Constitution and How to Fight Back. A blurb on Amazon describes the book as “the story of America’s political devolution from a free society to an authoritarian dictatorship.” Dictator From Day One outlines the “five prongs of [President Trump’s] attack on the American system,” per the promotional material.

If elected, Tracinski says he’ll seek to restore checks and balances in government, “defend free speech,” end trade wars, reform healthcare, build more housing, and lower college costs. His website condemns “abusive, lawless immigration enforcement” and proposes facilitating legal immigration as an alternative.

Candidates in both the Republican and Democratic primaries have emphasized voter frustration around the rising cost of living.

The 5th District is the state’s largest district geographically and could prove to be a competitive race in November’s General Election.

Roxie Pearl Beebe-Center is a Louisa County resident and rising fourth-year student at the University of Glasgow where she’s studying English Literature and Theology.

Share

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, June 29 through July 4

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Tuesday, June 30

Human Services Advisory Board, 114 Industrial Drive, Louisa, 10:30 am.

Finance Committee, Administration Conference Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.

Share

Quote of the week

“I think it’s important for the state to maintain its word to businesses that [it has provided] incentive programs to invest in the commonwealth. I applaud the governor, and I applaud the House budget negotiators for working very hard to keep that commitment to the data center industry. I think that commitment has been very helpful in attracting billions of dollars in investment to Louisa County.”

-Board of Supervisors Chair Duane Adams on a state budget deal that retains a controversial tax exemption for data centers. Read more in the article below.

State budget deal keeps data center sales tax exemption, includes funding to address water quality, boater safety at Lake Anna

The Democratic-controlled General Assembly last week passed a $205 billion state budget for the next two years that includes funding to improve water quality and boater safety at Lake Anna and keeps a controversial sales tax exemption for data centers that could help ensure the continued buildout of the giant warehouse-like facilities locally.

Budget negotiations had stalled for months over the data center tax break, which waives the sales and use tax for most data centers through 2035 and is expected to cost the state’s general fund nearly $2 billion in direct revenue annually over the biennium.

Led by Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, the powerful chair of the body’s Finance and Appropriations Committee, Senate Democrats had sought to axe the exemption in the face of growing discontent over data center development, especially in Northern Virginia, home to largest concentration of the power-hungry and water-guzzling facilities in the world.

In social media posts and public appearances, Lucas repeatedly said that wealthy technology companies should pay their fair share and insisted that the state is forgoing billions in revenue that could pay for schools, healthcare and other services.

“Anyone that knows me understands that I stand with the people and work toward representing their interests. This issue is bigger than the governor. It’s bigger than the speaker [of the House of Delegates]. It’s bigger than me. This is about data centers and their inability to understand that they need to pay their fair share of the taxes,” Lucas said during a committee meeting earlier this month.

But Lucas’ counterparts in the House and Governor Abigail Spanberger, also a Democrat, defended the exemption, pointing out that it sparked landmark investment in the state that, in turn, generates significant revenue, and pulling it now would mean breaking a commitment to the industry.

State and local officials, including in Louisa, expressed concern that abruptly ending the exemption could cost localities billions in planned investment if data center operators pulled up stakes and looked for greener pasture elsewhere.

While the spending plan retains the sales tax exemption, it takes modest steps to address concerns about the industry.

Most notably, the deal slaps data centers with an energy consumption tax of 1.1 cents for every kilowatt hour of electricity each center uses in a month. The tax will generate a maximum of $600 million per year—or $1.2 billion over the biennium—for the state’s general fund. Any taxes data centers pay that exceed $600 million in a year will be refunded.

Beyond the consumption tax, the budget deal directs the Joint Subcommittee on Tax Policy to study the sales and use tax exemption and other data center impacts, with particular emphasis on examining the impact of existing and potential exemptions or incentives. It instructs the State Corporation Commission (SCC) to collect data on the centers’ water, energy and back-up generator use.

The deal also requires the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to establish criteria for determining “Cooling Water Scarcity Zones” with new and existing data centers in those areas required to implement cooling systems that require less water. In addition, the proposal requires DEQ to adopt minimum noise standards for data centers, effective by the end of 2029. Any data center that violates the regulations would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $32,500 per day.

The budget deal still requires final action by the General Assembly and the governor, who sent down more than a dozen mostly technical amendments on Friday. Lawmakers will return to Richmond on Monday to consider the amendments. The budget takes effect July 1, the start of the new fiscal year.

Members of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors welcomed the news that the budget would preserve the sales tax break even as resistance to data centers grows in the community. At public meetings and on social media, residents have expressed concern that the facilities, which house servers and chips that power cloud computer and artificial intelligence, are raising their power bills, threatening the public water supply and bringing an onslaught of heavy truck traffic to roads that can’t handle it.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) is in the process of building two data center campuses in the county’s Technology Overlay District, a special zoning designation adopted by supervisors three years ago and designed to attract lucrative tech sector development, while EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure is planning to build a campus at the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park.

Supervisors say the facilities are smart economic development, which will deliver millions of dollars in tax revenue annually to pay for schools, fire stations and other services while requiring a relatively small footprint.

In a telephone interview last Thursday, Board Chair Duane Adams, R-Mineral, said he’s glad to see Virginia keep its word to the industry and credited the exemption with helping lure historic capital investment to the county.

“I think it’s important for the state to maintain its word to businesses that [it has provided] incentive programs to invest in the commonwealth. I applaud the governor, and I applaud the House budget negotiators for working very hard to keep that commitment to the data center industry. I think that commitment has been very helpful in attracting billions of dollars in investment to Louisa County,” Adams said.

Adams said he hasn’t had specific conversations with AWS or EdgeCore about how the exemption factors into their development strategy, but he believes that keeping it in place helps solidify the companies’ long-term plans with respect to Louisa.

“Any time you have uncertainty in the business climate it can lead to changes in people’s plans for investment, and we have billions of dollars that are being invested in Louisa County, and we’re already starting to see the fruits of that investment,” Adams said, noting that the board lowered the personal property tax rate by 15 percent during the last budget cycle and plans to get rid of the tax completely over the next few years. “I think we’ll see other opportunities for the county to reduce the tax burden on the citizens and that is being driven by that investment.”

Data center operators that invest at least $150 million and create 50 jobs in a locality have been promised the exemption through 2035 while a state law passed in 2023, primarily to benefit AWS, extends the exemption for another five to 15 years, depending on the extent of the company’s capital investment and job creation.

Critics of the industry’s unconstrained growth, especially environmental groups, dubbed the budget deal a missed opportunity.

“Sadly, here in Virginia, our leaders still have no plan to assess the aggregate impacts of data centers on our communities, our land, and our environment. To allow further impacts before we have better information and a plan for action is irresponsible. On top of that, Virginia continues to give away billions of uncollected tax revenue to the richest companies in the world, while ignoring growing outrage from citizens effectively subsidizing uncontrolled data center growth,” Piedmont Environmental Council President Chris Miller said in a statement on the organization’s website.

Funding for Lake Anna

The budget deal includes other items of local interest. Most notably, it allots funding to address water quality issues and boater safety at Lake Anna.

The proposal allocates $500,000 in Fiscal Year 2028 to the Department of Conservation and Recreation for cyanobactera mitigation and remediation, raising support for the efforts to $1.3 million over the biennium, according to the state budget website.

The Lake Anna Advisory Committee (LAAC), a multi-jurisdictional panel that includes representatives from Louisa, Spotsylvania and Orange counties, will use the money to support its Cyanobacteria Mitigation and Remediation Project, a multi-year effort to reduce excess nutrients, particularly phosphorus, in the lake’s upper reaches.

For much of the last decade, cyanobacteria clusters, also called Harmful Algal Blooms, have plagued the lake’s shallower upper end. The blooms can cause skin rash and gastrointestinal illness in humans and harm wildlife and pets. Excess phosphorus feeds the blooms’ growth.

LAAC launched its program three years ago with the goal of incrementally lowering phosphorus levels in several of the lake’s upper branches. Over the last three fiscal years, the program has received $1.75 million from the state.

The budget deal also allocates $30,000 in the next two fiscal years to support hydrilla management and buoy maintenance on the 13,000-acre waterway.

Hydrilla is an invasive aquatic weed that forms mats under the water and can impede navigation. LAAC manages its growth by deploying herbicides that kill it and sterile carp that eat it. Due to funding constraints, the committee has struggled to keep pace with the weed’s proliferation over the last few years. LAAC also deploys and maintains a network of no-wake buoys, which flag navigational hazards and play a key role in boater safety.

In a press release last Wednesday, Louisa County thanked lawmakers for including funding to improve water quality and safety at the lake. The board of supervisors has requested money for the programs in its legislative platform for the last several years and the Lake Anna Civic Association, an 800-plus member environmental advocacy group, has also lobbied for the funding.

The county said the funding would enable the implementation of targeted measures that ensure the lake “remains a safe, vibrant, and healthy ecological and economic asset for residents and visitors alike.”

“Securing this funding is a win for the County and our partners in the greater Lake Anna community. Protecting our water quality and ensuring boater safety requires proactive management which these dollars will support,” Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter said in the release.

Share

Election 2026: Valley Link transmission line emerges as issue in 5th CD race

Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line has emerged as an issue in the 5th District congressional race.

The ultra-high voltage power line, under development by Dominion Energy and several other utility companies, operating as Valley Link, would cut across Central Virginia—and the heart of the 5^th District—as it travels some 115 miles, from Campbell County to Culpeper, channeling bulk power generated in the Ohio River Valley, mostly to feed data centers in Northern Virginia.

The project has roiled residents and county officials in the nine potentially impacted counties—Louisa, Fluvanna, Buckingham, Appomattox, Campbell, Goochland, Orange, Culpeper and Spotsylvania—six of which are in the 5th, with some residents arguing that rural land is being sacrificed for industrial development to the north.

While the power to approve the 765-kilovolt line, the biggest ever proposed for construction in Dominion’s territory, lies with state regulators—Virginia’s State Corporation Commission (SCC), specifically—the project is gaining significant attention in a pair of congressional primaries in the 5th, a mostly rural district that stretches from Louisa and Albemarle at its northern edge to the North Carolina border.

The district’s current representative, Republican John McGuire, a Goochland resident and former Navy SEAL, has faced criticism from both sides of the aisle for what some see as his lackluster response to constituent concerns about the project.

In the August 4 primary, the one-term incumbent, who narrowly defeated former Congressman Bob Good in a bitter primary two years ago, faces a challenge from political newcomer Melanie Lucero, a Marine turned realtor who resides on Lake Anna.

Three Democrats are vying for the right to run against either McGuire or Lucero in November’s election: Lynchburg physician Suzanne “Dr. K” Krzyzanowski; Louisa County resident and ex-Tea Partier turned Democrat Rob “T-ski” Tracinski; and former Congressman Tom Perriello, an Albemarle resident who represented a slightly different 5th from 2008 to 2010. Thanks to his name recognition and significant fundraising advantage, Perriello is regarded as a heavy favorite to win the nomination.

Both Lucero and Perriello have said they oppose the Joshua Falls to Yeat project, highlighting its lack of community support and raising concerns about property rights and corporate power. They’ve sharply criticized McGuire for, as they see it, playing political games instead of fighting for his constituents.

In a Facebook post earlier this month, McGuire addressed the line, saying that he’s listened to community concerns and voiced them to both Dominion and PJM, the regional transmission organization that oversees the power grid in 13 states, including Virginia, and last year determined the line is necessary to ensure the reliability of the grid.

“Even though I’ve been told this is not a federal issue, I’ve shared Vally Link concerns with Dominion and PJM in the district and in my DC office over the last few months. I asked them, can you bury the lines, they said no. I asked them, can you reroute the lines, they said very little room for change due to restrictions. I asked why does it go through Appomattox County, Buckingham County, Louisa County, and others instead of in a straight line from Campbell County to Culpepper County? On this question, I get a mixed bag of answers,” McGuire said.

McGuire stopped short of offering full-throated opposition. Instead, he said he’s been told that Democratic Governor Abigail Spanberger could stop the project “if she wanted to” and “your local board of supervisors has influence on projects like this as well.” The SCC, not the governor or local officials, has the power to approve the line.

McGuire concluded that the project is still in the planning stage, “so maybe something can be done.”

Perriello seized on the post. In a video response on Facebook, he said that McGuire had put on a “free masterclass on how corruption works in Washington.”

“[John] shows first that he’s taking more meetings with these huge corporations then he is with his own constituents. Second, he fails to disclose that he’s taken thousands of dollars in campaign cash from these same corporations. Third, he then literally repeats their talking points about how this transmission line has to happen even though everybody on the right, left and center is furious about this attack on our environment and our property rights. And, fourth, he somehow tries to distract you by blaming the other party,” Perriello said.

In campaign videos, Perriello highlights his opposition to the line and what the project could mean for rural communities. In a statement in mid-June, his campaign said that Perriello’s committed to standing with those who are impacted and references his past opposition to the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines, proposed gas transmission infrastructure that sparked widespread community opposition.

“I oppose this project, and I will fight to defeat it. I support investing in our infrastructure, but not when it’s forced on local communities with no input and the benefits going to private corporations far away. Our communities would bear the burden of this project every day, while the biggest benefits flow elsewhere,” Perriello said.

Lucero, McGuire’s opponent in the Republican primary, has focused much of her campaign on what she sees as McGuire’s lack of interest in serving his constituents, arguing that he’s delivered little for the district during his two years in Washington and has few legislative achievements.

In a June 18 Facebook post, Lucero said that McGuire was “acting concerned” about the project, but only after she expressed opposition.

“I’m genuinely grateful that I’m finally getting politicians to do their job because we need support on these issues. But here’s the problem...The outcome of all this sudden concern is usually the same from useless politicians like my opponent: Nothing,” Lucero said.

Lucero showed up last week at a Valley Link open house in Louisa, which the company held to gather feedback about the latest proposed routes. She chatted with community members, some of whom donned yellow “No Valley Link” t-shirts and listened to their fears and worries about what the project could mean for their land and their neighbors.

In a brief interview, Lucero suggested that McGuire’s tepid response to the project is another example of his disinterest in fighting for everyday people in the 5th.

“He’s a congressman who’s bought and paid for. He will do what he’s told to do. I am not impressed with him. I think he’s a placeholder, and he’s just focused on his reelection, not helping the people,” she said.

Lucero made clear that she opposes the project because, as she put it, “[the people] don’t want it and that’s what it comes down to.” As a realtor, she said that she understands the negative impact the line, with its 175-foot towers, would have on property values. She also expressed concerns about other potential impacts that she believes haven’t been adequately addressed.

“This is not running through property I own, however, it’s running through a lot of people’s property, and it is going to affect them. As a real estate professional, I know this is going to be devastating for their property values, and I have a lot of questions about the damage that this is going to cause those homeowners. There’s so many unanswered questions, and I feel like it’s negligent to move forward without answering those questions for the people,” Lucero said.

While Congress doesn’t play a role in approving the project, Lucero said there’s plenty McGuire could do to support his constituent, but he isn’t.

“This is something that people could reach out to his office for and seek support, guidance, and resources, and he is failing to do that. His constituent services have failed on every single level, and it’s a disservice to all of us,” she said.

How to vote in the primary: Early voting is underway for the Democratic and Republican primaries in the 5th. Voters can cast ballots in-person at the Louisa County Office of Elections, 103 McDonald St., Louisa, Monday through Friday, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm through Friday, July 31. The office is also open for early voting on Saturday, July 25 and August 1, from 9 am to 5 pm, and Sunday, July 19 and July 26, from 11 am to 4 pm. In addition, voters can request an absentee ballot by mail.

Election Day is Tuesday, August 4. Polling places across Louisa County are open from 6 am to 7 pm. Click here for more information about voting or call the Louisa County Office of Elections at 540-967-3427.

Share

Election 2026: Candidates file for town offices in Mineral, Louisa

The Towns of Louisa and Mineral will hold elections this fall to choose a mayor and members of their respective town councils. And the races have attracted a fair share of candidates—especially in the Town of Mineral.

In Mineral, where all six council seats are up for grabs, nine candidates filed to run ahead of the June 16 deadline, according to Louisa County Registrar Cris Watkins.

The candidates include a mix of fresh and familiar faces. Current council members David Hempstead, Afton Von Tye, Rebecca “Becky” McGehee and Michelle Covert are all running to retain their seats while former Council Member Blair Nipper is hoping to return to the body.

First-time candidates Christopher Dillard, Maggie Larson, Cara Lundgren-Stowe and Nicole Washington are also running. Washington formerly served as Mineral’s town manager while Larson serves on the town’s planning commission. Dillard and Lundgren-Stowe are newcomers to town politics though Lundgren-Stowe’s husband, Ryan, is a recent appointee to the planning commission.

In the mayor’s race, Council Member Robert “Bob” Spedden, an Air Force veteran, is the lone candidate. Current Mayor Pam Harlowe, who won a one-year term in a special election last November, opted not to seek re-election. Council Member Bernice Kube also chose not to run for another term.

The upcoming council race looks to be an intriguing one as many of the players involved in the town’s political drama over the last few years are hoping to stay on or return to the stage.

Hempstead frequently spars with McGehee and Covert. Both women have accused him of bullying and mistreating town staff, including Washington, who was fired as town manager earlier this year on a motion by Hempstead.

Covert and McGehee were part of an ill-fated effort to remove Hempstead from office nearly two years ago, alleging he misused his position and violated town code and council’s civility pledge, among other transgressions. But Louisa County Commonwealth’s Attorney Rusty McGuire eventually stepped in, asserting that the process council employed to boot their colleague ran afoul of state law.

Amid the council drama, the town has seen significant staff turnover. Aside from Washington’s departure, council lost its attorney late last year and, earlier this month, treasurer Kelly Singletary left her post.

In her letter of resignation, Singletary alleged that she was subjected to a “hostile and toxic work environment” and “observed numerous practices that [she believes] are inconsistent with professional, ethical, and operational standards.”

“As the official entrusted with the custody and management of public funds, I cannot continue to serve under conditions that, in my judgment, compromise accountability, transparency, internal controls, and sound financial governance,” Singletary wrote.

The election is expected to center on which candidates are able to convince voters they can bring stability to town government as council meetings frequently dissolve into heated arguments, punctuated by personal attacks and occasional calls to the Louisa County Sheriff’s Office. Several recent meetings have adjourned early with council unable to conduct town business

In the Town of Louisa, Council Members Graven Craig and David Purcell are vying for two of the three seats on the ballot. A third Louisa resident had filed to run, but withdrew, according to Watkins.

Council Member Vicky Harte, whose seat is up for grabs this year, said at a council meeting last month that she doesn’t plan to seek re-election, citing frustration with her committee assignments.

Council appointed Craig and Purcell to temporarily fill vacancies earlier this year. They’re now vying for four-year terms.

While both men are newcomers to elected office, they’re familiar faces to many residents. Craig is a partner in the Main Street law firm, Craig Williams, and previously served as chair of the Louisa County Republican Committee. Purcell grew up in the town and runs JS Purcell Lumber, one of the community’s oldest continuously operating businesses.

No one has filed to run for the other council seat, which is on November’s ballot as a standalone special election. The winner will serve for two years, filling the unexpired term of former Council Member Danny Crawford, who resigned in April. The filing deadline for that seat is August 14.

Ashley Michael, who won a one-year stint a mayor in a special election last November, is the only candidate vying for the job this time around. Michael is a human resources executive, who’s lived in the town for over a decade.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3. Early voting starts September 18.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

Quiet coming week in county government

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

According to Louisa County’s website, there are no county meetings in the coming week, June 22 through June 27.

Other meetings/events

Tuesday, June 23

Valley Link Transmission Company, Open House, Betty Queen Center, 522 Industrial Drive, Louisa, 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm.

Valley Link will hold an open house to discuss with community members revised proposed routes for its Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line. This is an open house with no formal presentation. Community members will have an opportunity to talk with Valley Link representatives individually and share information about their property. Click here for more information about the project and a detailed map.

Share

Quote of the week

“I recognize there were some hiccups with this particular project with some of the communication and coordination. Moving forward, I want to focus on the future and look for ways to improve our coordination with the county.”

-VDOT Residency Administrator Craig Simpson during a presentation to the board of supervisors last week. Simpson was referring to the six-week closure of Route 33 to allow a private contractor to perform work around Amazon Web Services’ North Creek Technology Campus. Residents didn’t find out about the closure until signs were installed a week prior.

Share

Woodward: EdgeCore to bring its own power to data center campus at Shannon Hill

EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure is expected to produce its own power for a sprawling data center campus in southern Louisa County, according to a member of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

During an appearance on Real Talk with Keith Smith last Friday, Louisa District Supervisor Manning Woodward said EdgeCore’s data center campus at the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park will be “behind the meter,” generating its own power as opposed to drawing it from the grid.

Woodward suggested the company could build a gas-powered facility on site, but he said the county hasn’t received any plans. He also suggested the company could deploy small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) though he noted “those are way off.”

There aren’t any SMRs currently producing power for commercial use in the United States. A growing number of data center developers are turning to behind-the-meter gas generation, in part, to bypass interconnection logjams in power-crunched markets.

EdgeCore didn’t immediately respond to questions about how it would source its power. In a press release announcing the campus last June, the company indicated it would work with Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (REC), which provides electricity to the area.

In the release, REC CEO John Hewa said the company, along with its affiliate, Hyperscale Energy, looked forward to working with EdgeCore “to power this project and build the infrastructure that enables its success.”

EdgeCore acquired the 697-acre Shannon Hill property from the Louisa County Industrial Development Authority for $42 million a year ago. It plans to develop a 1.1-gigawatt (GW) data center campus on the site, which sits just north of Interstate 64 in south-central Louisa. The campus will feature six data center buildings, covering 3.1 million square feet, according to EdgeCore’s website. The company said it plans to invest more than $17 billion in the facility.

When supervisors rezoned the property for industrial development in 2019, they approved “utility service major” as a by-right use, meaning EdgeCore can build an energy generation facility without a local public approval process. Depending on what type of generation it pursues, EdgeCore would still have to obtain state and, potentially, federal permits.

Woodward said during an interview on Smith’s show that EdgeCore “will bring its own power,” but insisted he isn’t sure of the company’s specific plans. He said height restrictions at the site prevent the construction of large cooling towers, which are incorporated in many gas-fired plants, but the company could build smaller facilities or, potentially, deploy SMRs down the road.

“I would assume that they’ll maybe be smaller gas plants or something, maybe small modular reactors,” Woodward said.

As County officials marketed the site for industrial development prior to its deal with EdgeCore, they touted the availability of gas as a selling point, highlighting its proximity to a Columbia Gas transmission line.

Columbia is considering expanding a section of the line through western Louisa, according to letters to impacted landowners. A preliminary map included in the agenda packet for a recent board of supervisors meeting shows the potential expansion area between Boswells Tavern and Shannon Hill.

“The end of the expansion has not been finalized, but the purpose is to serve increased demand along the line’s route,” Louisa County spokesperson Cindy King said in an email last month in response to questions about the map.

Per the map, the project is part of the TCO Connector, a $300 million expansion green lit by Columbia’s parent company, TC Energy, in late 2025. The project is designed to “provide capacity to serve new natural gas-fired power generation supporting forecasted electric generation growth, including expected data centre growth,” according to TC Energy’s website.

Data centers are giant warehouse-like facilities that house servers and computer chips that power artificial intelligence and cloud-based services, requiring a vast amount of electricity to keep their equipment humming. Their voracious demand for power has emerged as a key concern in Virginia, the global epicenter of the industry, where residents say the facilities are pushing their power bills upward and prompting a buildout of industrial energy infrastructure, like large transmission lines that slice through farms and neighborhoods.

Louisa County is in the path of Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line, an ultra-high voltage power line that, if approved by state regulators, would harness power from the Ohio River Valley mostly to feed data center development in Northern Virginia.

A corridor initially proposed for the Valley Link project crossed EdgeCore’s property, but a revised proposed route runs just to the west. The campus isn’t currently served by a large transmission line, which would presumably be necessary to deliver power should EdgeCore tap the grid.

Data center developers are embracing a bring-your-own-power approach to relieve strain on the grid and skip lengthy interconnection queues. On-site generation, powered by natural gas, is an increasingly popular option.

According to an analysis by Bloomberg News Energy Finance, two gigawatts of behind-the-meter gas generation are currently powering data centers worldwide, but another 114 GW are planned across 115 projects. About 90 percent of the projects are in the United States.

Critics of unconstrained data center growth see that as an alarming trend, arguing that building gas-fired facilities to power individual data center campuses will exacerbate climate change, thanks to increased carbon emissions, and contribute to harmful air pollution in surrounding communities.

Small modular reactors are being touted as a potential long-term and carbon-free power source. As the name suggests, SMRs are smaller, simpler versions of traditional nuclear reactors, which harness nuclear fission—the process of splitting atomic nuclei into smaller nuclei—to produce energy. SMRs typically produce up to 300 megawatts (MW) of power, about a third of the generation capacity of one of the twin Westinghouse reactors operating at Dominion’s North Anna Power Station.

While the technology has only been deployed for commercial generation in Russia and China, SMRs are in various stages of development in the United States. For decades, the US military has used a version of the technology to power nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) two years ago announced a partnership with Dominion to explore building an SMR at North Anna. AWS is building a data center campus on 150 acres adjacent to the plant. Dominion officials have offered few specifics about their efforts to advance the technology, but they’ve suggested an SMR could be in operation within the next decade.

There are other options for behind-the-meter power, including fuel cells and renewables like solar and wind combined with battery storage. In some cases, data center developers use behind-the-meter power as a bridge until they can connect to the grid. Some data center campuses have deployed microgrids, which allow them to offload power to the grid at peak demand, according to the website Data Center Knowledge.

Could Louisa County build another reservoir?

Aside from the insatiable demand for power, the data center industry consumes a lot of water, which cools the computer equipment inside the facilities. Woodward also touched on that issue during his appearance on Smith’s show.

In response to a question submitted by a Lousia resident, Woodward said the county is confident there’s adequate water in the Northeast Creek Reservoir to meet the needs of a pair of AWS data center campuses under development in the county’s Technology Overlay District. The complexes—one next to North Anna and the other across the street from the reservoir in central Louisa—will draw raw water for cooling from the 187-acre impoundment.

At full buildout and peak demand, the campuses could pull as much as seven million gallons of water per day from the reservoir, according to water service agreements between AWS and the county. But county and company officials insist their actual water use will be far less, noting that peak demand refers only to the hottest days of the year.

“They only have to use water for cooling when it reaches 88 degrees or higher, so most days [they’ll rely] on the ambient [air] temperature [for cooling],” Woodward said, adding that the cooling technology AWS employs has become less water-intensive over the last few years.

The reservoir has a daily safe yield of 3.2 million gallons, based on a capacity study conducted three years ago. Current users, including the Town of Louisa, tap between 300,000 and 500,000 gallons daily.

Woodward said EdgeCore would use a closed-loop, air-chilled system to cool its equipment, which uses far less water than the industry standard. The water the facility does use will come from the James River, not the reservoir. The James River Water Authority, a partnership between Louisa and Fluvanna counties, is expected to finish building a waterline to the river by the fall of 2027 to feed development along the Interstate 64 corridor.

Though Woodward expressed confidence in the reservoir’s ability to support data center development, he said the county is beginning to discuss the possibility of building another reservoir, noting that the Northeast Creek impoundment is the sole source of public drinking water for central Louisa, an area that’s experiencing steady growth.

Concerns about the public water supply have been top of mind lately because of sustained drought. The lack of rainfall prompted the Louisa County Water Authority earlier this month to impose mandatory water restrictions on customers who rely on public wells at Zion Crossroads and Lake Anna. The restrictions don’t apply to the reservoir.

“We’re realizing that even without the data center situation, it is not good to just have one water source for the central part of the county, so somewhere along the line...I would certainly think within 10 years…we’re going to probably wind up building another reservoir somewhere,” Woodward said, noting that building the infrastructure would entail a years-long permitting process.

County officials haven’t publicly discussed building a second reservoir—at least not recently. But Louisa County Water Authority General Manager Pam Baughman told Engage Louisa two years ago that officials were in the early stages of exploring what she termed “incremental upgrades” to its infrastructure “to ensure there is enough water for everyone.” Her comments came as the county endured a moderate drought and AWS began developing its data centers.

Baughman said the upgrades could include raising the reservoir by as much as six feet to increase its capacity and/or piping water from the James to central Louisa.

“Decisions on who, what, where, when or how have not occurred or been fully vetted to date,” she said at the time.

Note: Due to time constraints related to other news coverage, this week’s edition doesn’t include a planned article about the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s public hearing for a draft discharge permit for Amazon Web Services’ Lake Anna Technology Campus. We hope to cover the issue again soon. In the meantime, check out The Central Virginian’s coverage here. Check out the Virginia Mercury’s coverage of issues surrounding data center discharge here.

Share

BOS roundup: Supervisors, VDOT talk Route 33 closure, Hamilton Road Bridge replacement; Board passes CUP requirements for transmission facilities

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night convened for its second June meeting, discussing two notable transportation projects and holding five public hearings, four of which centered on expanding Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Check out a recap below. (meeting materials, video)

Supes, VDOT talk Route 33 closure

A representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and members of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors chalked up the surprise announcement of a major road closure to poor communication and stressed the importance of better coordination going forward.

Louisa County said in a press release on Wednesday, June 10, that a segment of Jefferson Highway (Route 33), adjacent to the Northeast Creek Reservoir and Amazon Web Services’ (AWS) North Creek Technology Campus, would close for six weeks, from Monday, June 15 to Friday, July 31. A longer section of the road—from the intersection of Routes 33 and 22 in the Town of Louisa to Pendleton Road (Route 522)—is limited to local traffic, motorists traveling to or from destinations along the route.

The county said the closure would allow for a range of road and utility work, including the installation of a new guardrail system and the placement of a new culvert and water main under the road. Though the county didn’t say so directly, the work is being performed by a private contractor on AWS’s behalf.

VDOT said in a Facebook post on the Friday before the closure that the work is “associated with a private land-development project,” and being “carried out by their contractor, not as part of any state-funded VDOT maintenance or construction project.”

Impacted residents and other community members didn’t find out about the closure until signs were installed in the Town of Louisa and near Cuckoo on June 8, just a week prior to the start of work.

Neither the county, VDOT, AWS nor Clark Construction, the general contractor for the data center campus, had publicly shared details about the project prior to the signs’ installation. That left residents along Route 33 surprised and frustrated, and scrambling for details.

Those details were slow to materialize as the county didn’t issue its press release until two days later. The release included information about the scope of work and a map showing where the road would close and the recommended detour route.

Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, who represents the impacted area, addressed the issue during VDOT’s quarterly report on Monday night. Adams expressed frustration with what he termed a “lack of communication” from VDOT and the project applicant, noting that he didn’t find out about the closure until the afternoon the signs were posted. He said that left him in a difficult position as residents called him with questions he couldn’t answer.

“From about 3 o’clock to 6 o’clock, my phone blew up. People were coming home. They saw the signs [and wanted to know] what’s going on,” Adams told newly-minted VDOT Residency Administrator Craig Simpson, who's been on the job about two weeks.

As the county put together its press release, Adams said that VDOT was slow to respond, exacerbating the problem. He said the department appeared to be trying to distance itself from the issue, pointing to an email in which, he said, VDOT claimed that the county had signed off on the project’s timeline. Adams said that while county officials knew Route 33 would close at some point this summer, they weren’t aware of the exact dates and would’ve liked more notice.

Moving forward, Adams said he hoped VDOT and the county could improve their communication for the sake of residents.

“I think we all need to strive to do better for our citizens. I think they deserve that,” Adams said, adding, “We want to be a partner. We want to work with you. We want to get those messages out. We just need a willing partner on the other side.”

Other supervisors also chimed in.

Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams acknowledged that Simpson has only been in his job for a couple weeks and said that he and county officials would get along fine so long as all parties are “open and honest.”

“I think the expectation going forward is communicate with us and the staff so that we can talk to the citizens and just own it if and when you mess up,” Williams said.

Simpson said he’s eager to move forward and identify ways to ensure better communication.

“I recognize there were some hiccups with this particular project with some of the communication and coordination. Moving forward, I want to focus on the future and look for ways to improve our coordination with the county,” he said.

Check out the county’s FAQ about the closure here.

Hamilton Road bridge replacement moves forward

It’s the end of an era for the Hamilton Road Bridge.

VDOT Residency Administrator Craig Simpson told supervisors on Monday night that the department is set to begin a multi-month project to replace the steel Pratt pony truss bridge, which has carried traffic over the South Anna River in western Louisa County for more than a century. Simpson said work would commence later in the week with the project expected to be complete this fall.

VDOT closed the circa 1917 bridge nearly a year and a half ago due to structural deficiencies. Prior to its closure, the bridge had weight limits that prevented it from accommodating some farm equipment and emergency vehicles. Citing public safety concerns, supervisors asked VDOT to upgrade the structure.

VDOT plans to replace the bridge with a modified Warren type truss bridge, which will be able to handle all legal loads, including modern emergency vehicles, farm equipment and school buses. The agency has said the structure provides the “closest appearance to the existing bridge” of any available to VDOT. The existing bridge is classified as a contributing resource in the Green Springs National Historic Landmark District, a federally recognized historic district.

The bridge’s removal marks the culmination of a years-long feud over its fate. VDOT first attempted to replace the structure more than a decade ago, but the effort stalled amid pushback from Historic Green Springs, Inc. (HGSI), a preservation group, and residents in the historic district. Supervisors revived efforts to rehabilitate the bridge three years ago, citing its continued deterioration and concerns about emergency response times in the area.

For its part, HGSI pressed VDOT to restore the bridge, highlighting its historical significance. In documents submitted to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the group described the bridge as “an excellent example of historic transportation history,” noting that it’s the last “remaining bridge built under the newly formed Virginia State Highway Commission,” a precursor to VDOT. The group called the bridge “a critical feature in celebrating the Commonwealth of Virginia’s legacy of transportation innovation.”

As an alternative, the group presented VDOT with a plan to preserve the bridge while allowing vehicles to go around it on a new structure, HGSI President Rae Ely told Engage Louisa last year.

The department determined that restoring the bridge would be both time-consuming and costly and, according to Ely, rejected the group’s preservation plan.

Simpson said the department plans to salvage a portion of the bridge and transfer it to Louisa County. County Administrator Christian Goodwin said the county could then memorialize the bridge on-site.

“We’d talked about putting a small concrete pad down there and just setting [part of the bridge] on the pad and putting a coat of paint on it,” Goodwin said, noting the idea had come out of stakeholder meetings.

The idea didn’t sit well with Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, who called it “ridiculous.”

Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones, who represents the area, defended the plan, describing it as an “olive branch” to community members who want to preserve the structure and share its history.

“This came out of many talks and discussion with the Historic District in Green Springs and it memorializes the fact that this was a historic bridge. This bridge has been there for a very long time,” Jones said, adding that community members routinely visit the bridge while walking in the area.

Goodwin said it’s up to the board whether it wants to memorialize the bridge on-site, noting the county hasn’t received any cost estimates.

Ahead of Valley Link open house, supes take more action related to proposed transmission line

Ahead of a second open house for Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line, the board of supervisors continued to ramp up its opposition to the project and to prepare for the potential buildout of more electric transmission infrastructure in the future.

At Monday’s meeting, the board approved an amendment to county code that establishes conditional use permit (CUP) requirements and performance standards for electrical transmission facilities.

Supervisors also sent a letter to the regional transmission organization, PJM, asking its board of managers to re-examine Valley Link’s project in light of recent changes. In addition, the board submitted a list of detailed questions to Valley Link, pressing for more information about the line and its potential impacts.

Joshua Falls to Yeat is a proposed 765-kilovolt (kV) power line slated to travel some 115 miles from just outside Lynchburg to southeastern Culpeper. Under development by Valley Link, a partnership between Dominion Energy and several other utility companies, the project is designed to harness power generated in the Ohio River Valley to meet burgeoning regional demand in Northern and Central Virginia, driven largely by data centers.

The line, the biggest ever proposed for construction in Dominion’s territory, is slated to travel through Louisa for about 20 miles along one of two preliminary routes, slicing through farms and forests and passing just a few hundred feet from some homes.

The project has roiled residents and county leaders who’ve argued that Dominion and its partners are sacrificing rural communities for economic development to the north. They’ve vowed to fight the project when it’s considered by state regulators. Valley Link is expected to submit its application and preferred route to the State Corporation Commission this fall, the entity that approves large-scale transmission lines in Virginia.

CUP requirements

County officials described the CUP requirements as another tool it can tap to object to the line and as a way to ensure it has a say in the siting of transmission facilities going forward.

“This is another tool that we are putting in our ordinances to help us with the Valley Link project and projects like Valley Link so that the county continues to have a seat at the table,” Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said.

The CUP requirements apply to substations and all associated “switching stations, and related infrastructure for electric transmission lines operating at 69 kilovolts or greater,” per the approved ordinance. That includes new transmission facilities and expansions and modifications of existing facilities “that materially increase capacity and footprint.”

The amendment doesn’t apply to the transmission lines themselves as the power to approve the lines and their routes lies with the SCC.

The ordinance requires electric transmission facilities to obtain a CUP and sets standards for the infrastructure, requiring applicants to demonstrate that proposed facilities comply with the county’s Comprehensive Plan; minimize impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding communities; and are compatible with existing land uses in its vicinity. It also requires applicants to evaluate alternative routes, including using existing transmission corridors and co-locating within existing utility easements.

In addition, the ordinance includes a provision related to buffering and setbacks, requiring “reasonable separation” from homes, public facilities and agricultural operations. It says the board of supervisors will set minimum standards based on voltage.

The amendment also sets standards for environmental protection, like minimizing land disturbance, and requires a construction management plan, among other provisions.

Letter to PJM

In its letter to PJM, the county urges the regional transmission organization to take another look at Valley Link’s proposal in light of recent changes. (Read the letter).

PJM oversees the power grid in all or part of 13 states, including Virginia, and is tasked with evaluating and green-lighting proposed transmission lines and generation facilities, in part, to ensure there’s an adequate and reliable power supply. The organization okayed Valley Link’s proposal in February of 2025, setting the stage for the SCC’s consideration.

But the county argues in its letter that Valley Link’s current proposal is fundamentally different from what PJM’s board approved, noting that the route’s starting point has changed and its “structures have grown,” from an estimated 135 to 160 feet tall to 150 to 175 feet. It asks the organization to account for those gaps “before the line advances further on PJM’s authority.”

“The County asks the Board to do what its own process requires: to confirm that the line Valley Link is now advancing, at its current route and current structure height, is the line the reliability analysis supports, and to make the underlying need and reliability record available to the communities that would carry it. If the project has changed materially from what the Board approved, the basis for its continued advancement on the 2024 RTEP approval should be reexamined,” the letter says.

Questions for Valley Link

Supervisors also submitted 28 questions to Valley Link and requested answers by June 19. The questions cover a range of topics, from the load forecasting used to justify the line’s construction to the project’s potential impacts on the county’s historical resources and agricultural land. (Read the questions).

Beyond the code amendment and letters, Board Chair Duane Adams said during Monday’s meeting that a regional coalition of impacted localities will hold a second meeting “to plan collaboratively to continue to oppose this project.” The group initially convened in early April, and the localities have signaled they intend to work together as the project moves through the approval process.

Valley Link will hold an open house in Louisa to gather community feedback on proposed routes released in late May. The meeting is set for this Tuesday, June 23, from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm at the Betty Queen Center, 522 Industrial Drive, Louisa. Click here for more information about the project.

Supes add nearly 1,800 acres to Agricultural and Forestal Districts

Following statutorily required public hearings, the board agreed to expand four Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD) by a combined 1,797 acres. That includes approving landowners’ requests to extend the Gold Mine Creek AFD in northwestern Louisa by 253.6 acres; add 53.8 acres to the Trevilian Station AFD in western Louisa; expand the Shelton’s Mill AFD in the eastern end of the county by 157.5 acres; and add 1,332.9 acres to the Indian Creek AFD in south-central Louisa.

AFDs are a conservation tool that allow landowners to voluntarily prohibit development on their property for 10-year periods. In return, participating parcels are assured 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.

In addition, AFDs place limits on local governments’ ability to enact ordinances that “would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or farming and forestry practices,” per state code.

Since joining county staff last September, Agricultural Development and Land Conservation Coordinator Maggie Brakeville has prioritized growing the districts. Brakeville was hired to identify ways to preserve working rural lands as the county experiences significant residential and industrial growth.

In the first half of 2026, the county’s 14 AFDs have grown by a combined 3,078.5 acres with another roughly 5,000 acres moving through the public approval process, including Monday’s additions, Brakeville said.

Brakeville said the county is on pace to set a record for the most additions in a year, surpassing the standard set in 1998 when the Patrick Henry, Green Springs and South Anna AFDs were formed.

“[The county added] 9,693 [acres in 1998], with most of that being Green Springs. We are just 1,618 acres from surpassing that total to have the most acres ever in a year,” Brakeville said.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, June 15 through June 20

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Monday, June 15

Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)

Wednesday, June 17

Community Policy Management Team, 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. (public notice)

Other meetings/events

Tuesday, June 16

Louisa Town Council, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda packet)

Thursday, June 18

Mineral Town Council, budget public hearing, Mineral Town Hall, 312 Mineral Ave., Mineral, 6:30 pm. (agenda packet)

Share

Quote of the week

“Water is a precious commodity and should always be treated as such, but especially during drought conditions. Please do your part to ensure water resources are available for years to come.”

-Judson Foster, chair of the Louisa County Water Authority, in a press release last week announcing mandatory water restrictions for customers served by LCWA’s Zion Crossroads and Lake Anna systems. Read more below.

Share

Route 33 to close for six weeks for road work around AWS data center campus

A segment of one of Louisa County’s busiest roads will close for six weeks starting this Monday, June 15, for road and utility work around a massive Amazon Web Services (AWS) data center campus.

Louisa County said in a statement on Wednesday that a section of Jefferson Highway (Route 33) fronting the Northeast Creek Reservoir and adjacent to AWS’s North Creek Technology Campus will close from Monday, June 15, to Friday, July 31. A larger segment of the road, from the intersection of Route 33 and Davis Highway (Route 22) in the Town of Louisa to Pendleton Road (Route 522), will be limited to local traffic—motorists traveling to a destination along the corridor.

According to the county’s statement, contractors will perform a range of work during the month and a half closure, including installing a new culvert under the road “to mitigate historical flooding”; upgrading a domestic water main that will connect to a new pump station; and installing a modernized guardrail system to “improve motorist protection and reduce the severity of potential off-road incidents.”

The Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) Culpeper District Office said in a Facebook post on Friday that the work is taking place under a “special permit” and “associated with a private land-development project.” “[It’s] being carried out by their contractor, not as part of any state-funded VDOT maintenance or construction project,” the department said.

Louisa County shared a map showing the work zone and a detour route, which includes Routes 22 and 522 through the Town of Mineral. (See below)

News of the road’s impending closure came as a surprise to many community members. Residents who live on 33 found out about the closure last Monday when signs were installed in the Town of Louisa and near Cuckoo. Clark Construction, the general contractor for AWS’s data center campus, put up the signs, according to a VDOT spokesperson. Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, who represents much of the impacted area, also shared the news in a Facebook post Monday afternoon.

Neither Louisa County, VDOT, AWS nor Clark had publicly shared information regarding the closure prior to VDOT putting up the signs. That didn’t sit well with some community members, who sounded off on social media about the lack of information.

“So nice of them to give us a week’s notice, and they will be closing it for 6 weeks! This isn’t a small detour,” one resident said on Facebook.

Other community members voiced concern about how the detour would impact traffic on other roads.

“I expect traffic will be backed up from Louisa to Mineral. I can’t even imagine getting out of School Bus Road or Chalk Level [Road] going in [the] opposite direction,” one resident said.

Another commenter raised concerns about the impact on response times for Louisa County Fire and EMS.

“This is a huge hit on response times for fire/EMS and, in a forward-thinking system, leaders would redo the run order for affected areas. There are a lot of affected residents,” the community member said.

In its statement, Louisa County said that it aims to provide as much notice as possible on community projects. In this case, the county said that notification was provided “once all required permits and project components were finalized.”

The county emphasized that the work needs to be finished in the summer to avoid disruption to Louisa County Public Schools and that tackling the projects all at once “would minimize long-term disruption to the community.”

“The project plan balances execution speed with public safety to minimize impact on local traffic, schools, and residents,” the county said.

Regarding impacts on emergency services, the county said that the Fire and EMS Department is aware of the closure and the detour route.

“VDOT protocol requires direct coordination with Louisa County Fire and EMS prior to any road closure to ensure emergency personnel are fully informed of active detour routes,” the county said.

The road work appears to align with larger transportation upgrades AWS has planned for the sprawling data center complex, which is expected to be developed in three phases over the next 15 years. The tech giant has already submitted plans to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to build 18 data center buildings in the first two phases. It hasn’t revealed plans for the third phase.

According to a Buffer and Landscaping Plan provided to the county in late 2023, AWS intends to develop 816 acres of the 1,444-acre property while leaving 628 acres as open space. Of that, about 380 acres is expected to be donated to the county for potential use as a public park.

The company plans to build a public road through the site at its expense. Dubbed Green Bay Farm Road, the corridor appears to enter the campus just west of the Louisa County Water Authority’s water treatment plant, per documents submitted to the Army Corps and DEQ in 2025 as part of a permitting process required by the federal Clean Water Act. It will ultimately connect with Mt Airy Road (Route 644) near the southern end of the property.

AWS representatives told the planning commission in 2023 that the company opted to build a public road, as opposed to a private one, for several reasons. For one, the implementation of public roads impacts how the company can develop the campus based on state permitting requirements. Public roads are also a more practical option for reaching public park land and keeping construction traffic off Route 33 and Mt Airy Road, the company said.

Note: This story has been updated to correct an error related to who installed the road closure signs.

More news on data center development: Check out next week’s edition of Engage Louisa for coverage of a public hearing convened by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for a draft discharge permit for Amazon Web Services’ Lake Anna Technology Campus on Kentucky Springs Road (Route 652).

Check out Louisa County’s FAQ about the road closure here.

Share

LCWA imposes mandatory water restrictions for customers at Zion Crossroads, Lake Anna

Amid dry conditions, the Louisa County Water Authority (LCWA) last week issued mandatory water restrictions for residents and businesses served by its Zion Crossroads and Lake Anna systems.

In a press release on Tuesday, LCWA said that “months of dry conditions, with very little rainfall, have caused the Green Springs / Zion Crossroads and New Bridge / Lake Anna Well levels to drop below normal levels for this time of year,” prompting the conservation measures.

“Mandating restrictions is intended to prevent shortages of safe potable drinking water for the County citizens connected to these public water systems,” the authority said.

LCWA taps public wells to serve customers at Zion Crossroads and Ferncliff, including Spring Creek, the Stonegate Apartments and surrounding businesses. It also relies on groundwater to serve customers along New Bridge Road (Route 208) near Lake Anna, including Lake Anna Plaza and surrounding townhomes.

The restrictions include limits on outdoor water use, including prohibitions on the use of sprinklers and irrigation systems, the washing of automobiles other than at a licensed car wash and the washing of streets and sidewalks and the exterior of buildings. The restrictions also prohibit restaurants from serving water unless it’s requested. (See below for more details).

Any violation of the mandatory restrictions will be enforced as a Class 3 Misdemeanor, per LCWA. A Class 3 Misdemeanor is punishable by an up to $500 fine.

“Water is a precious commodity and should always be treated as such, but especially during drought conditions. Please do your part to ensure water resources are available for years to come,” LCWA Chair Judson Foster said.

The restrictions don’t apply to customers who get water from the Northeast Creek Reservoir, a 187-acre surface water source, which serves the towns of Louisa and Mineral and other residents and businesses in central Louisa. The restrictions also don’t apply to residents with private wells though Louisa County earlier this month encouraged residents and businesses dependent on groundwater to “practice mindful water use.”

According to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), most of the commonwealth is under a drought warning, meaning the onset of a drought event is imminent. In a June 11 Drought Advisory Update, the department said that, despite recent rainfall, “moderate and severe dryness persists statewide,” with soil moisture levels significantly below normal.

“Groundwater levels continue to decline and are expected to continue declining as summer begins and increased evapotranspiration, and higher water withdrawals impact well levels,” DEQ said. The agency noted that nearly all the state’s reservoirs are “within normal ranges.”

Water supply plans and concerns about data center development

LCWA’s announcement was met with a strong response on social media, mostly from residents concerned about the impact of ongoing data center development on the public water supply.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) is developing a pair of data center campuses in the county’s Technology Overlay District: one adjacent to the North Anna Power Station near Lake Anna and the other across the street from the Northeast Creek Reservoir in central Louisa. Both campuses will ultimately rely on water from the reservoir to cool their computer equipment, not the Zion Crossroads or Lake Anna wells.

AWS’s Lake Anna campus has one data center building that the company says has reached “substantial completion.” The campus is expected to rely on private wells for cooling until an 11-mile waterline to the reservoir is finished, likely by early 2027. AWS is paying for the line, but it will be operated and maintained by LCWA. The campus near the reservoir doesn’t have any data centers in operation.

County officials have repeatedly insisted that there’s plenty of water in the reservoir to serve the campuses, meet the needs of existing customers and accommodate future growth.

Economic Development Director Andy Wade has previously said that the campuses would tap the reservoir for, on average, 630,000 gallons of cooling water per day in the form of raw water that won’t be treated. The company is expected to use more than 7 million gallons per day at full buildout and peak demand. Wade has said that peak demand refers only to the hottest days of the year.

According to a capacity study conducted three years ago, the reservoir has a daily safe yield of 3.2 million gallons a day with current customers drawing between 300,000 and 500,000 gallons daily. Wade has said the study accounted for periods of significant drought.

It’s unclear what mechanisms are in place to ensure AWS doesn’t exceed any average daily water withdrawal threshold shared with the county.

The county’s third data center campus, EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure’s complex at the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park, will rely on water from the James River when its data centers go online. EdgeCore has submitted a site plan to the county but hasn’t started construction. The company has said that it will utilize a closed-loop, chilled water system to cool its equipment, which uses far less water than the industry standard.

The James River Project, which has been decades in the making and cost the county more than $60 million, is the long-term solution to water concerns around Zion, one of the county’s fastest growing areas. When complete, likely by the fall of 2027, the line will channel millions of gallons of water per day from the river to a treatment plant at Ferncliff then to residents and businesses along the Interstate 64 corridor. The infrastructure will relieve LCWA of its reliance on groundwater to meet demand in the area.

According to minutes from LCWA’s October 2025 meeting, the authority is eyeing additional infrastructure to serve customers at Lake Anna. Its board submitted a $5 million request to Louisa County to install a water tower off New Bridge Road and to drill a new well or wells. The county hasn’t included the request in its Capital Improvement Plan.

Mandatory Water Restrictions for LCWA’s Zion Crossroads and Lake Anna customers

• No watering of outside shrubbery, trees, lawns, grass, plants, home vegetable gardens, or any other vegetation, except from a watering can or other container not exceeding three (3) gallons in capacity. No sprinklers, irrigation systems or any other method of outside watering. The only exception is for commercial greenhouses or nursery stocks, which may be watered to preserve plant life before 7:00 am or after 8:00 pm.

• No washing of automobiles, trucks, trailers, or any other type of mobile equipment, except at a licensed commercial car wash facility.

• No washing of sidewalks, streets, driveways, parking lots, service station aprons, exteriors of homes or apartments, commercial or industrial buildings or any other outdoor surface except where mandated by federal, state, or local law.

• No operating of an ornamental fountain or other structure making a similar use of water.

• No filling of swimming or wading pools requiring more than five (5) gallons of water, or the refilling of swimming or wading pools which were drained after the effective date of the declaration of emergency. There are some exceptions to prevent structural damage. Please contact the LCWA business office for additional information.

• No fire hydrant use for any purpose other than County related business and suppression of fires.

• No serving of water in restaurants, unless requested.

• No operation of water-cooled comfort air conditioning that does not have water-conservation equipment in operation.

• Any additional use restrictions as deemed necessary.

Share

Supervisors to hold five public hearings

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night will convene for its second June meeting with five public hearings on tap. Here’s a quick preview.

Supes to hold public hearing on CUP requirements for transmission infrastructure

Supervisors on Monday night will hold a public hearing and consider adopting an amendment to county code that establishes conditional use permit (CUP) requirements and performance standards for electrical transmission facilities.

The proposed ordinance would strengthen existing CUP requirements for substations and apply to all associated “switching stations, and related infrastructure for electric transmission lines operating at 69 kilovolts or greater,” per the draft. That includes new transmission facilities and expansions and modifications of existing facilities “that materially increase capacity and footprint.”

The proposed amendment wouldn’t apply to the transmission lines themselves. The power to approve large transmission lines and their routes lies with the State Corporation Commission (SCC) while localities, via local zoning authority, retain the power to approve supporting infrastructure.

Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said in a memo to the board that though the suggested code changes come amid “regional discussions” of the Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line, they aren’t tied to one specific project and would apply broadly to all future transmission infrastructure proposed in the county.

“As regional demand for electric transmission infrastructure continues to increase, localities are increasingly impacted by large-scale infrastructure proposals that can have long-term effects on land use patterns, rural character, and community development,” Coon said, adding, “The proposed amendment ensures Louisa County has a defined, transparent, and defensible process for reviewing transmission-related infrastructure, rather than relying on case-by-case determinations without established criteria.”

The Joshua Falls to Yeat project is a proposed 765-kilovolt (kV) transmission line slated to travel some 115 miles from just outside Lynchburg to southeastern Culpeper. Under development by the Valley Link Transmission Company, a partnership between Dominion Energy and several other utility companies, the project is designed to harness bulk power generated in the Ohio River Valley to meet burgeoning regional demand in Northern and Central Virginia, driven largely by data centers.

The line, the biggest ever proposed for construction in Dominion Energy territory, is slated to travel through Louisa for about 20 miles along one of two preliminary routes, slicing through farms and forests and passing just a few hundred feet from some homes.

The project has roiled residents and county leaders who’ve argued that Valley Link is sacrificing rural communities for economic development to the north. They’ve vowed to fight the project when it’s considered by state regulators. Valley Link is expected to submit its application and preferred route to the SCC this fall.

The draft ordinance articulates standards for electric transmission infrastructure, requiring applicants to demonstrate that proposed facilities comply with the county’s Comprehensive Plan; minimize impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding communities; and are compatible with existing land uses in its vicinity. They also require applicants to evaluate alternative routes, including using existing transmission corridors and co-locating within existing utility easements.

In addition, the standards include a provision related to buffering and setbacks, requiring “reasonable separation” from homes, public facilities and agricultural operations. The draft says that the board of supervisors would set minimum standards based on voltage.

The amendment also sets standards for environmental protection, like minimizing land disturbance, and requires a construction management plan, among other provisions.

The board at its June 1 meeting adopted an addendum to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan establishing preferred corridors for transmission lines and guidelines for the infrastructure. Among other provisions, the addendum prioritizes the use of existing right-of-way and utility easements for electric, gas, water and telecommunications infrastructure, public right-of-way along roads and “previously disturbed or developed linear infrastructure corridors.”

The addendum also encourages new transmission line corridors to avoid or minimize impacts on residential areas, agricultural and forestal lands, scenic and environmental resources, conservation easements and historic sites and recommends that developers underground the infrastructure when possible.

Coon said in his memo that the proposed CUP ordinance would operationalize the addendum.

“The Comprehensive Plan establishes policy direction, while the CUP ordinance provides the regulatory framework through which those policies are applied during project review,” he said.

Supervisors to hold four public hearings on additions to Ag/Forestal Districts

Supervisors will hold four public hearings to consider adding 1,803.8 acres to the county’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD). The hearings will cover landowners’ requests to expand the Gold Mine Creek AFD in northwestern Louisa by 253.6 acres; add 59.8 acres to the Trevilian Station AFD in western Louisa; expand the Shelton’s Mill AFD in the eastern end of the county by 157.5 acres; and add 1,332.9 acres to the Indian Creek AFD in south-central Louisa.

AFDs are a conservation tool that allow landowners to voluntarily prohibit development on their property for 10-year periods. In return, participating parcels are assured 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.

In addition, AFDs place restrictions on local governments’ ability to enact ordinances that “would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or farming and forestry practices,” per state code.

VDOT to present quarterly report

A routine quarterly update from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) might be the marquee item on Monday’s agenda, thanks to a surprise announcement of a major road closure.

Louisa County residents last week found out that a slice of Jefferson Highway (Route 33) near Amazon Web Services’ North Creek Technology Campus will close for six weeks, from Monday, June 15, to Friday, July 31. (See article above).

The closure will allow private contractors to install a modern guardrail system along the roadway and to upgrade a culvert and replace a water main that run beneath the road. The road work hasn’t been publicly discussed at recent board of supervisors’ meetings.

Residents along Route 33 and other community members were notified of the closure last Monday when signs were posted in the Town of Louisa and near the intersection of Routes 522 and 33 at Cuckoo. Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams also shared the news in a Facebook post Monday afternoon. That was followed by about 24 hours of silence from the county as residents pressed for more details.

After publicly acknowledging the closure on Tuesday, the county provided a map with a suggested detour route and other information late Wednesday afternoon.

The slow rollout of project specifics and the limited public notice are likely to be topics of discussion during the update.

The presentation will also serve as an introduction to Craig Simpson, the new resident engineer for VDOT’s Louisa Residency. Simpson is filling the job previously held by Scott Thornton who last month took another position with the department.

Simpson previously served as the assistant district traffic engineer for VDOT’s Fredericksburg District, where he oversaw traffic engineering studies and safety projects. Before that, he worked in the Warrenton Residency as both an assistant resident engineer for land use and as a land use engineer, per a VDOT press release.

In his new role, Simpson will oversee highway maintenance and operations, land use, and emergency response for more than 3,100 miles of state-maintained roads in Louisa, Orange and Fluvanna counties. He’ll helm a staff of more than 79 employees and serve as the department’s primary liaison with local government officials.

An Orange County resident, Simpson holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Virginia Tech and a master’s degree in engineering management from Old Dominion University.

Share

Planning Commission continues discussion of growth management tools

The Louisa County Planning Commission on Thursday continued a discussion about potential changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth, preserving agricultural land and protecting the community’s rural character. (meeting materials, video)

At a work session prior to its regular meeting, commissioners and county staff focused on changes that would limit by-right residential development in the county’s eight designated growth areas and lower density thresholds.

Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon pitched the proposals as a way to facilitate a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow landowners with property in agricultural areas to sell their development rights to folks looking to increase the density of a project in a growth area, effectively channeling growth to where the county wants it. Coon also emphasized that putting additional guardrails on growth within the areas designated for it would help ensure the community’s infrastructure and services can keep up.

The proposals are part of a larger growth management strategy being crafted by the commission and county staff, most notably Coon and a two-man work group comprised of Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin and Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks.

The board of supervisors tasked the commission earlier this year with identifying ways to slow residential growth, especially in the county’s agricultural areas where new homes are usurping farms and forestland and, some say, threatening the community’s rural character.

Over the last five years, the county has ranked among the five fastest growing localities in the state based on percentage of population growth, a statistic that has alarmed county leaders and community members alike. According to staff, more than half of the roughly 430 homes the county’s adding each year are built in rural areas.

County leaders have also insisted that residential growth is ballooning the budget, a consequence of an increased demand for services and strains on infrastructure.

“Without change, residential buildout occurs by-right, service demands continue to increase and then the preservation goals become harder to achieve as we move forward,” Coon said in a presentation to the commission on Thursday.

The commission last month heard details of the first phase of a potential plan to curb new home construction on agriculturally zoned parcels outside of growth areas, in part, by limiting new parcel creation. Staff has identified the creation of new parcels—essentially dividing or subdividing larger tracts of land—as a key indicator of future growth and emphasized that it fragments farmland, making it difficult to continue agricultural operations.

In an effort to limit the number of new parcels and, in turn, slow growth, the work group floated upping the minimum lot size for new parcels in A-1 and A-2 zoning outside of growth areas from 1.5 acres to as many as 15; increasing road frontage requirements for new lots from 200-300 feet to 450; and hiking setback requirements for new and existing lots to push new homes farther off the road.

Alternatively, the commission discussed establishing both a minimum and maximum setback, which would limit residential development to a small band near the front of a parcel, theoretically preserving the rear for agriculture.

Coon has said the proposals would help curb new home construction by limiting divisions and, depending on what setback method was adopted, help ensure large swaths of farmland are still viable. They would also preserve rural character by pushing homes away from roadsides and farther apart.

Amid criticism that the proposals would raise the cost of housing at a time when affordable housing is scarce and strip landowners of their property rights, the work group has emphasized that the potential changes are one piece of a larger growth management plan, which aims to channel growth into areas that can support it and potentially offer denser and more affordable housing options. The plan would also include components to incentivize landowners to preserve their property by offering them a way to realize economic value elsewhere.

That’s where a TDR program would come in, which the work group touched on at Thursday’s meeting and will delve into more next month. Coon described the program as a market-centered approach to land preservation in which landowners with property in agricultural areas could sell their division rights to developers hoping to pursue projects in growth areas, essentially limiting future development on the rural parcel while directing growth where the county wants it.

Following procedures laid out in state code, Coon said the county would establish sending zones, where division rights could be sold, and receiving zones where developers could buy them, with the former encompassing property in rural areas and the latter taking in land in growth areas.

As Coon described it, property owners with land in a sending zone who want to sell one or multiple division rights that they hold by-right would notify the county. They’d then be placed on a list that would be provided to developers interested in acquiring division rights and could sell them if they chose.

Coon noted that if a landowner didn’t like a project, they could opt not to sell their development rights, effectively giving rural landowners leverage over what’s developed in growth areas.

To help facilitate the program, the work group pitched increasing the minimum lot size in residential zoning inside the county’s designated growth areas from 1.5 to 2.5 acres with additional density possible via TDRs.

“Instead of granting the higher density of 1.5 acres in R-1 and R-2 [zoning], it would be 2.5 acres. But if they purchase development rights, then they could get back to the 1.5 acres…That means the parcel that they purchased it from [in the rural area] can divide at least one less time depending on how many [division rights] they purchased,” Coon explained.

In addition, the work group proposed lowering the residential density permitted in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), from a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre (DUA) to a base density of .75 DUA while allowing for more density through the TDR program and/or by offering affordable housing, preserving open space, upgrading infrastructure or providing other public benefits identified by the county. PUDs require approval by the board of supervisors.

Coon said that lowering base density, while offering avenues to increase it, provides a mechanism to manage growth and ensure that developers address community needs.

“If somebody comes in the door with a 100-acre parcel, they can build 75 units right out the gate [with an approved PUD]. But, depending on what they’re willing to contribute to Louisa County, the higher the benefit, the higher density they’d be able to get. That’s something that we’ve also talked about—making sure people cover their impacts,” Coon said.

But Coon acknowledged that decreasing by-right density would effectively increase housing costs if nothing else is done. He suggested that the ability to ensure housing costs don’t skyrocket and the county is able to support more diverse and affordable options, like apartments and townhomes, hinges on the success of the TDR program and density bonus initiative. That means monitoring the programs closely should they be adopted and tweaking them when necessary, he said.

Hicks and Goodwin agreed.

“If you’re going to slow growth, one byproduct is going to be increased cost per unit. It’s pretty hard to get away from that, but we’ve established and put in here enough variables that we can watch what’s going on and [make changes]…If the market is not acting the way we want it to act, we can take a look at those incentives, increase or decrease depending on how things are reacting,” Goodwin said.

“I don’t believe that [slowing growth and preserving rural character] lowers the cost of housing. When we are preserving rural character, we are making availability less so the natural reaction to that action is the cost goes up…Implementing [strategies like the TDR] into it gives us the possibility for affordable housing that many say does not exist right now,” Hicks said.

Hicks urged patience with the process and noted that the county would likely need more staff to administer a TDR program and ensure its successful.

The work group also floated ideas to balance commercial and residential growth. Coon noted that the county has attracted far more new homes than businesses in recent years and struggled to find ways to ensure that developers who promise to bring commercial and residential space deliver the former in a timely manner.

To achieve a better balance, the work group suggested requiring Planned Unit Developments to be mixed-use and tying the number of dwellings permitted to the amount and type of commercial space.

As an example, Coon said that 10 dwelling units could require 4,000 square feet of commercial space while 100 could require 40,000 square feet. In addition, the work group recommended issuing no more than 25 percent of the certificates of occupancy for residential units until the commercial development is delivered.

“I think we all can agree that we have a substantial amount more homes than commercial entities right now,” Coon said, noting that the commercial component of the PUDs would be designed to create a complete community that could limit vehicle trips by providing local services and employment opportunities alongside residences.

It’s unclear how this proposal would work with the density bonus initiative and whether it would stymie developers’ ability to effectively deliver diverse and attainable housing options. Based on market factors, developers could have difficulty attracting commercial entities, for example.

Coon said the county would have to closely monitor its commercial requirements to ensure it hasn’t erected hurdles that developers can’t clear.

At a work session next month the commission will take a deeper dive into exactly how a TDR program could work and how companion preservation programs, including what county staff has called a “termed” Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program, might operate.

Agricultural Development and Land Conservation Coordinator Maggie Brakeville has pitched the latter program as a mechanism to preserve farm and forestland in the near and intermediate term and potentially serve as a bridge to permanent conservation easements. Under the program landowners would agree to forgo development on their property for a set period and, in exchange, receive compensation from the county.

Coon and commissioners have said that their goal is to provide a comprehensive growth management plan to the board of supervisors for consideration, which accounts for rural preservation, growth management and affordability.

Hicks emphasized the importance of public involvement, noting that the commission is considering significant changes to the rules that dictate what property owners can do with their land, and they need feedback from those who live here and would be directly impacted.

“This is a big deal, and everybody should be highly focused on it,” he said.

Any changes to the zoning code would require public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.

Other business

In other business, the planning commission at its regular meeting held three public hearings and recommended the board of supervisors expand the Green Springs, Ellisville and Gold Mine Creek Agricultural and Forestal Districts by a combined 427 acres. (meeting materials, video)

During their work session, commissioners continued a discussion of how to define “campground” in county code as the use has become a de facto way to provide housing to workers in the county for temporary jobs. Check out an upcoming edition of Engage Louisa for more on that topic.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, June 8 through June 13

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Wednesday, June 10

James River Water Authority, 132 Main Street, Palmyra, 9 am.

Louisa County Water Authority, 23 Loudin Lane, Louisa, 6 pm.

Thursday, June 11

Louisa County Planning Commission, long-range planning work session, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave, Louisa, 5 pm. (meeting materials, livestream)

Louisa County Planning Commission, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm. (meeting materials, livestream)

Other meetings/events

Monday, June 8

Mineral Town Council, Mineral Town Hall, 312 Mineral Ave., Mineral, 6:30 pm. (agenda packet)

Tuesday, June 9

Louisa Town Council, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda packet)

Public Hearing on draft Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for Amazon Web Services’ Lake Anna Technology Campus, Louisa County Middle School, 1009 Davis Highway, Mineral, 7 pm. (public notice) Read more about the hearing in last week’s edition of Engage Louisa.

Share

Quote of the week

“I will not support efforts that turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, subjecting them to potentially lifelong consequences for exercising what they believe to be their constitutional rights.”

-Louisa County Sheriff Donnie Lowe in a statement last Thursday, announcing that his department won’t enforce a new state law banning the sale, purchase, transfer or importation of assault-style weapons. Lowe argues the ban is unconstitutional. Read more in the article below.

Lowe says he won’t enforce assault weapons ban

Louisa County Sheriff Donnie Lowe last week said he won’t enforce a ban on assault-style weapons that Governor Abigail Spanberger signed into law last month, contending the measure conflicts with the constitution and requires “careful scrutiny” and review by the courts.

“I will not support efforts that turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, subjecting them to potentially lifelong consequences for exercising what they believe to be their constitutional rights. Any law that directly conflicts with the Constitution deserves careful scrutiny and judicial review before enforcement actions are taken against responsible citizens,” Lowe said in a statement posted on the sheriff’s office Facebook page on Thursday.

“My position is straightforward: the focus should remain on violent criminals and criminal behavior, not on restricting the constitutional rights of responsible citizens,” he said.

Lowe, a Republican serving his second term as sheriff, reiterated in an email to Engage Louisa that his department doesn’t plan to enforce the ban when it takes effect July 1.

The measure, which passed the Democratic-controlled General Assembly on a party-line vote earlier this year, makes it a Class One Misdemeanor to sell, purchase, transfer or import “assault firearms” and magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition with some exceptions. It doesn’t require gun owners to relinquish weapons they already own.

The law defines an “assault firearm,” in part, as “any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 15 rounds.” The definition extends to semi-automatic weapons that support specific attachments and grips and have certain other characteristics. The law doesn’t apply to antique firearms, firearms rendered permanently inoperable, or firearms manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.

In his statement, Lowe said that he believes there’s “significant confusion” with the definition of an “assault weapon” and the lack of clarity creates uncertainty for citizens and law enforcement. He said it’s up to the courts to provide “a final and definitive determination on the legislation’s constitutionality and enforceability.”

”I am not convinced there is a clear, consistent, and universally understood definition of what constitutes an assault weapon under current discussions and proposals,” Lowe said.

Lowe’s statement comes as commonwealth’s attorneys and sheriffs in more than a dozen conservative localities have balked at enforcing the law, calling it unconstitutional.

To date, federal courts have let stand similar assault weapons bans in other states. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2024 upheld a decade-old ban on assault-style weapons in Maryland, and the US Supreme Court declined to review the case. Still, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the court’s six conservative justices, has signaled that he expects the court will consider the issue in an upcoming term.

Gun rights advocates have argued that the court’s decisions in a pair of landmark Second Amendment cases over the last 20 years align with their view that Virginia’s ban won’t pass constitutional muster. Just hours after Spanberger signed the legislation into law, the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a lawsuit challenging it.

“Our complaint argues that Virginia’s bans are unconstitutional because they prohibit many of the most commonly possessed arms in the nation. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, a ban on arms ‘in common use’ violates the Second Amendment,” the NRA said in a statement.

Proponents of the assault weapons ban argue that it’s a commonsense gun safety measure aimed at keeping weapons of war off the street and curbing the epidemic of gun violence.

Del. Dan Helmer, D-Fairfax, who sponsored the legislation in the House of Delegates told WWBT News last week that he expects local elected officials to follow state law.

“The expectation of those who elected you and the oath that you have sworn to uphold is that you are going to follow the law,” Helmer said, according to WWBT. “We have passed the law. We have made it clear. We had elections that elected the people who ran on a platform of saying we were going to do this. The people were with us. And now it is your job to do your job or to get out of the way.”

Resistance to gun law reforms isn’t uncommon in Louisa County. In 2019, as the General Assembly considered a raft of proposed restrictions on firearms, the board of supervisors declared the county a “Second Amendment Sanctuary,” joining with dozens of other localities across the state in making the symbolic move.

Since first winning election as sheriff seven years ago, Lowe has repeatedly touted his support for the rights of gun owners, which he reiterated in his statement.

“I have always been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the rights it guarantees to law-abiding citizens. Our Founding Fathers considered these rights so essential that they placed them second only to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms remains a fundamental constitutional liberty that must be protected,” Lowe said.

Louisa County Board of Supervisor Chair Duane Adams, a Republican and close political ally of Lowe, applauded the sheriff in a Facebook post Thursday afternoon, thanking him for “standing up for the constitution.”

Share

County hires familiar face to lead legal fight against proposed transmission line

Louisa County has hired a familiar face to spearhead its legal fight against an ultra-high voltage power line that could slice through the center of the county.

County officials confirmed to Engage Louisa last week that they’ve brought on Dale Mullen, a partner in the Richmond law firm, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP, to make their case to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) for why Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line isn’t the answer for meeting the region’s growing demand for power—at least as it’s currently proposed. The SCC is the state regulatory body that has the power to approve large transmission lines and their routes.

Mullen served as Louisa’s county attorney and county administrator between 2008 and 2013, according to his profile on LinkedIn. More recently, he and his firm manned the county attorney’s office on an interim basis for about a year and a half before the board hired its current in-house counsel, Patricia Smith, in mid 2024.

Valley Link, a partnership between Dominion Energy, FirstEnergy Transmission and Transource, has proposed to build a 765-kilovolt transmission line, dubbed Joshua Falls to Yeat for the substations that would bracket it, across the Virginia Piedmont to carry bulk power generated in the Ohio River Valley to energy-hungry users in Northern and Central Virginia.

The line—the biggest ever proposed for construction in Dominion Energy territory—would require a 200-foot cleared right-of-way along its roughly 115-mile path as it travels from just outside Lynchburg to Richardsville in southeastern Culpeper. From there, it would connect to power lines in Northern Virginia.

The company is considering multiple potential routes for the line, which have been revised, in part, based on community feedback. Two proposed corridors travel through Louisa, both for about 20 miles. They cut through farms and forests and pass just a few hundred feet from some homes. Valley Link has said it plans to select a preferred route to submit to the SCC for consideration by this fall.

Valley Link and Dominion officials say the line is necessary to meet growing regional demand, driven largely by data centers, and to ensure the reliability of the grid. Dominion expects power demand in its territory to double within the next 20 years.

But residents and county officials in most of the nine potentially impacted localities have vowed to fight the line, arguing that Valley Link is sacrificing rural land for economic development to the north. Many have urged the company to explore alternatives, including running the line underground and building power plants closer to the demand.

In his role, Mullen is expected to help coordinate and formulate the county’s legal arguments related to Valley Link’s proposal. After the company submits its project to state regulators, he’s expected to guide the county through the public approval process, handling legal filings and representing the county at hearings and other proceedings.

The SCC is expected to consider the project for about a year before deciding whether to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which deems the line in the public interest, and approving a final route.

Earlier this year, supervisors allocated $250,000 for anticipated legal expenses related to the project. Goochland and Buckingham County set aside the same amount, and leaders from multiple impacted localities have signaled they’re prepared to work together as a regional coalition as the approval process moves forward.

Mullen, who holds a law degree from the University of Richmond, has more than two decades of legal experience. According to his profile on Whiteford, Taylor & Preston’s website, he currently co-chairs the firm’s business and corporate law section where he advises clients on a range of issues, from regulatory compliance to government investigations.

Mullen’s practice encompasses federal and state rule-making, permitting, and enforcement, with an emphasis on helping clients navigate complex regulatory frameworks. He has extensive experience representing clients before government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Securities and Exchange Commission and Army Corps of Engineers.

Convincing the SCC to block the line’s construction or make significant alterations won’t be easy. PJM, the regional transmission organization that oversees the grid in Virginia and a dozen other states, green-lit the project earlier this year. Valley Link and Dominion representatives told the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors last month that they’d never seen a major transmission line halted after garnering support from the organization.

Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams said at last Monday’s board of supervisors meeting that the county is doing what it can to fight the project, including hiring legal counsel to advocate for residents’ interest in front of state regulators. (video)

“We’re just going to have to stick together and fight the battles as they come up,” Williams said.

Williams said that making a case to the SCC isn’t as simple as saying the county doesn’t want the line.

“Our attorney advised us that you can’t go down to the [SCC] with just ‘I don’t want the line,’ because they’ll just set your complaint to the side. You’ve got to get a seat at the table, which is what we are trying to do, and you have to engage in the fight in the manner in which they’re hearing it,” he said.

County officials have already taken steps to bolster their arguments to the SCC and to federal regulators whose decisions could impact the project. The board last month adopted an addendum to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that establishes preferred corridors for new transmission lines, prioritizing the use of existing right-of-way and utility easements for electric, gas, water and telecommunications infrastructure, public right-of-way along roads and “previously disturbed or developed linear infrastructure corridors.”

The addendum also encourages new transmission line corridors to avoid or minimize impacts on residential areas, agricultural and forestal lands, scenic and environmental resources, conservation easements and historic sites and recommends that developers underground the infrastructure “where it is technically feasible, economically reasonable and results in a reduction of impacts to the community and environment.”

The Comprehensive Plan is a state-mandated long-range planning document that lays out a vision for future development. The SCC will consider proposed transmission lines’ adherence to the plan when deciding whether to approve them and selecting their routes.

In a significant sign of regional cooperation, Mullen last month filed a Motion to Intervene and Protest on behalf of Louisa, Fluvanna, Orange, Goochland and Culpeper counties in a case pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that could impact Valley Link’s path forward.

PJM has asked the commission to allow it to fast-track approval of up to 10 large power plants a year through 2027 as utilities race to meet rising demand. Opponents of the Joshua Falls to Yeat project have argued that green-lighting the request could bolster Valley Link’s justification for the line.

Valley Link will hold a second round of open houses in the coming weeks to gather feedback on the revised routes released in late May, including on Tuesday, June 23 from 3:30 to 7:30 pm at the Betty Queen Center in Louisa. Click here for a complete list of open houses. Click here for detailed maps of the proposed routes.

Share

School Board objects to proposed transmission line near its facilities

The Louisa County School Board on Tuesday night passed a resolution opposing a potential plan to build an ultra-high voltage transmission line less than 2,000 feet from the existing Louisa County High School/Middle School campus and less than 1,000 feet from a wooded 91-acre plot where the division is considering building a new elementary school. (video)

The resolution says that the proposed line raises “significant concerns” related to educational disruption and student and staff safety and security, citing potential disruption from construction noise and concerns about access issues, emergency response and “long-term operational hazards of large-scale utility infrastructure near school campuses.”

The resolution urges both Valley Link, the project’s developer, and the State Corporation Commission (SCC), the regulatory body with the power to approve the line and its route, “to reject routes or designs that would place electric transmission infrastructure on or near school property or in areas that directly affect current or future school operations.”

The resolution presses Valley Link and state regulators to consider other solutions, including alternative routes and undergrounding the line. Board members emphasized that the resolution expresses opposition to siting the infrastructure near any school facility.

The resolution will be shared with Valley Link, the SCC and other relevant state agencies as well as elected officials.

Valley Link, a partnership between Dominion Energy and several other utility companies, proposes to build a 765-kilovolt (kV) transmission line from just outside Lynchburg to southeastern Culpeper to help meet the burgeoning regional demand for power, driven largely by data centers in Northern Virginia. Dubbed the Joshua Falls to Yeat project for the substations that would bracket it, the line would be the biggest ever constructed in Dominion Energy territory, capable of carrying three times the capacity of a 500-kV line.

The company is considering two potential corridors through Louisa: a western route that enters the county west of Ferncliff and skirts the western edge of the Town of Louisa as it travels north toward Orange County, and an eastern route that enters the county near Shannon Hill and travels just west of the high school/middle school campus. It ultimately converges with the western route near the Louisa-Orange line.

The proposed eastern route crosses large parcels on both sides of the high school/middle school campus that the board of supervisors three years ago placed in a Technology Overlay District (TOD) in hopes of attracting lucrative data center development. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is developing a data center complex on a 1,444-acre property in the TOD about four miles south of the schools’ campus. The tech giant purchased another roughly 1,400 acres just south of the high/school middle school earlier this year. The proposed route crosses both of those properties.

Valley Link in February shared two preliminary corridors for the line. Drawing on community feedback and other due diligence, the company released revised routes in late May, which it touted as less impactful to homes, historic sites and sensitive environmental features. Though it adjusted both potential corridors in Louisa, the routing team didn’t move the eastern route away from the school complex.

Valley Link officials will hold another round of open houses this month before settling on a preferred route to submit to the SCC for consideration, likely this fall.

Before voting in support of the resolution, Board Chair Greg Strickland (Patrick Henry) said school officials had reached out to Valley Link to express the division’s concerns about the line’s proximity to existing school facilities and the potential elementary school site. But he said their conversations had “fallen short.”

The school division bought the 91-acre parcel it’s eying for the elementary school for about $400,000 six years ago. The parcel fronts Davis Highway (Route 22) just west of the middle school.

A consulting firm last month recommended that the board build the school on the property. The firm said the parcel’s central location would best accommodate anticipated growth and would be cost-effective because it’s already owned by the division and served by public utilities.

While the board hasn’t formally voted to build the school on the parcel, the resolution emphasizes its concerns about the proposed route’s proximity to the site, which it refers to by its tax map parcel.

“The School Board finds that the Project creates constraints and potential conflicts with the proposed use of Parcel #42 95 for school purposes, including limitations on building placements, circulation patterns, outdoor facilities, and compliance with applicable regulations and easements, all of which necessitates further analysis, planning, and potential accommodation to address the identified conflicts,” the resolution says.

Dominion and Valley Link spokesperson Craig Carper said in an email to Engage Louisa that the company chose to run the eastern route by the schools, in part, because it meshes with land use decisions made by county leaders. He noted that the county adopted a Technology Overlay District in the area, which “anticipated the need for electric transmission infrastructure to support above-average electrical demand,” and that the line parallels an existing 230-kV line that passes the schools.

“Crossing the TOD and collocation with the existing 230-kV lines were identified as routing opportunities intended to align with local land use plans while keeping a wide buffer from the school campus,” Carper said.

But part of the buffer Carper references is the potential elementary school site. Should Valley Link move forward with the proposed eastern route, the 91-acre lot would be hemmed in by the new power line just across Shortmans Road to the west and the existing one to the east.

County officials have said they were assured existing utility infrastructure or enhancement in existing footprints would be adequate to provide electricity to the data centers under development in the TOD, suggesting they didn’t anticipate another high-voltage line running by the schools.

“The County purposely confirmed with utilities that the existing lines/footprints could support the TODs,” County Administrator Christian Goodwin said in an email last week.

Before voting to approve the resolution, several board members expressed frustration with the Valley Link project, echoing arguments made by other community members.

Louisa District representative Billy Seay said Louisa and other rural localities are potentially being sacrificed for the benefit of data center development to the north. Seay suggested the power-guzzling facilities should bring their own electricity, be it from gas turbines or small modular nuclear reactors.

“The way I look at it is, if the SCC approves this line, Northern Virginia committed the crime by not having the power for these data centers, but we’re going to be taking the punishment with these transmission lines in our backyard,” Seay said.

In approving the resolution 5-0, the school board gave Strickland and Superintendent Doug Straley a green-light to send a letter to Valley Link and other relevant parties explaining their reasoning for passing it.

Cuckoo District representative Steve Harris and Mountain Road District representative Gail Proffitt were absent.

Share

PC to talk growth management tools

The Louisa County Planning Commission at a work session on Thursday will continue a discussion focused on potentially making sweeping changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth, especially outside the county’s eight designated growth areas, and preserving working rural land.

County officials for the last several years have emphasized their interest in curbing residential development in the county’s agricultural areas, arguing that the influx of new homes is usurping farms and forestland, threatening the county’s rural character and ballooning the budget, a consequence of the growing demand for county services.

Members of the board of supervisors routinely point out that, over the last five years, the county has ranked among the five fastest growing localities in the state based on percentage of population growth. Some board members have said that now is the time to temper the pace of residential growth before it’s too late.

“I’d like to see some things we can do to start limiting some of the residential growth in the A-1 and A-2 [zoning] that’s not in the growth areas. I’m prepared to stand behind that, move forward and, if necessary, burn or expend as much political capital as I need to…We’ve probably almost lost the county. We’ve got to do some things if we’re going to maintain some of the rural nature. It’s real. It’s in real time, and we’ve got to get serious about it,” Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams said during a board meeting in January.

At a work session last month, the commission delved into some ideas for slowing growth and preserving farmland, which would dramatically change the county’s zoning rules for agriculturally zoned property (A-1, A-2) outside of designated growth areas. Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon and a two-man work group, including Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks and Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin, worked together to craft the proposals.

The work group’s ideas include raising, from 1.5 acres to as many as 15 acres, the minimum lot size required to create a new parcel in A-1 and A-2 zoning outside of growth areas; increasing, from 200-300 feet to 450 feet, the road frontage required for a new parcel and tweaking setback requirements for new home construction on new and existing lots from a minimum of 50-60 feet off a public road to as much as 250 feet. Alternatively, the commission discussed establishing both a minimum and maximum setback, which would limit residential development to a small band near the front of a parcel, theoretically preserving the rear for agriculture.

Coon has said that the proposals would help curb new home construction by limiting divisions and, depending on what setback method was adopted, help ensure large, contiguous tracts of farmland remain intact. They would also preserve rural character by pushing homes away from roadsides and farther apart.

But the proposals have been met with some criticism and concern. During public comment at the board of supervisors’ May 18 meeting, Mineral District resident Chris Liles called a few of the ideas “draconian,” contending they would infringe on landowners’ rights.

“Some of the [work group’s] ideas—potentially up to 15-acre minimum lot sizes, road frontages that are as long as a football field and…setbacks [where]…I can’t build my house a half mile off the road, I got to build it within this little window you give me—I just think we’re going kind of draconian if we go with some of these things. You’re trampling property owner rights,” Liles said.

The proposals also raise significant concerns about affordability. Homes built on larger lots that are pushed off the road would likely be more expensive, a consequence of increased land and development costs.

Coon emphasized that the zoning changes would be part of a multi-pronged approach to slow growth and paired with programs that could compensate landowners who lose development rights or voluntarily give them up. He’s also said that residential development could be channeled to growth areas where there’s infrastructure to support dense and, potentially, more affordable housing options like condos and townhomes.

One of the programs staff has pitched to incentivize rural landowners to forgo development on their property is a termed purchase of development rights (PDR) initiative. Under the program, landowners would sign a multi-year contract with the county, agreeing not to develop their land and, in return, receive a set amount of compensation. Staff has said the program could serve as a bridge to permanent conservation easements.

Staff has also floated a transfer of development rights program (TDR), which takes a market-centered approach, allowing property owners to sell the development rights on their land for use on another parcel, typically in an area targeted for growth.

Under a TDR, a locality typically designates certain areas as “sending” zones and other areas as “receiving” zones. A “sending” property can sever its development rights, making them available to a receiving parcel where residential density could be increased. Sending parcels are generally located in areas designated as rural while receiving parcels are in areas targeted for development.

At Thursday’s work session, the commission is expected to discuss potential changes to the zoning code in growth areas. The proposed changes are, in part, aimed at facilitating a TDR program.

While staff has insisted that limiting growth in the county’s rural areas would be coupled with dense development in growth areas, the ideas on the table offer a more complicated picture.

According to a draft framework included in the agenda packet, the work group pitches increasing the minimum lot size in residential zoning inside the county’s designated growth areas, decreasing how much residential development can be built by-right and limiting density. The work group suggests the limits would help establish a market for the TDR program.

Most notably, the work group floats upping, from 1.5 to 2.5 acres, the minimum lot size on R-1 and R-2 zoned parcels inside growth areas with additional density possible via transferrable development rights.

In addition, the work group proposes lowering the residential density permitted in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), from a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre (DUA) to a base density of .75 DUA while allowing for more density through the TDR program or by offering affordable housing, preserving open space, upgrading infrastructure or providing other public benefits identified by the county.

“This approach allows the county to preserve agricultural and forestal land outside designated growth areas; direct development into areas planned for future growth; create a market-based incentive for farmland and forestland preservation; [and] ensure that increased density is earned through measurable community benefits rather than granted automatically,” the draft framework says.

While the work group has centered a significant piece of its growth management strategy on a transfer of development rights program, such initiatives have gained little traction statewide. Only a few localities in Virginia have a TDR ordinance in their code, according to the American Farmland Trust. Those include Arlington, Stafford and Frederick counties in Northern Virginia.

Arlington County, which abuts Washington, DC and includes dense residential and commercial development, started its TDR program in 2009. Over the next decade, it completed 10 transactions, according to research shared by Prince William County. Arlington has focused its program on increasing open space and historic preservation, as opposed to preserving rural land. One transaction cleared the way for a taller building near a Metro stop in exchange for the preservation of two historic buildings.

For Louisa’s purposes, it’s unclear how the program would work at scale. Could it provide an adequate and attainable pool of transferable development rights that enable developers to pursue dense and diverse housing options?

To ensure that dense residential development is offset by revenue-producing commercial space, the work group has also floated requiring Planned Unit Developments to include a commercial component and tying the number of dwellings permitted to the amount of commercial space. For example, 10 dwelling units would require 4,000 square feet of commercial space while 100 would require 40,000 square feet. The work group recommends issuing no more than 25 percent of the certificates of occupancy for residential units until the commercial development is delivered.

The work group has emphasized that its ideas are preliminary and presented for discussion and debate. Any changes to the zoning code would require public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.

Other business

According to the work session agenda, the commission will continue a discussion about potentially changing the definition of “campground” in county code and creating a definition for temporary workforce housing.

Staff at last month’s meeting pitched the idea of tightening the definition of campground, arguing that the facilities are intended for recreational purposes, but a growing number of residents want to establish campgrounds to provide temporary housing to workers doing short-term jobs. Workers have long flocked to the county to work refueling outages at Dominion’s North Anna Power Station. Now, they’re coming for a variety of construction-related gigs too.

A couple commissioners responded that changing the definition of campground might be appropriate, but the county also needs to address the demand for temporary workforce housing. Staff agreed to draft a definition and potential standards for the use. The agenda packet doesn’t include any additional information about the item.

At the commission’s regular monthly meeting at 7 pm, the panel will hold three public hearings to consider adding a combined 427 acres to Agricultural and Forestal Districts.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, June 1 through June 6

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Monday, June 1

Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. The board will convene in closed session at 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)

Tuesday, June 2

Louisa County School Board, Central Office Administration Building, 953 Davis Highway, Mineral, 7 pm. (agenda, livestream)

Thursday, June 4

Ag, Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm. (agenda)

Share

Quote of the week

“The [Technology Overlay District], per Louisa County’s Comprehensive Plan, anticipated the need for electric transmission infrastructure to support above-average electrical demand. Crossing the TOD and collocation with the existing 230-kV lines were identified as routing opportunities intended to align with local land use plans while keeping a wide buffer from the school campus.”

-Valley Link and Dominion spokesperson Craig Carper on a proposed route for the Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line that passes close to the Louisa County High School/Middle School campus. County and school officials have criticized the route, but Valley Link didn’t change the portion that travels near the schools in revisions released last week.

Valley Link releases revised routes for controversial transmission line

Valley Link Transmission Company last week released revised routes for its proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line, a controversial ultra-high voltage power line that’s slated to slice through central Louisa County.

With the latest routing options, Valley Link has narrowed its choices for where to site the massive 765-kilovolt (kV) line that, if approved by state regulators, will carry bulk power generated in the Ohio River Valley from just outside Lynchburg to southeastern Culpeper. The company has said the line is necessary to meet the burgeoning regional demand for electricity, driven mostly by data centers, and to ensure the reliability of the grid.

Valley Link, a partnership between Dominion Energy, FirstEnergy Transmission and Transource, in February unveiled two preliminary corridors for the line and a handful of variations, which crossed nine Central Virginia counties. The company followed that up with a series of open houses and stakeholder meetings to get input on the routes.

Drawing on feedback from those events, constructability reviews by engineers and other due diligence, Valley Link rolled out three overlapping revised corridors on Wednesday, along with three potential variations, and eliminated a handful of route segments previously considered. The corridors, dubbed Routes 1,2 and 3 and shown in orange, blue and pink, respectively, on Valley Link’s online map, travel through eight counties: Louisa, Orange, Culpeper, Fluvanna, Buckingham, Appomattox, Goochland and Campbell.

The corridors start at a planned expansion of the Joshua Falls substation in Campbell, where the line would connect with an existing 765-kV line operated by American Electric Power (AEP). Depending on the final route, it would travel between 115 and 120 miles to the proposed Yeat substation near Richardsville in Culpeper where it would connect to power lines in Northern Virginia. AEP is a partner in Transource.

Valley Link representatives say the proposed routes are improvements from the previous versions, minimizing impacts on residences, historic resources, recreational sites and sensitive environmental features.

“The routes were refined based on numerous factors including public feedback, which provided input on local issues and concerns but also provided specific information on resources and routing constraints that are not publicly documented. Route refinements resulted in a significant reduction in the number of homes in proximity to the potential route alternatives. None of the refined routes (all between 115 and 120 miles long) are within 150 feet of any homes and are within 500 feet of fewer than 75 homes. Additionally, the refined routes avoid or minimize impacts to historic resources, sensitive environmental features, planned development, recreational areas, and conservation easements,” Valley Link and Dominion Energy spokesperson Craig Carper said in an email to Engage Louisa.

Valley Link plans to hold a second round of open houses in June to gather additional feedback as it continues to refine the routes before settling on a preferred route to submit to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) for consideration this fall. The SCC is the regulatory body that has the power to approve large transmission lines in Virginia.

Valley Link’s plan to build the line through the bucolic Virginia Piedmont has roiled residents and county officials across the region. Some have argued that the company is sacrificing farm and forestland in rural areas to feed data center development to the north. Northern Virginia is home to the highest concentration of the power-guzzling facilities in the world.

The line would be the biggest ever constructed in Dominion Energy territory, capable of carrying three times the power of a 500-kV line. It would require a 200-foot cleared right-of-way along its path and poles as tall as 160 feet every quarter mile.

Residents in Louisa have said the line would fragment productive farm and timberland and mar viewsheds. They’ve also said the project raises health concerns and questioned why it travels so close to schools and some dense residential development.

The new routes appear to allay few of those concerns as residents last week vented their frustrations on social media. County officials also raised concerns.

“There are definitely no winners here,” Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes, whose district could be impacted by the line, said in an email to Engage Louisa.

A closer look at the proposed routes

Valley Link shared two potential routes through Louisa: an eastern route, shown in blue on Valley Link’s online map and referred to as Route 2, and a western route, shown in pink and referred to as Route 3. Both routes follow somewhat similar paths as Valley Link’s initial eastern and western corridors though they deviate in several significant ways. The company eliminated from consideration four potential variations, which traveled through central and eastern Louisa.

Carper said that, like the previous versions, the revised corridors traverse the county for about 20 miles. He said Valley Link hasn’t verified how many individual parcels each corridor crosses.

Route 3, or the western route, enters Louisa from Fluvanna just west of Deerfield Road, then crosses Route 250 near Sunnyday Market and Deli. As it travels north, the corridor cuts through forest and farmland. It then veers east, passing homes along Harlow Town Road and crossing Byrd Mill Road south of the South Anna River.

From there, the line travels northeast, skirting Dominion’s Belcher Solar Facility. The corridor crosses Route 22 just west of the Town of Louisa, coming within 800 feet of Spring Oak at Louisa, a retirement home, and passing close to the Countryside subdivision. The line continues north, crossing farm and timberland before traveling along the eastern side of Blue Ridge Shores. It crosses wide expanses of open farmland in northwest Louisa before converging with Route 2 just north of the Louisa-Orange County line.

Route 2, or the eastern route, enters the county just west of the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park where EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure plans to develop a data center campus. It slices through forestland as it travels north, crossing Yanceyville Road then Mt Airy Road near Amazon Web Services’ North Creek Technology Campus. The corridor traverses the northwestern end of the 1,444-acre property where AWS plans to build at least 18 data center buildings.

The corridor crosses Route 33 west of the Northeast Creek Reservoir. It parallels an existing Dominion-owned 230-kV transmission line as it travels through the Fisher Chewning tract, a 1400-acre parcel that AWS acquired earlier this year. The line crosses Route 22 just west of the Louisa County High School/Middle School campus.

From there, the line traverses the Cooke Industrial Rail Park as it travels north then northwest. It cuts through farm and timberland before crossing Goldmine Road near Peach Grove Baptist Church and converging with Route 3 just after entering Orange.

Lane Carr, a senior siting and permitting specialist with Valley Link and Dominion, shed some light on the company’s routing choices in Louisa during a Q & A with the Goochland County Board of Supervisors last week. Carr said the routing team identified certain anchor points—essentially industrial areas that could benefit from transmission lines—pointing to EdgeCore’s campus at Shannon Hill as an example.

“We look for future growth areas. If we have an opportunity to route through somewhere that is proposed or has an existing industrial nature, [that’s what we try to do],” Carr said. Route 2 travels just west of EdgeCore’s property through timberland.

Carr said that, during the first round of open houses, many residents urged the routing team to, as she put it, “stay as far away from [their] homes as possible.” She said the team tried to adhere to that advice in refining the routes. Both routes in Louisa appear to lessen the impact on some homes, including residences on Mallory Road and Goldmine Road where the line would’ve come within a couple hundred feet of residences.

Valley Link appeared to take some business owners’ concerns to heart as well. The western route avoids Southern Revere Cellars, a popular winery and brewery off E. Jack Jouett Road and manages to distance itself some 2,000 feet from The Cottages, a dog boarding and training facility off Byrd Mill Road.

The corridor would’ve crossed open land on Southern Revere’s property not far from where visitors now enjoy beers and bucolic views. The Cottages’ owner suggested the line, which was proposed to pass through forestland on her property, would’ve destroyed her business, citing dogs’ sensitivity to large power lines.

While some property owners can breathe a little easier, others are feeling the pressure of a massive power line potentially coming to their backyard. Valley Link opted to move the western route down Mallory Road. It now travels directly behind homes on Deerfield Road. As the eastern route crosses 33 near AWS’s campus, it appears to travel about a 100 feet from one home and through the backyard of another.

The western route also travels less than 1,000 feet from the edge of two large residential developments: the Countryside subdivision in the Town of Louisa and Blue Ridge Shores in the northwestern end of the county. Choosing to route the line by Blue Ridge Shores (BRS) is a change from the previous version.

Louisa District Supervisor Manning Woodward, who represents Blue Ridge Shores and the Town of Louisa, said that a few constituents had reached out to him with concerns about the corridor’s proximity to BRS. He said the decision to pull the project closer to a dense residential area contradicts what Valley Link representatives said earlier in the routing process.

“It makes me scratch my head and wonder why would they have adjusted it over to be that close to Blue Ridge Shores. It just goes against what I understood them to say about choosing a route,” Woodward said in a brief telephone interview, noting that he’d prefer that the line avoid Louisa County altogether.

Valley Link held firm to its decision to run the eastern route less than 2,000 feet from the Louisa County High School/Middle School complex and less than 1,000 feet from 90 wooded acres on the edge of the campus where the school board is considering building the county’s fifth elementary school. Both school officials and members of the board of supervisors have repeatedly raised concerns about the proposed line’s proximity to the schools.

Carper said Valley Link’s proposed corridor is about a third of a mile from the existing school campus and parallels a 230-kV line that runs by the complex. He argued that the route meshes with Louisa County’s vision for the area, noting that it runs through the county’s Technology Overlay District (TOD), which abuts the schools’ property to the south.

“The TOD, per Louisa County’s Comprehensive Plan, anticipated the need for electric transmission infrastructure to support above-average electrical demand. Crossing the TOD and collocation with the existing 230-kV lines were identified as routing opportunities intended to align with local land use plans while keeping a wide buffer from the school campus,” Carper said.

Valley Link also chose to route the lines through working rural lands, including large tracts of pasture and cropland and pine plantations. Valley Link representatives have said they look for large forested parcels because they lessen the number of impacted property owners and help them avoid residential areas.

Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, whose district could be significantly impacted by the eastern route, said in a statement to Engage Louisa that he doesn’t see the revised routes as improvements nor does he believe the Joshua Falls to Yeat project is “the most efficient solution” to meet the growing demand for power.

“The revised routes recently released by Valley Link simply shift the burden and hardship from one set of landowners to another. This board and myself have clearly stated and acted upon our opposition to this project. These new maps now impact Blue Ridge Shores, one of our county’s largest communities, continue to run parallel to the high school/middle school campus while cutting a large destructive path across prime agricultural and forest areas,” Adams said.

Next steps

Valley Link will hold a series of open houses to gather community feedback on the revised routes, including on June 23 in Louisa. Over the next few months, the company will continue to refine the routes, Carper said, before ultimately settling on a preferred route to submit to the SCC, likely in September. Valley Link officials have said they’ll also submit at least one alternative.

Carper said the routing options released last week represent a “relatively advanced stage in the routing process” and “any further changes are expected to be more targeted adjustments rather than broad, large-scale shifts.”

“Valley Link will select a preferred route and any alternatives that best balance the project goals, minimization of impacts on resources, and cost. The goal is to identify a route that best balances these factors for consideration by the SCC. Valley Link will document its findings in a comprehensive routing study,” Carper said.

Once the SCC receives Valley Link’s application, the commission will review the proposal, convening public comment periods, public hearings and a formal evidentiary hearing. The hearings will allow stakeholders opportunities to weigh in, including localities impacted by the project, residents and other interested parties.

The SCC is expected to consider the application for about a year before deciding whether to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which deems the project in the public interest, and approving a final route.

Louisa County officials have signaled they plan to object to Valley Link’s plan when it reaches the SCC, including potentially presenting alternatives. The board of supervisors last month appropriated $250,000 for potential legal expenses related the project.

In addition, the board adopted an addendum to its Comprehensive Plan that lays out guidelines for new transmission lines that could cross the county. The addendum says, in part, that the county prefers new lines to collocate in existing utility right-of-way and that they minimize impacts on homes, farms and forestland. The SCC will consider the addendum when reviewing Valley Link’s application.

The commission is expected to decide whether to approve the project by the fall of 2027. Valley Link hopes to energize the line by late 2029. The infrastructure is expected to cost at least $1 billion.

Valley Link will hold an open house in Louisa on Tuesday, June 23 from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm at the Betty Queen Center, 522 Industrial Drive. The company will hold a virtual open house on Wednesday, June 10, from noon to 1 pm. Click here for a full list of open houses.

A detailed map of the proposed routes is available on Valley Link’s website. Residents can submit comments on the routes through an online commenting tool connected to the map. Detailed map books for each county are available here.

Share

Supes to consider light agenda

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night will convene for its first June meeting with a brief agenda on tap. Here’s a quick preview.

Board to consider option and lease agreement for communication facility at Zion Crossroads fire station

Supervisors will consider whether to approve an option and lease agreement with The Towers, LLC for a slice of county-owned property near Zion Crossroads. The Florida-based company plans to erect, install and operate a “communications facility” at the site, which could include “radio or communications towers, transmitting and receiving equipment, antennas, dishes, satellite dishes, mounting structures, equipment shelters and buildings, solar energy conversion and electrical power generation system, fencing and other supporting structures and related equipment,” according to the proposed agreement.

Per the agreement, The Towers would have an option to lease 5,625 square feet of the 2.5-acre property at 409 Poindexter Road, which is currently home to the Zion Crossroads Fire Department. The option would be good for two years and subject to a $2,000 option fee.

During that time, The Towers could notify the county that it wants to execute a lease, which would trigger an initial five-year lease period. Should the company exercise the lease option, it would pay the county $1,500 a month with rent increasing two percent annually. The compnay would also be on the hook for a one-time $10,000 payment. It would have the option to renew the lease for nine successive terms.

During the two-year option period, The Towers would have access to the property to perform due diligence. The company would likely be required to get a conditional use permit from Louisa County to establish and operate a communications facility on the agriculturally-zoned parcel (A-2). County code requires a CUP in A-2 zoning for a “broadcasting or communication tower.”

The proposed resolution notes that the board of supervisors finds that “the proposed communications facility will support and enhance wireless communications infrastructure within the Zion Crossroads area while providing a financial benefit to the County.”

Supes to consider adding tourism-related funding requests to annual budget process

Supervisors will consider establishing a protocol to approve tourism-related funding requests from outside groups during the annual budget process.

Currently, groups like the Louisa Arts Center, Louisa County Fair and Louisa County Historical Society apply for annual funding from the county as outside agencies, entities that aren’t part of county government but provide services to residents. That process is administered by the county’s finance department with funding recommendations made by the board’s finance committee. The money typically comes from the county’s General Fund.

Under the proposed protocol, outside groups with funding requests that could otherwise qualify for tourism support funding would be required to submit requests through a separate process that’s first reviewed by the Tourism Advisory Committee. The committee would evaluate each proposal to ensure it’s eligible for tourism support funding before making a recommendation to the board of supervisors.

Eligible requests “may include visitor-serving programming, cultural and community events, tourism-related operational expenses, facility-related support, and initiatives that strengthen Louisa County’s tourism economy and overall sense of place,” according to the proposed resolution.

Any outside groups that receive tourism support funding as part of the annual budget process would be free to apply for additional funding for other tourism-related events or initiatives throughout the year. Though the resolution notes that the process is designed to “better coordinate and streamline larger recurring or anticipated budgetary requests through the annual Tourism Support Request review cycle.”

The county derives its tourism support funding from the transient occupancy tax, a seven percent levy that’s tacked on to visitors’ bills when they stay the night at a local hotel, bed and breakfast or short-term rental. Per state law, a portion of the revenue generated from the tax must be spent on tourism-related initiatives, programming or projects, especially those that aim to increase overnight visitors.

The proposed budgeting process would essentially open the door to the board drawing more money to support outside groups from TOT funding, lessening the impact on the General Fund.

The board raised the TOT from two percent to seven percent three years ago, enabling the tax to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for tourism-related expenses. It subsequently established the Tourism Advisory Committee to make recommendations on how to allocate the money.

Board to consider authorizing a lease refinancing agreement on money borrowed in 2016 for James River Water Project

Supervisors will consider authorizing a lease refinancing agreement with the Virginia Resources Authority on as much as $32.8 million that the county borrowed in 2016 to pay for the James River Water Project. By authorizing the refinancing, the board expects to save money on annual debt service payments.

Supes to approve budget supplement for fuel sales

Supervisors are poised to approve a $118,420 budget supplement to the Louisa County Airport for fuel sales. The proposed resolution notes that the airport purchased AV Fuel/Jet Fuel for resale and that fuel sales for FY26 are higher than originally anticipated so the facility needs more fuel. The money will be drawn from revenue generated from the sales.

Share

DEQ to hold public hearing June 9 on draft discharge permit for Amazon’s Lake Anna Tech Campus

Amid community concerns about potential negative impacts on Lake Anna, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will hold a second public hearing on a proposed permit that would allow Amazon Web Services (AWS) to discharge hundreds of thousands of gallons of treated wastewater per day into a stream that drains into the lake.

The water would be used to cool equipment at the tech giant’s Lake Anna Technology Campus (LATC), a data center complex that, at full buildout, will include more than 1.7 million square feet of the warehouse-like facilities, which power artificial intelligence, cloud-computing and other web-based services.

The hearing is set for Tuesday, June 9 at 7 pm at Louisa County Middle School. Representatives from DEQ will hear public comment for up to two hours, according to a public notice on the department’s website.

AWS has asked DEQ for a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (VPDES), which would allow it to release treated, non-contact cooling water into Sedges Creek, an ephemeral stream that runs through its 150-acre campus, adjacent to Dominion Energy’s North Anna Power Station. The stream empties into Dominion’s Waste Heat Treatment Facility, also known as the “private side” or “warm side” of Lake Anna, near the Aspen Hill subdivision. Dominion releases lake water used to cool the power station into the facility.

The permit would allow AWS to release its wastewater at a rate of 280,000 gallons per day, based on the capacity of its treatment system. After it cools the data centers but before it’s released, the water would be treated to remove residual solids and other pollutants with the former disposed of off-site, according to an initial public notice. The permit would limit pollutants in the discharge “to amounts that protect water quality.” Those pollutants include “physical and chemical properties, thermal, and metals.”

AWS will initially rely on water from commercial wells for cooling. It will switch to public water once the county finishes an 11-mile pipeline to the Northeast Creek Reservoir, potentially by early 2027.

According to information AWS provided to DEQ, the company plans to use a direct evaporate cooling system, also known as adiabatic cooling. The process involves direct contact between the air stream and water in a soaked evaporative medium with outside air drawn through the media causing the water to evaporate. The evaporation process absorbs the heat, and the cooled air is then directed through the data center.

Water that hasn’t evaporated is recycled up to six times. What’s left over, or “spent,” would be treated with a mixture of sulfuric acid, sodium bisulfate, calcium chloride and sodium hydroxide, among other chemicals, and discharged into Sedges Creek. DEQ says those chemicals would also be removed during the treatment process.

To ensure compliance with the permit, the discharge would be monitored daily for some pollutants, including pH, total residual chlorine, dissolved oxygen and temperature, and monthly for others. AWS would be required to submit monthly reports to document its daily monitoring activity.

According to DEQ, AWS is likely to employ its evaporative cooling method only during the hottest months—April through October—when the temperature reaches about 88 degrees. It anticipates using the system in one to 12-hour intervals and discharging spent water at a maximum rate of 140,000 gallons in a day, half its treatment system’s capacity. The company will rely on ambient air temperature for cooling in colder months.

DEQ initially held a 30-day public comment period on the draft permit late last year, which drew more than 60 email responses, mostly from residents who live near Lake Anna. Community members raised a range of concerns about AWS’s discharge plan, touching on the volume of the discharge, its temperature and the pollutants it could contain and how it might impact wildlife and recreation at the lake.

After reviewing those comments, the department held a public hearing in March, accompanied by a second 30-day comment period—steps it takes when a permit is deemed of “significant public interest.” The public hearing drew about 90 people, including 23 speakers. DEQ received 38 written comments during the second comment period.

The June 9 hearing will focus on issues raised during the previous public hearing and comment periods as well as DEQ’s formal response, which it compiled in a 23-page summary document. The hearing will be limited to speakers who submitted oral or written comment earlier in the process. (Check out the summary here).

In the document, DEQ staff responds to dozens of questions and concerns—from worries about thermal pollution to questions about AWS’s water use.

Several commenters asked how the department would ensure that the discharge doesn’t raise the water temperature in a section of the lake that’s already warm due to the release of cooling water from the power plant. Thermal pollution can deplete oxygen, harming fish and other aquatic life.

DEQ staff said the temperature of the discharge is expected to match the ambient air temperature, noting that the evaporative cooling process absorbs heat. Still, the permit stipulates that the discharge can’t exceed 89.6 degrees and requires monitoring daily.

Commenters also expressed concern about whether the discharge could contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or E. coli, or contribute to conditions that exacerbate Harmful Algal Blooms or hydrilla growth.

The Virginia Department of Health two years ago said the lake’s water was likely the source of an E. coli outbreak that infected more than 20 people. The upper end of the lake has been plagued by Harmful Algal Blooms over much of the last decade, which can produce toxins that are harmful to humans and pets. Excess nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen typically feed the blooms’ growth. And some parts of the lake, including the Waste Heat Treatment Facility, experienced explosive hydrilla growth last year. Hydrilla is an invasive aquatic weed that grows in mats under water and can make boating difficult.

DEQ staff said the facility isn’t expected to be a source of PFAS, which has been linked to certain cancers and other heath problems. The permit includes a special provision that allows the department to modify it to address PFAS-related concerns, if necessary.

The facility will utilize chlorine treatment to disinfect the discharge, which would remove pathogens like E. coli, the department said. The discharge would then undergo dechlorination with the permit setting limits on the amount of chlorine allowed in the effluent. DEQ said that it doesn’t expect the discharge to contribute nutrients.

Some commenters wondered why AWS opted for a discharge-based cooling system that requires large quantities of water instead of a closed-loop, air-cooled system, or other alternative, that involves far less water use.

Per DEQ, AWS chose the former option, in part, to balance electricity demand and water use. Closed-loop, air-cooled systems typically require more electricity and less water while evaporative cooling systems generally require more water and less electricity.

Critics of unconstrained data center development have raised concerns about the facilities’ insatiable demand for power and water, which they say is straining the grid and contributing to skyrocketing electric bills for residential ratepayers and, in some communities, threatening the public water supply.

Some commenters expressed concern about the impact the complex’s water use would have on the Northeast Creek Reservoir, which supplies drinking water to central Louisa County, including the Town of Louisa. DEQ said the facility’s water use is outside the purview of the VPDES permitting process, noting that water supply planning is handled by the department’s Office of Water Supply.

Louisa County has said that AWS’s Lake Anna Technology Campus and North Creek Technology Campus, a far larger facility under development across the street from the reservoir, will together use, on average, 630,000 gallons of water per day (gpd) with that figure soaring to over 7 million gpd at peak demand, typically the hottest days of summer.

County officials have insisted that there’s plenty of water in the reservoir to meet AWS’s needs and supply drinking water to residents, pointing to a recent capacity study that determined the reservoir has a safe yield capacity of 3.2 million gpd with current users tapping about 500,000 gpd at peak demand.

To more closely track data center water consumption, the General Assembly earlier this year passed legislation that requires public utilities serving data centers to annually report their water usage. The law applies to any facility that carries a DEQ air permit.

Under previous reporting requirements, data centers’ water consumption was lumped in with other industrial users. In a news update, DEQ said the legislation would “bring clarity to data centers’ water usage.” The law takes effect July 1 with the first report due in January 2027.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, May 25 through May 30

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Thursday, May 28

Lake Anna Advisory Committee, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm.

Share

Quote of the week

“I just think we’re going kind of draconian if we go with some of these things. You’re trampling property owner rights. If you go with some of these things, the county might as well own the property and just tell you what folks can do on it.”

-Mineral District resident Chris Liles during the public comment period at Monday’s board of supervisors meeting, expressing concerns about potential changes to the zoning code aimed at curbing residential growth in the county’s rural areas. The planning commission discussed several ideas for growth management at a work session earlier this month. Read more below.

Board approves Comp Plan addendum related to transmission lines, talks growth management and more

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night approved an addendum to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan related to transmission line infrastructure—the county’s latest move to fight a proposed ultra-high voltage power line that could cut through as many as nine mostly rural Central Virginia counties. Supervisors also approved a few budget-related items, briefly discussed their interest in slowing growth in the county’s rural reaches and more. (meeting materials, video)

BOS approves Comp Plan addendum establishing priority corridors for transmission lines

The board of supervisors on Monday night voted 6-0 to approve an addendum to the county’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan establishing preferred corridors for electrical transmission lines and other guidelines for the infrastructure. Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes was absent.

Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said the addendum is both a response to Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat project, an ultra-high voltage power line that could slice through Louisa for some 20 miles, and preparation for other projects that could come down the road.

Coon said the State Corporation Commission (SCC), the regulatory body tasked with approving transmission lines and their routes, typically considers impacted localities’ Comprehensive Plans when evaluating the proposals. Comprehensive Plans are state-mandated long-range planning documents that lay out a vision for localities’ future development.

“Whenever a transmission project goes to the SCC, the SCC would look at what the plan says, look at our Comprehensive Plan and ask whoever is proposing the new transmission route basically where the discrepancy is and why, and they need to be addressed,” Coon said. “We think this strengthens our position, not only for Valley Link, which is being proposed currently, but also any future transmission lines that may come…They will use this as their guiding document for what we would prefer.”

Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, whose district would be heavily impacted by Valley Link’s project based on preliminary routing options, described the addendum as another “tool” for the county to use as it objects to the line in its current form. He said it would provide the county “a seat at the table and a voice in the discussion” when the project gets to the SCC.

Joshua Falls to Yeat is a proposed 765-kilovolt (kV) power line that, if approved by state regulators, would cut through as many as nine mostly rural counties, including Louisa, fragmenting farms and forestland and passing by neighborhoods and schools as it travels 115 miles from the Joshua Falls substation near Lynchburg to the proposed Yeat substation in southeastern Culpeper.

The line—the biggest ever proposed for construction in Dominion Energy territory—would require a 200-foot cleared right-of-way along its path and poles as tall as 160 feet every quarter mile. Dominion is a partner in Valley Link.

Valley Link says the line is necessary to meet soaring demand for power across the region and to ensure grid reliability. Dominion has projected that demand will double in its territory over the next two decades. The infrastructure would connect to an existing 765-kV line at Johsua Falls, tapping power generated in the Ohio River Valley.

The project has sparked opposition from residents and county officials, who’ve argued it would sacrifice farm and timberland in rural areas to meet the burgeoning demand for electricity in Northern Virginia, driven mostly by data centers. They’ve vowed to take their objections to the SCC.

Valley Link in February shared two potential corridors for the line and a handful of variations. It followed up in March with a round of open houses to gather community feedback. The company is expected to narrow its options this week and, in June, hold a second round of open houses before settling on a preferred route to submit to the SCC this fall.

What the addendum says

The Comp Plan addendum establishes an “Electric Transmission and Corridor Policy,” setting clear guidance for siting transmission lines and encouraging entities proposing such infrastructure to consider the county’s growth management and rural preservation goals.

Most notably, the policy prioritizes the use of existing corridors for the placement of new transmission lines, including existing power line right-of-way, utility easements for electric, gas, water and telecommunications infrastructure, public right-of-way along roads and “previously disturbed or developed linear infrastructure corridors.”

In addition, it encourages new transmission line corridors to avoid or minimize impacts on residential areas, agricultural and forestal lands, scenic and environmental resources, conservation easements and historic sites. That includes avoiding established residential areas when practicable and “maximizing the distance between homes and community facilities; not bisecting large agricultural parcels and minimizing fragmentation of working farms. It also includes minimizing visibility from scenic roadways and avoiding “ridgelines and prominent visual features where practicable.”

As proposed, the Joshua Falls to Yeat project would be built in new rights-of-way. Valley Link officials have said it isn’t feasible to use existing transmission line corridors though it does seek to align like uses where possible.

The proposed routes impact several of the county’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts and run just a couple hundred feet from some homes. One of the preliminary corridors travels less than 1,000 feet from a site the Louisa County School Board is eyeing for a new elementary school, raising objections from school officials. The other crosses land that’s in the Trevilian Station Battlefield Study Area, prompting preservationists to voice concern that it could detract from tourists’ experience when they visit the battlefield, site of the largest all-cavalry battle in the Civil War. Per the American Battlefield Preservation Program, a battlefield study area encompasses areas where actions related to a battle took place, like encampments and transportation.

“We focus on preserving the places where these critical portions of America’s history occurred and try to provide visitors with a place where they can understand what happened there, and try to glimpse back into what it looked like at the time. We do our very best to provide that sense of space and that sense of history by preserving landscapes…This [project] is a serious, serious threat to that sense of space,” Max Hokit, a state and local relations associate with the American Battlefield Trust, said at press conference last week, noting that his organization has preserved more than 2,300 acres at the Trevilian Station Battlefield.

In acknowledging the importance of a reliable electric grid, the addendum encourages the evaluation of alternatives—from considering multiple routes to demonstrating how the selected route minimizes impacts consistent with the policy—and articulates the county’s support for undergrounding infrastructure.

Valley Link has insisted that undergrounding the line isn’t possible, noting there aren’t any 765-kV transmission lines operating underground anywhere in the world and only one 500-kV underground line in the United States.

As he did at the planning commission’s meeting earlier this month, Coon acknowledged that some residents have raised concerns that the addendum doesn’t do enough to protect the community from encroaching power lines. He emphasized that the SCC would likely only consider Comp Plan guidance that it deems “reasonable.”

“If [the standards aren’t] reasonable and [they’re] not something that could ever be met, [the SCC] may just not consider [them]. So that’s the risk you run of being too strong. [This] gives them something that every single transmission line is going to have to justify why they routed it this way, why they didn’t share corridors,” Coon said.

Two residents weighed in during the public hearing, both in support of the addendum. Mineral resident Chris Liles said that while he applauds the board for beefing up the Comp Plan ahead of future transmission line proposals, he isn’t sure what impact the provisions will have for a project already in the works.

Coon said it’s his understanding that the SCC will have to consider the addendum because it was adopted prior to Valley Link submitting the Joshua Falls to Yeat project for approval.

What’s next: Revised routes and a second round of open houses

Valley Link officials told the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors last week that the company plans to unveil revised routes on May 27, which draw on community feedback from the initial round of open houses.

In a brief interview on Tuesday, Valley Link spokesperson Craig Carper said some routing options could, at least in part, be eliminated and the revised routes would impact fewer parcels.

Valley Link in June will host a second round of open houses to gather input before further refining its options and submitting a preferred route to the SCC in September. From there the regulatory body will evaluate the proposal, including hearing from local governments and other stakeholders. It’s expected to decide whether to approve the project within in a year of submission and select a final route.

Valley Link will host an open house in Louisa on Tuesday, June 23 from 3:30 to 7:30 pm at the Betty Queen Center, 522 Industrial Drive, Louisa. Click here for a full list of open houses and more information about the project.

Board members suggest they’re eager to make changes to zoning code aimed at slowing growth in rural areas

After a planning commission work group pitched dramatic changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth, protecting working farmland and preserving the county’s rural character, several members of the board of supervisors suggested they’re eager to take steps to curb growth—particularly in the county’s rural areas.

The board members’ comments came after Mineral District resident Chris Liles expressed concern during the meeting’s public comment period about some of the potential changes commissioners are exploring, including raising the minimum lot size to as much as 15 acres on agriculturally zoned land (A-1, A-2) outside of growth areas, significantly increasing road frontage requirements for new parcels and restricting, via setback requirements, where homes can be built on new and existing lots.

Liles said that while he shares the desire to slow residential growth, some of the changes the work group floated would infringe on property rights to such an extent that, as he put it, “the county might as well own the property and just tell you what folks can do on it.”

“Some of the [work group’s] ideas—potentially up to 15-acre minimum lot sizes, road frontages that are as long as a football field and…setbacks [where]…I can’t build my house a half mile off the road, I got to build it within this little window you give me—I just think we’re going kind of draconian if we go with some of these things. You’re trampling property owner rights,” Liles said.

Several supervisors responded to Liles’ remarks during the supervisor comments section of the meeting, mostly signaling that they’re ready to slow growth even if it means taking away some property rights. But they emphasized it’s important to strike a balance and channel growth to areas designed to support it.

Supervisors also said that the board tasked the planning commission with exploring ways to accomplish a trio of goals—slowing growth outside of growth areas, preserving the community’s rural character and protecting working farmland—and the ideas on the table are just the first step in that process.

“I have said before, and I will say again, that I will be prepared to expend political capital to make sure that we attempt to slow the growth and get rid of some of the growth in the A-1 and A-2 districts that are not in the growth areas,” Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams said. “Landowners have rights, and there’s a balance in there. There were some probably really crazy ideas [that the planning commission discussed], and there are probably some really good ideas. The goal for them is to try to figure out what the balance is and send it to us with a recommendation. Our goal will be to try to decide if that’s feasible.”

Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams agreed, noting that the county is growing rapidly, as evidenced by it ranking among the state’s five fastest growing localities since the 2020 census, according to the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. The county has added nearly 1,000 residents a year over the last five years, per Weldon Cooper’s estimates.

Adams suggested the steady influx of newcomers is growing the county’s budget and threatening its rural charm, and he believes that residents want their leaders to confront those issues head-on.

“[Residents] want to preserve the rural character of the county. They want to slow down residential growth. They want to keep their taxes low. They want to preserve what makes Louisa Louisa,” Adams said. “It has to be a holistic approach.”

Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones also expressed keen interest in curbing residential development outside of growth areas and ensuring that future growth occurs in areas designated for it, as defined in the county’s Comprehensive Plan.

“[A developer] just recently emailed me and asked me if it would be a fight if he went ahead and changed the zoning and built a development [on a large piece of property for sale in the district]. I said, ‘it wouldn’t be a fight, it would be a no, because you sit outside of our growth districts, and the community is set up with growth districts.’ We have a 2040 Comprehensive Plan that we are sticking to, and we are looking at realigning to slow growth even more,” Jones said.

The commission at a work session earlier this month heard ideas from the work group, which included Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks and Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin and county staff. The ideas centered on potential changes to the zoning code that aim to limit residential development in agricultural zoning (A-1, A-2) outside the county’s eight designated growth areas and, in turn, preserve farmland and the county’s rural character.

Most notably, the work group floated increasing, from 1.5 acres to as many as 15 acres, the minimum lot size required for a new parcel on A-1 and A-2 zoned land outside growth areas; increasing, from 200-300 feet to 450 feet, minimum road frontage requirements for new parcels; and increasing, from 50-60 feet to as much as 250 feet, the distance a new home must be set back from a public road.

Alternatively, the work group suggested that the county could employ both a minimum and maximum setback, which would limit residential development to only a slice of land near the front of a lot, preserving the rear for agricultural activity.

Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said the proposals would help curb new home construction by limiting divisions and, depending on what setback method was adopted, help ensure large, contiguous tracts of farmland remain intact. They would also preserve rural character by pushing homes away from roadsides and farther apart, he said.

But the moves would also limit landowners’ ability to divide their land and sell it and potentially make existing lots unbuildable, a consequence of restrictive setbacks. The proposals would likely make it far more expensive to build a home in the county.

In their presentation, Coon and Hicks emphasized that any changes to the zoning code intended to slow growth in rural areas would be part of a larger growth management and rural preservation package that could include financial incentives for landowners to forgo development and opportunities for property owners to sell their division rights to folks looking to build in areas targeted for growth. Coon said that the growth areas could potentially support more diverse and affordable housing options like condos and townhomes.

While no board member weighed in on any specific proposal, they signaled that when it comes to tempering growth in agricultural areas, all options are on the table.

“I do think, though, moving forward, that we should look at every option. Some things are going to pass muster. Some things aren’t going to pass muster. I think that some of those things will probably be painful for some people, but we cannot give lip service to slowing residential growth and preserving the rural nature of the county,” Adams said.

The planning commission will continue to discuss growth management tools at a work session prior to its June meeting. Any changes to the zoning code would require public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.

For a deep dive into the planning commission’s discussion, check out last week’s edition of Engage Louisa. Watch the video of the work session here.

Williams: ‘No data centers in the Jackson District’

After offering a robust defense of data center development last month, Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams made clear on Monday that there won’t be any of the giant warehouse-like facilities in his district.

“News flash: no data centers in the Jackson District,” Williams said, noting that he was responding to a Facebook post from a constituent suggesting that a data center might be coming to the district. The Jackson District stretches from the county’s northeastern edge south past Route 33 and west to Halls Store Road (Route 612). It’s primarily home to agriculturally zoned land.

“I can assure him, as long as I’m on the board of supervisors, there will be no data centers in the Jackson District because there are no growth areas in the Jackson District. There are no utilities there. There’s no water. There’s no sewer, and there’s no land for it. There’s no land rezoned for it. There’s no commercial land. There’s no industrial land. There’s nothing there. So, we intend to keep it like that,” Williams said.

Williams’ comments come just a few weeks after he defended the board’s decision to lure data centers to the county, saying that local leaders made an intentional effort to draw tech sector development because of the significant tax revenue it can generate while having a relatively small footprint.

Williams said that even though some residents have expressed concern about the facilities, which power cloud computing and artificial intelligence, he’s proud of the board’s move.

“We were intentional [in bringing data center development to the county]. We did this, and I will wear this like a badge of honor. I will not let people beat me up over it,” Williams said at the board’s April 27 meeting.

To attract data centers, the board three years ago created a Technology Overlay District (TOD), which initially allowed the facilities by-right and established standards for the use.

A few months after adopting the TOD, the county inked a deal with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to build a pair of data center campuses in the district: one on the corner of Kentucky Springs Road (Route 652) and Haley Drive (Route 700) adjacent to the North Anna Power Station in the Cuckoo District and the other on a 1,444-acre tract south of Jefferson Highway (Route 33) and east of Mt Airy Road (Route 644) in the Mineral District.

The former assemblage is split zoned commercial and residential and located in the Lake Anna Growth Area. The latter is zoned agricultural and lies outside of a growth area, but the county targeted it for data center development because of its proximity to the Northeast Creek Reservoir and a Dominion-owned 230-kilovolt transmission line. Data centers typically require large quantities of water to cool their equipment and a vast amount of power to keep it humming.

EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure is also developing a data center campus at the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park, a 700-acre assemblage just off Interstate 64 in the Mountain Road District that the board rezoned for industrial development in 2019.

While Williams and other county officials have touted the facilities as smart economic development, many residents have taken a different view, sounding off on social media and, occasionally, at public meetings about what they see as the campuses’ negative impacts. Those include an onslaught of heavy truck traffic on rural roads during a years-long construction process; noise and light pollution that detract from the community’s rural character; and concerns that the facilities will raise their power bills and shrink the public water supply.

Some residents have also argued that continued data center development will spawn other industrial infrastructure, including a proliferation of high-voltage transmission lines to deliver power.

Williams has mostly brushed off those concerns, saying last month that he understands the construction process is a pain for neighbors, but insisting residents will be grateful in the long run. He suggested earlier this year that the board could be open to more data centers.

“People talk about [when] is enough enough. I don’t know the answer to that, but we are going to seek to find it together,” Williams said in January.

But Williams is sure of this: any future data centers won’t come amid the farms and forests of the Jackson District so long as he’s on the board.

Other business

• Supes ok $65k for playground equipment: Supervisors agreed to spend up to $65,000 on new playground equipment for the Betty Queen Center and approved a contract with Miracle Recreation, represented by Metro Recreation, for acquisition and installation. The equipment, which complies with ADA and ASTM/CPSC standards, includes a bongo jungle, cargo climb-over, barrel ride, and vippy see-saw, among other components.

• Board oks $670k budget transfer to cover FEMS overtime: Supervisors approved a $670,000 budget transfer to cover overtime costs in the Fire and EMS Department. The money will be transferred from the sheriff’s office budget. The sheriff’s budget for the current fiscal year includes extra money due to unfilled positions in the communications and animal control divisions.

• Supervisors authorize $174k for refuse and recycling equipment: Supervisors authorized the General Services Department to spend $174,000 on refuse and recycling equipment and to build a concrete pad for recycling containers. Funding for the project was included in the FY26 Capital Improvement Plan.

Share

Purcell appointed to Louisa Town Council

A prominent local business owner has joined the Louisa Town Council.

Council at its May 19 meeting voted 4-0 to appoint David Purcell to the body. Purcell will serve until the end of the year, finishing the unexpired term of his nephew, John Jerl Purcell IV, who resigned last month because he’s moving to a home outside the town.

David Purcell is well known to many residents. He was born and raised in the town and, since 2001, has served as president of JS Purcell Lumber, a retail lumber company that has operated out of a storefront on West Street for more than a century.

According to his resume, Purcell holds a bachelor’s degree in accounting from Virginia Tech and a master’s degree in taxation from Virginia Commonwealth University. He’s been a certified public accountant since 1991.

While this is his first stint in public office, Purcell has been active in the community in other ways. He served as a volunteer firefighter for more than a decade and a certified firefighting instructor for four years.

In a letter of interest submitted in early May, Purcell touted his roots in the community and his background in business and accounting as making him well-suited for an appointment to council. He was the only candidate to apply for the position.

“Through operating JS Purcell Lumber Corporation for over 30 years, owning several rental properties in town and serving as an active member of the Louisa Volunteer Fire Department for many years, I have gained a great understanding of the needs and issues presenting to the town,” Purcell wrote. “If appointed to the council, I look to offer a business approach background as well as offer my financial experience as a CPA for over 35 years.”

Purcell is the second newcomer to join the town’s five-member governing body in the last month. Council in April appointed attorney Graven Craig to fill the seat vacated by Daniel Crawford. Crawford resigned in March, just over a year into his term. Craig will serve until a special election in November to fill the remainder of Crawford’s term, which runs through 2028.

Aside from the special election, two other council seats are on the ballot this November: the seats occupied by Purcell and first-term council member Vicky Harte. The mayor’s seat is also up for grabs.

Mayor Ashley Michael won a one-year stint in the office in a special election last November. She’s filed to seek election to a four-year term this fall, according to Louisa County Registrar Cris Watkins.

Harte said during Tuesday’s meeting that she doesn’t plan to run again. In a message to Engage Louisa, she expressed frustration with the committee assignments she’s been given during her tenure but suggested she’s fulfilled her commitments to voters.

“With my extensive knowledge of operations, maintenance, engineering, and finance, I have not been allowed access to any of those committees. [I understand] that assignments are political and made by the mayor…but I was done wasting my time…I accomplished what I ran on,” Harte said, referencing an as-yet-unsuccessful push to get the town back into FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program and an ongoing effort to install a bathroom at the town park, which is now included in the town’s Capital Improvement Plan. Harte also said she’s voted in accord with “the wishes of residents.”

The filing deadline to run for a four-year term on council or for mayor is Tuesday, June 16 at 7 pm. The filing deadline to run for a two-year term on council in the special election is Friday, August 14 at 5 pm. To learn more, call the Louisa County Office of Elections at 540-967-3427 or click here.

Share

News roundup: Preservation, environmental groups say VL project threatens natural resources; Dominion, NextEra to merge

Engage Louisa focuses on Louisa County government. We recognize we can’t cover everything, and there’s plenty of other news in our neck of the woods. With that in mind, we occasionally include a roundup of links to the work of other journalists and organizations covering noteworthy events and issues that impact our community.

• Preservation, environmental groups say Valley Link transmission line risks Va.’s natural resources -Virginia Mercury, May 20, 2026

• Site of proposed 115-mile power line route named one of Virginia’s most endangered historic places -WRIC, May 21, 2026

• Dominion, NextEra announce merger plan -Cardinal News, May 19, 2026

• Louisa man says Amazon data center construction has upended his life, hurt his home's value -WTVR, May 18, 2026

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, May 18 through May 23

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Monday, May 18

Finance Committee, Administration Conference Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 4 pm.

Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. The board will convene in closed session at 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)

Tuesday, May 19

Louisa County Electoral Board, Office of Elections, 103 McDonald Street, Louisa, 10 am.

Wednesday, May 20

Community Policy Management Team, Executive Boardroom, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.

Other meetings/events

Tuesday, May 19

Louisa Town Council, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda packet)

Share

Quote of the week

“I don’t want the citizens to feel like we are just taking from them…If it seems as if we’re taking away, we’re coming around the corner with a way to give that back. I just ask for people to be patient, hear this out in its entirety and see this as big picture.”

-Mountain Road District Planning Commissioner Todd Hicks on a proposal that could dramatically change the county’s zoning code in agricultural areas by limiting property owners’ ability to develop land. Hicks emphasized at a work session last week that the proposal is part of a larger plan aimed at slowing residential growth that would include incentives for land preservation alongside zoning reforms. Read more below.

After ok from PC, supes to consider Comp Plan addendum establishing priority corridors for transmission lines; Commission backs code amendment related to transmission infrastructure

With little discussion, the planning commission on Thursday night recommended that the board of supervisors adopt an addendum to the county’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan that establishes preferred corridors for electrical transmission lines and other guidelines for the infrastructure. The commission also recommended approval of an amendment to county code that beefs up conditional use permit (CUP) requirements for substations and transmission-related infrastructure. (meeting materials, video)

The board of supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider approving the Comp Plan addendum at its meeting on Monday night (May 18). The code amendment is expected to be up for approval in June.

Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon suggested the addendum and amendment are a response to widespread concerns about Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line. They’re also an effort to prepare the county for potential projects in the future.

“Part of the reason we are doing this is we have some electric transmission line conversations that are going on with Valley Link. But there are others that may be anticipated after that. {The code amendment] would help address the standards that we utilize for substations and other types of equipment…The Comprehensive Plan [addendum] would help reinforce the CUP, as well as [address] routing on some of those transmission lines, when any of that routing gets to the [State Corporation Commission],” Coon said, referencing the state regulatory body that approves transmission lines and their routes.

Joshua Falls to Yeat is a proposed 765-kilovolt (kV) power line that, if approved by the SCC, would slice through as many as nine mostly rural counties, including Louisa, fragmenting farms and forestland and passing just a couple hundred feet from some homes as it travels from the Joshua Falls substation near Lynchburg to the proposed Yeat substation in southeastern Culpeper.

The line—the biggest ever proposed for construction in Dominion Energy territory—would require a 200-foot cleared right-of-way along its path and poles as tall as 160 feet every quarter mile. Dominion is a partner in Valley Link.

The project has roiled residents and county officials, who’ve argued that it would sacrifice farm and timberland in rural areas to meet the burgeoning demand for power in Northern Virginia, driven mostly by data centers.

Coon said that as part of the SCC’s approval process, the commission will consider guidance related to transmission projects in localities’ Comprehensive Plans, prompting staff to draft the addendum. Valley Link plans to submit the project to the SCC for approval in September.

“The SCC reviews these transmission routes and, normally, they will consider a corresponding locality’s Comprehensive Plan. If there’s nothing in the Comprehensive Plan regarding utility or electric transmission routing, there’s nothing for them to consider,” Coon said.

The addendum would establish an “Electric Transmission and Corridor Policy,” setting clear guidance for siting transmission lines and encouraging entities proposing such infrastructure to consider the county’s growth management and rural preservation goals.

Most notably, the policy prioritizes the use of existing corridors for the placement of new transmission lines, including existing power line right-of-way, utility easements for electric, gas, water and telecommunications infrastructure, public right-of-way along roads and “previously disturbed or developed linear infrastructure corridors.”

In addition, it encourages new transmission line corridors to avoid or minimize impacts on residential areas, agricultural and forestal lands, scenic and environmental resources, conservation easements and historic sites. That includes avoiding established residential areas when practicable and “maximizing the distance between homes and community facilities; not bisecting large agricultural parcels and minimizing fragmentation of working farms. It also includes minimizing visibility from scenic roadways and avoiding “ridgelines and prominent visual features where practicable.”

In acknowledging the importance of a reliable electric grid, the addendum encourages the evaluation of alternatives—from considering multiple routes to demonstrating how the selected route minimizes impacts consistent with the policy—and articulates the county’s support for undergrounding infrastructure.

Coon noted that staff crafted the addendum, in cooperation with the county attorney and outside counsel, to ensure the SCC considers it “reasonable.” He suggested that some residents organizing against the project have argued it doesn’t go far enough.

“[With respect to] the SCC review, if you go too far outside of the scope of [what’s considered] reasonable, they may just not consider it at all. That’s something that’s a real concern. So, we wanted to make sure that we were strongly worded, but we still had reasonableness on our side. So, for anybody that wishes we would go a little bit further, we felt this is as far as we could go and still be considered reasonable by the SCC,” Coon said.

Concerns about the addendum’s language didn’t surface during the planning commission’s public hearing where only two residents spoke. Both thanked county officials for their efforts to fight the line.

“I just want to speak briefly in support and appreciation of both you all’s work and the board’s and staff’s [work] in being proactive in dealing with the power line issues that we’re facing here in the county,” Mountain Road District resident William Hale said.

The commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval. Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin was absent.

In a memo to the commission, Coon described the proposed code amendment, which takes the form of a CUP ordinance, as the “implementation tool” for the Comp Plan addendum, noting the addendum establishes a “policy direction,” or what the county wants, while the ordinance establishes “regulatory authority,” or “how the county evaluates and conditions projects.”

The ordinance would strengthen existing conditional use permit requirements for substations and apply to all associated “switching stations, and related infrastructure for electric transmission lines operating at 69 kilovolts or greater.” That includes new transmission facilities and “expansions and modifications of existing facilities that materially increase capacity and footprint.”

Coon said at a previous meeting that the CUP wouldn’t apply to transmission lines themselves because they fall under the purview of the SCC, not local government.

The draft ordinance articulates standards for electric transmission infrastructure, requiring applicants to demonstrate that proposed facilities comply with the Comp Plan, minimize impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding communities; and are compatible with existing land uses in its vicinity. They also require applicants to evaluate alternative routes, including using existing transmission corridors and co-locating within existing utility easements.

In addition, the standards include a provision related to buffering and setbacks, requiring “reasonable separation” from homes, public facilities and agricultural operations. The draft says that the board of supervisors would set minimum standards based on voltage.

The amendment also sets standards for environmental protection, like minimizing land disturbance, and requires a construction management plan, among other provisions.

Mineral District resident Craig McClung was the only community member to weigh in during the public hearing. McClung said he supports the amendment but asked why the permit didn’t require vegetative buffers around substations.

Coon said that the amendment would require applicants to submit a vegetation management plan, which would include buffers.

The commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the ordinance.

Share

Commission talks growth management tools, campgrounds and more

Beyond recommending approval of an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan and an amendment to the zoning code related to electric transmission infrastructure, the planning commission on Thursday took up other notable business. Commissioners discussed growth management tools and how the county defines “campground” at a pre-meeting work session and green-lighted the expansion of five Agricultural and Forestal Districts at their regular meeting. (work session materials, video)

Work group recommends major changes to zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth in agricultural areas

A planning commission work group has recommended major changes to the zoning code aimed at slowing residential growth and preserving farmland, including dramatically increasing the minimum lot size for new parcels in agricultural zoning outside of designated growth areas and upping road frontage and setback requirements for residential development.

The proposed changes come as the county grapples with steady residential growth that officials say is chewing up farm and forestland at an alarming rate and ballooning the budget, a consequence of the rising demand for services like schools and Fire and EMS.

Since the 2020 census, Louisa has ranked among the state’s five fastest growing localities based on percentage of population growth. Per population estimates from the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, the county has added nearly 1,000 residents a year over the last five years and, according to county staff, it’s currently averaging about 33 new homes per month. Staff says that a little over half of those homes are being built outside of designated growth areas.

County officials have been working on a holistic plan to temper the pace of residential development and preserve working rural land while attempting to balance those priorities with concerns about affordability and infringement on private property rights.

During a work session on Thursday, the commission dug into the latest proposal—this one focused squarely on zoning changes and crafted by a two-man workgroup, including Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks and Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin, along with county staff.

Hicks described the draft proposal as an initial step toward developing a multi-faceted plan aimed at slowing growth and protecting rural land. He emphasized that residents have made clear—through survey responses and by placing land in Agricultural and Forestal Districts, among other methods—that they want to preserve the county’s rural heritage. He said the proposal lays out concrete ways to make that happen from a zoning perspective.

“This is step one in zoning. We have many steps coming behind this…But what we have to put on the table first is this topic, and it’s focusing on [agricultural zoning] in our rural areas,” Hicks said on behalf of the work group. Goodwin was absent.

Here’s a closer look at the work group’s recommendations.

Raising the minimum lot size, expanding road frontage requirements and increasing setbacks

With an eye toward protecting working farmland and preserving the county’s rural character, the work group recommended three interconnected measures: increasing the minimum lot size for new parcel creation; increasing the amount of road frontage necessary to create a new lot; and increasing setback requirements for new homes. The measures would only apply to agriculturally zoned property (A-1, A-2) outside of the county’s eight designated growth areas.

The work group proposes upping, from 1.5 acres to as many as 15 acres, the minimum acreage required to create a new parcel. Property owners would still be allowed to utilize parcels smaller than 15 acres that existed before the zoning code was changed, but they’d be barred from dividing property into lots smaller than 15 acres after the effective date.

County code currently allows parent parcels in A-1 zoning to be divided into three pieces and parent parcels in A-2 zoning to be divided into seven pieces, provided the parcels meet minimum acreage requirements and other standards. Increasing the minimum lot size would limit parcel creation and leave more open space between new developments.

For example, a property owner with a 30-acre parcel that's zoned A-2 could currently divide it into seven new lots, assuming all other criteria are met. If the minimum lot size was hiked to 15 acres, they could split it into two pieces.

The work group recommends coupling larger lots with an increase in road frontage requirements. County code currently permits property owners in A-1 and A-2 zoning to create two lots from a parent parcel if they front an existing state road for a minimum of 200 feet. Beyond that, each permitted lot must have 300 feet of road frontage. The work group proposes upping the minimum requirement to 450 feet, which would push new homes farther apart and further restrict divisions.

“That helps maintain the rural nature. You don’t have a mailbox every couple feet. I know that’s a complaint we get on a regular basis when homes start popping up,” said Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon, who worked with Hicks and Goodwin on the proposal.

The work group also recommends changing setback requirements, or how far a home must be built off a public road. Currently, homes must be at least 50 to 60 feet from a road, according to Coon. The work group floated two potential options for setbacks: raising the minimum to 250 feet to ensure residences are built farther off the road or creating a setback of no less than 200 feet and no more than 300 feet, effectively limiting residential development to a strip of land and, thereby, preserving the rest of the parcel for agricultural or forestal use.

The work group drew on a preservation technique employed in Lancaster, Pennsylvania in crafting the second option, which essentially creates a band where residential development is allowed, leaving larger sections of farmland intact and reducing fragmentation.

“What Lancaster has done is they have a setback minimum, but they also have a setback maximum. Homes are set essentially in a band so they can’t build any farther back and the reason being is because if they cap how far back the house can be…[the land] in the back is still farmable. They can’t build homes all over the place,” Coon said, noting that, if a farmer sold off parcels for residential development, they could potentially lease the land back and continue farming it.

While changes to the minimum lot size and road frontage requirements would only impact newly created parcels and wouldn’t preclude development on existing lots, the setback requirements would apply to new home construction regardless of when a lot was created.

The work group’s proposal prompted some questions from commissioners and, as Hicks noted, highlights the tension that can exist between efforts to preserve rural character on one hand and working land on the other.

With respect to the band approach, Hicks noted that some folks might prefer to build a home farther off the road than the 300-foot maximize setback allows as they seek the tranquility of a rural community. But pushing development back could usurp land that could otherwise be used for agricultural production. The 250-foot setback would allow development anywhere on a parcel except by the road.

“If someone wants to come to Louisa County and they say ‘I don’t want to be in that band. I can afford a half-mile driveway, a quarter mile driveway. I want that privacy, and I want to feel like I’m in a rural area,’…It’s hard to say no to somebody that wants to come in and complement your county and build a nice place and enjoy the privacy that we provide. But…we are taking away from forestry, we are taking away from agriculture in that process. That’s a big reason why we put these two options up here—to discuss the pros and cons,” Hicks said.

Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway wondered if a property owner would be allowed to build anything beyond the 200-to-300-foot band. He suggested that a homeowner might want a shed or might have animals and want a barn. Coon said that agricultural structures could be exempt from the setback requirements.

Hicks pointed out another potentially problematic issue, especially with the band approach: what if a property owner can’t find a suitable site to build within the strip because of soil or topographical issues? He said the county could potentially allow some leeway for placing a well and septic system beyond the band, but he added that some lots might not be buildable. “Well, that’s the point. We’re slowing growth,” he said.

Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles cautioned that county officials shouldn’t rush into changes that significantly infringe on the property rights residents currently have.

“When you think about changing landowners’ rights in the middle of the game, we might want to look at things a little closer to make sure that we are not taking rights because that may end up a jagged sword. With things going like they are in our economy, it puts people on edge, especially against government. Let’s weigh it out before we make a hasty decision,” Quarles said.

A multi-pronged approach

Taking away economic value by limiting property owners’ ability to sell land for development isn’t something the work group took lightly, Hicks said, insisting that the proposal is the first step toward a holistic approach to slowing growth, preserving farms and directing the growth that does occur to areas designed to support it. He said “the grand plan” would offer landowners incentives to help make that happen.

“I don’t want the citizens to feel like we are just taking from them…If it seems as if we’re taking away, we’re coming around the corner with a way to give that back. I just ask for people to be patient, hear this out in its entirety and see this as big picture,” he said.

Hicks pointed to a pair of tools the county could employ to incentivize landowners to preserve their property or compensate them for a loss of development potential. Those include purchase of development rights (PDR) and transfer of development rights (TDR) programs.

Generally, PDR programs enable landowners to sell residential and industrial development rights on farm and forestland to a locality while maintaining ownership and continuing to use the land. Through the acquisition of development rights, the programs essentially conserve farms and forestland in perpetuity, limiting their future uses.

Maggie Brakeville, the county’s agricultural development and land conservation coordinator, has pitched what she calls a “termed PDR,” in which landowners sign a 10-year contract with the county, agreeing not to develop their land and, in return, receive a set amount of compensation. She has said the program could serve as a bridge to permanent conservation easements.

To pay for the program, county officials have suggested they could tap revenue anticipated from data center development, but they haven’t detailed what sort of financial compensation a property owner would receive for forgoing development. Coon suggested on Thursday that those incentives could at least help mitigate a property owner’s tax burden.

“I’m not going to say it would prevent someone from wanting to subdivide, because I don’t think that the funding is going to be as substantial as what some of these lots are going for today, but it is an alternative for them for at least a 10-year period,” he said.

TDR programs, on the other hand, take a market-centered approach in which property owners sell the development rights on their land for use on another parcel, typically in an area targeted for growth.

Under a TDR, a locality typically designates certain areas as “sending” zones and other areas as “receiving” zones. A “sending” property can sever its development rights, making them available to a receiving parcel where residential density could be increased. Sending parcels are generally located in areas designated as rural while receiving parcels are in areas targeted for development.

Hicks and Coon suggested that both programs could offer property owners a way to realize value from their land without selling it off for development. Both curb development in rural areas with a TDR helping to channel it to growth areas. Coon noted that the TDR program could offer landowners’ compensation if they lost division rights from changes to the minimum lot size and road frontage requirements.

“[Property owners] would be able to send their division rights or development rights—we would use it interchangeably—to the growth areas. The hope is that in the growth areas, that’s where you may see more duplexes, apartments, condos, townhomes, something with a little bit more density, where there’s better infrastructure to handle it,” Coon said. “That should also help address the affordability issue, because whenever you have more units with lower infrastructure costs, you normally have lower [priced] options.”

Tweaking family subdivision rules and other potential changes

The work group also proposes tweaking the county’s family subdivision ordinance to guard against developers using the program to circumvent other county rules governing new parcel creation.

Under current county code, landowners can subdivide property zoned agricultural and residential into two or more parts for the purpose of sale or gift to a member of their immediate family. In most circumstances, the person to whom the property is sold or gifted must retain it for at least five years before it can be sold unless it’s subject to “an involuntary transfer such as foreclosure, death, divorce, judicial sale, condemnation or bankruptcy.”

State law permits an individual to receive one family subdivision parcel per locality during their lifetime. Family divisions don’t count against a parent parcel’s by-right divisions and are exempt from road frontage requirements because they can be accessed off an easement or private lane.

The work group proposes retaining a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres for family divisions but suggests establishing a combined ownership and retention period of 15 years subject to a sliding scale with the length of time the property owner has owned the land determining the retention period. The scale would include a maximum retention period of 15 years and a minimum of two or three.

For example, if a mother gave her daughter a parcel that she’d owned for 12 years, her daughter would have to retain it for at least three years before it could be sold. But if the mother had just acquired the land, her daughter would have to hold the lot for 15 years.

Coon and Hicks said the provisions are designed to ensure the family subdivision ordinance serves its intended purpose: to allow immediate family members to provide property to their relatives so they can build a home.

“We really wanted to protect families of Louisa that want to use a family division in the correct way. What we are trying to prevent is…the investors coming in for short-term gains. If they are going to use these family division rights that we are going to keep in place as is, they have to hold it for a number of years and, chances are, if they have to hold it for a number of years, they’re going to go invest somewhere else,” Hicks said.

Coon touched on several other ideas aimed at curbing growth, including eliminating the use of private lanes as a mechanism to create an additional lot where road frontage requirements wouldn’t otherwise be met and placing time restrictions on divisions. For example, the county could potentially allow a property owner to create a new lot only once every two years to five years.

With respect to the latter, Coon said it’s a tool to slow development and land speculation. “Individuals want to come here, purchase land, divide it as fast as possible, sell it off and get out of dodge as fast as they can,” he said.

Next steps

The commission will continue to discuss the work group’s proposal at a work session next month. Coon and Hicks emphasized that it’s part of a multi-step project, covering zoning changes, preservation programs and adjustments to growth areas, that they hope will be presented as a comprehensive package. They also said that the ideas on the table are just that—ideas up for discussion and debate.

Any changes to the zoning code would require public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.

PC discusses ‘campground’ definition, addressing temporary workforce housing

County officials are considering tweaking the zoning code in response to an influx of workers looking for temporary housing.

During its work session on Thursday night, the planning commission directed staff to explore the possibility of adding a new use to county code to address workforce housing—specifically the needs of workers coming to the county for short-term jobs.

The county has long drawn workers who fill in at the North Anna Nuclear Power Station during occasional refueling outages. The outages typically bring in hundreds of contractors for a month-long stay. As data center construction ramps up, more workers are coming, including contractors laying fiber and performing other ancillary tasks.

In a tight housing market and an area with limited hotel space, many contractors are struggling to find affordable places to stay with some seeking lodging at campgrounds. Others have turned to landowners who allow them to stay in RVs or campers on their property—a practice generally prohibited in county code.

“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,” Jackson District Commissioner Troy Painting said, noting that he used to travel to nuclear power plants to work outages. “What we have is more of a workforce housing issue.”

The commission’s move to explore regulations for temporary workforce housing comes as staff has proposed tightening the rules for campgrounds.

In a brief presentation, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said that a growing number of residents have expressed interest in opening campgrounds to accommodate folks looking for temporary housing. He said using a campground for short-term housing—instead of recreational purposes—deviates from the original intent of the use, prompting staff to propose changes.

“Originally, when campground was approved and considered, it was something that was supposed to be for transient visitors coming, using the campground for a week, maybe two, in the summertime or springtime. But now, it is shifting to people who are coming here working in the area and staying for months at a time. That’s not really the intent of what the campground definition was. We wanted to have a conversation [to potentially address that],” Coon said.

Coon presented draft code amendments that would beef up the definition of campground, requiring that the facilities are sited on at least 10 acres, comply with Virginia Department of Health regulations, and limit stays to no more than 60 days in a 12-month period. They also revise the definition of campsite, defining it as a plot in an “approved campground” intended for the exclusive occupancy of a “recreational shelter.”

The draft amendments add a definition of recreational shelter—defining the term as “units designed as temporary living quarters for camping and travel; including tents, tent trailers, travel trailers, recreational vehicles, campers”—and explicitly prohibit their use as permanent dwellings or short-term rentals.

Beyond that, the draft amendments adjust where campgrounds are permitted, prohibiting the use in agricultural zoning, where it’s currently allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP). The use would instead be permitted with a CUP in commercial zoning, where it’s currently barred. Campgrounds wouldn’t be allowed in residential or industrial zoning and would be permitted by-right in resort development zoning, consistent with current code.

While Coon contended that the proposed changes hew to the county’s initial vision for a campground—a place where vacationers come to recreate—Painting and others pointed out that county officials can’t dismiss the on-the-ground reality reshaping the use—the onslaught of workers in need of a place to stay.

“These people have to stay somewhere, and they’ve been renting places on people’s private farms and everything else,” Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow, the board’s liaison to the planning commission, said.

Louisa District Commissioner Matt Kersey added that temporary workers have been staying at local campgrounds for years.

Coon acknowledged the need to address temporary workforce housing and said that staff would return next month with draft definitions and standards for the use plus options for where it could be permitted. Painting and Patrick Henry District Commissioner Ellis Quarles agreed to work with staff on the draft.

With respect to the draft amendments related to campgrounds, commissioners had a few other concerns. Mineral District Commissioner John Disosway wondered whether restricting campgrounds to commercial zoning could lead to large-scale rezoning in the county’s rural areas. He noted that the county could encounter someone who wanted to establish a campground on several hundred acres with hiking trails and other recreation options—property that’s not typically available in commercial areas. Coon said that the restriction could prompt rezoning requests.

The commission will continue to discuss code revisions related to campgrounds and temporary workforce housing at a work session in June.

Any changes to the zoning code would require public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.

Commissioners recommend expanding AFDs

The planning commission on Thursday night held public hearings and voted unanimously to recommend that the board of supervisors add a combined 1,891.5 acres to five of the county’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFDs).

AFDs are a conservation tool that allow landowners to voluntarily prohibit development on their property for 10-year periods. In return, participating parcels are assured 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.

In addition, AFDs place restrictions on local governments’ ability to enact ordinances that “would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or farming and forestry practices,” per state code.

Commissioners gave a thumbs-up to expanding the Gold Mine Creek AFD in northwestern Louisa by 253.6 acres; tacking on 59.8 acres to the Trevilian Station AFD in western Louisa; adding 93.7 acres to the Cuckoo AFD in the south-central part of the county; expanding the Shelton’s Mill AFD in the eastern end of the county by 157.5 acres; and adding 1,332.9 acres to the Indian Creek AFD in south-central Louisa.

Share

BOS preview: Supes to consider light agenda

Supervisors on Monday night will consider a relatively light agenda. The marquee item is a public hearing on an addendum to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan establishing priority corridors for electric transmission lines and other guidelines for the infrastructure. (Read more in the article above).

Supervisors will also consider allocating money for accessible playground equipment for the Betty Queen Center, green-lighting the acquisition of equipment for refuse and recycling centers and more.

Supes to consider approving $65,000 for new playground equipment at Betty Queen Center

The board will consider approving $65,000 for the acquisition and installation of new playground equipment at the Betty Queen Center. Supervisors will also consider green-lighting a contract with Miracle Recreation, represented by Metro Recreation, to complete the project.

In a memo to the board, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon says the center “serves as a key recreational asset” for the county and staff “identified an opportunity to enhance the site through the installation of new playground equipment designed to provide safe, engaging, and accessible recreational opportunities for children ages 5–12.”

Per the proposed contract, Miracle would supply and install the equipment, which complies with ADA and ASTM/CPSC standards, for $50,458.29. The equipment includes a bongo jungle, cargo climb-over, barrel ride, and vippy see-saw, among other components. The contract requires another $8,338 for additional products and surfacing for a total cost of $58,796.29.

Staff recommends allocating $65,000 for the project to account for “minor adjustments or unforeseen conditions that may arise during installation.”

The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee has reviewed the proposal and expressed support, per the draft resolution. If approved by the board, the money will be drawn from the Parks and Recreation Department’s “Park Maintenance and Enhancements Fund.”

Board to approve $670,000 budget transfer for FEMS Department

Mounting overtime costs due, in part, to staffing shortages has led to a notable budget shortfall for the Louisa County Fire and EMS Department.

The board will consider shifting $670,000 from the sheriff’s office budget to cover the costs.

According to the proposed resolution, the FEMS Department needs the money to pay overtime related to “staff having to work extra hours due to filling vacancies, training requirements [and] three academies being run simultaneously (high school, career, and volunteer) within the department.”

“The successful and safe accomplishment of these efforts, coupled with the responsive handling of ongoing call volumes, have required significant resources,” the resolution says.

The board plans to fund the shortfall by transferring money from the sheriff’s office budget for the current fiscal year, which is available because of vacancies in the communications and animal control divisions.

Board set to green-light acquisition of equipment for refuse and recycling centers

Supervisors are set to green-light the acquisition of $174,000 worth of equipment for the county’s refuse and recycling centers. The funding will cover the cost of a municipal solid waste compactor, two compactor boxes, six open top boxes and construction of a concrete pad for recycling containers. Supervisors included money for the equipment in the Fiscal Year 2026 Capital Improvement Plan.

Board to discuss ‘financial impact of special election on local government’

The board will discuss the “financial impact of special election on local government,” per the agenda. The meeting materials don’t include any additional information about the matter.

The item is an apparent reference to an April 21 special election in which voters narrowly approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would’ve cleared the way for rare mid-decade redistricting, allowing the Democrat-controlled General Assembly to implement a new congressional district map that strongly favored their party ahead of high-stakes mid-term elections this fall.

But in a 4-3 vote, the Virginia Supreme Court earlier this month invalidated the results, declaring the process lawmakers used to place the referendum before voters unconstitutional. The court had declined to rule on the matter before the election.

At a meeting earlier this year, Louisa County Registrar Cris Watkins told the board that it typically costs the county about $25,000 to administer an election. The board subsequently passed a resolution asking the General Assembly to reimburse localities for the costs they incurred related to the special election.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, May 11 through May 16

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Wednesday, May 13

James River Water Authority, virtual meeting, 9 am. At publication time, neither an agenda nor link to watch the meeting were publicly available.

Louisa County Water Authority, 23 Loudin Lane, Louisa, 6 pm. At publication time, an agenda wasn’t publicly available.

Thursday, May 14

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)

Other meetings/events

Monday, May 11

Mineral Town Council, Mineral Town Hall, 312 Mineral Ave., Mineral, 6:30 pm. (agenda packet)

Tuesday, May 12

Louisa Town Council, budget work session, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa. 6 pm. (agenda)

Share

Quote of the week

“I want to assure our citizens that Louisa County will continue to protect its residents at every level…This board hears our citizens. This board understands what our citizens are saying, and this board is committed to working with our citizens in regard to Valley Link.”

-Louisa County Board of Supervisors Chair Duane Adams on the county’s efforts to oppose Valley Link’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line. The board at its May 4 meeting appropriated $250,000 to cover potential legal expenses related to the project. Read more in the articles below.

Supes allocate $250k to fight proposed Valley Link transmission line; Board expands tax relief program for elderly, disabled

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors at its Monday, May 4 meeting ramped up its opposition to the proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line, expanded a real estate tax relief program benefiting income-eligible elderly and disabled residents, cleared the way for a farmers’ market at Zion Crossroads and more. (meeting materials, video)

Supervisors allocate $250k to fight Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night stepped up its efforts to oppose a controversial ultra-high voltage power line that could slice through the center of the county, appropriating $250,000 to cover potential legal expenses related to the project.

“We are listening. We are working. We are taking action. We are being collaborative. We are doing the things that I think we need to do to make sure that we can have an impact on this project that reflects the concerns of our citizens,” Board Chair and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said before voting to approve the funding.

Valley Link Transmission Company, a partnership between Dominion Energy, First Energy Transmission and Transource, has proposed the 115-mile, 765-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that, if approved by state regulators, would cross as many as nine mostly rural counties as it travels from the Joshua Falls substation near Lynchburg to the proposed Yeat substation in southeastern Culpeper.

The line, which would carry electricity generated in the Ohio River Valley to power-hungry users in Northern and Central Virginia, is the biggest ever proposed for construction in Dominion territory. It would require a 200-foot cleared right-of-way along its path and poles as tall as 160 feet every quarter mile.

Dominion has said the line is necessary to meet the growing demand for electricity in the region—driven largely by data centers in Northern Virginia—and to stabilize the grid.

Valley Link has proposed two preliminary corridors and several potential variations that cut through farms and forestland and pass just a few hundred feet from some homes, traversing Louisa for about 20 miles. The company has said it plans to submit a single preferred route to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) for approval by September. It hopes to energize the $1 billion project by 2029.

The proposal has sparked widespread opposition across the nine potentially impacted counties—Louisa, Orange, Culpeper, Spotsylvania, Fluvanna, Goochland, Buckingham, Appomattox and Campbell—with some residents framing it as an assault on rural Virginia that mostly benefits data center development to the north.

Most of the localities have vowed to fight the project with some, including Louisa, signaling they plan to take a regional approach. The board’s appropriation follows a quarter million-dollar allocation by the Goochland County Board of Supervisors last month. Adams said he expects several other localities to make similar appropriations in the weeks to come as regional collaboration ramps up.

“The vast majority [of potentially impacted counties] are taking a regional approach. We think we are stronger working as a collaborative group than we are individually,” he said, noting that Louisa hosted a summit of county leaders from across the region last month to strategize about fighting the project.

The SCC is expected to evaluate the proposal for about a year before deciding whether to approve it and selecting a final route. During that process, impacted localities, landowners and other stakeholders will have multiple opportunities to weigh in.

In a significant sign of regional cooperation, Louisa, Fluvanna, Orange, Goochland and Culpeper jointly filed a Motion to Intervene and Protest in a case pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that could bolster Valley Link’s justification for the line.

PJM, the regional transmission organization that oversees the grid in much of the eastern United States, has asked the commission to allow it to fast-track approval of up to 10 large power plants a year through 2027 as utilities race to meet burgeoning demand.

Adams said the joint filing does two things: seeks to make the five counties parties to the case so they have a “seat at the table and the right to be heard” and identifies three gaps in PJM’s proposed “Expedited Interconnection Track,” the program that aims to shrink the time it takes to approve the power plants from about four years to just 10 months.

“We are asking FERC to make three fixes before approving the program: recognize Virginia counties as siting authorities where state law gives us that role; require developers to notify and give host localities 30 days to comment before their applications are deemed complete; and require PJM to publish, after each annual application window, a summary of where the new generation is being proposed and what transmission it will require,” Adams said.

Adams noted that the filing doesn’t challenge any specific transmission project or power plant. He reiterated that the power to approve transmission lines and routes remains with the SCC and, with respect to the Joshua Falls to Yeat project, the county plans to fully participate in that process.

“I want to assure our citizens that Louisa County will continue to protect its residents at every level — local, state, and federal,” Adams said. “This board hears our citizens. This board understands what our citizens are saying, and this board is committed to working with our citizens in regard to Valley Link.”

Other transmission infrastructure proposed for Louisa County

While Valley Link’s Joshua Falls to Yeat line is grabbing most of the headlines, it’s not the only transmission infrastructure proposed for the county. Two other projects are also in the works with both connecting to Dominion’s North Anna substation at the North Anna Nuclear Power Station.

Dominion’s proposed North Anna to Bristers project is a new 500-kV line with an additional 230-kV circuit that would primarily be constructed in existing right-of-way. The 70-mile line would start at North Anna, immediately crossing Lake Anna into Spotsylvania County. The line would connect to the proposed Thornburg substation, a Valley Link project, in Caroline County before heading north into Stafford and ending at the Bristers substation in Fauquier.

Dominion says on its website that though the 230-kV circuit would be constructed as part of the project, it wouldn’t be “energized at this time, allowing the line to support future energy needs while minimizing the need for additional construction later.”

“This investment strengthens the grid, supports Virginia’s energy security, and ensures reliable power for your community,” the company says of the project.

Dominion is also proposing to rebuild a 500-kV line that cuts through eastern Louisa, entering the county near Holly Grove and crossing the lake twice before reaching North Anna. Dominion plans to reconstruct the line, dubbed the Carson-Midlothian-North Anna project, within existing right-of-way.

On its website, the company says the line is approaching the end of its service life and “must be rebuilt to accommodate increased generation supply and customer needs.”

All three projects require approval from the SCC.

Learn more about the proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat project here. Learn more about the North Anna to Bristers project here. Learn more about the Carson-Midlothian-North Anna project here.

Board broadens tax relief program for elderly, disabled

The board of supervisors on Monday night voted unanimously to broaden a tax relief program for elderly and disabled residents, upping the income thresholds that determine eligibility and how much relief residents qualify for.

The program provides real estate tax relief to totally disabled residents and residents 65 years old and over who meet certain income and net worth requirements, discounting participants’ tax bills between 45 and 100 percent based on a sliding scale. It caps the amount of annual tax relief at $3,000 per participant.

With the approved changes, the program is now open to elderly and disabled residents whose total household income doesn’t exceed $55,000—up from $50,000—and whose net worth, excluding their home and 10 acres, doesn’t exceed $200,000.

The changes also impact the sliding scale, raising by 10 percent the income thresholds that determine the amount of tax relief participants get. For example, residents with a household income of up to $19,800—up from $18,000—and with a net worth up to $70,000 are eligible for an up to 100 percent exemption. At the other end of the scale, residents who make between $44,001 and $55,000 a year—up from between $40,001 and $50,000—and whose net worth is between $150,001 and $200,000 are eligible for an up to 45 percent tax break.

The changes are designed to ease the pain of rising taxes on some of the county’s most vulnerable residents. Though the board of supervisors hasn’t raised the real estate tax rate in about a decade, many residents have seen their tax bills soar due to an uptick in assessments. The assessed value of real estate, excluding new construction and improvements, rose an average of 6.88 percent this year.

Commissioner of the Revenue Stacey Fletcher told the board that nine residents recently applied for the program with incomes that slightly exceed the $50,000 threshold and her office plans to reach out to them to let them know about the change. The commissioner’s office has also extended the deadline to apply from May 1 to June 1.

“We are going to work as hard as we can in the next month to get the word out there to capture as many people as we can,” Fletcher said, noting that her office will be at the Commission on Aging’s picnic on May 14 to sign people up.

Fletcher said in an email to Engage Louisa that 461 applicants participated in the program in 2025, saving more than $770,000 in real estate taxes.

Susan Fletcher, a member of the Commission on Aging, was the only community member to speak during the public hearing. Fletcher thanked the board for broadening the program, emphasizing its importance to seniors. She also said the commission has a committee investigating ways to improve the program, drawing on what’s done in other localities.

“Anything we can do to help seniors stay in their homes and afford their real estate taxes in the county, we really want to do that,” Fletcher said.

To learn more about the real estate tax relief program, click here or call the commissioner’s office at 540-967-3432.

Supes green-light CUP for farmers’ market at Zion Crossroads

A farmers’ market is coming to Zion Crossroads.

Supervisors voted 7-0 to approve Zion United Methodist Church’s request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to host a year-round farmers’ market in the church’s parking lot at 1674 Zion Road in the Green Springs Election District. The 5.68-acre parcel is zoned agricultural and straddles the boundary of the Zion Crossroads Growth Area Overlay District.

Pastor David McWilliams told the board that the church hopes to increase the community’s access to fresh produce and support local farmers, while also providing a space that builds community.

“The basic idea here is to have a farmers’ market. The motive behind it is to create a third place for the community, a place where people can gather and get to know one another, develop relationships,” McWilliams said. “In addition to having the traditional idea of walking around and having an opportunity to buy things, two big features that we are working on is making sure that the playgrounds are open and having opportunities to have a food truck available--things that would encourage people to stay around longer and potentially get to know someone new.”

According to a set of “Guiding Procedures” proposed by the church, the market will operate only on Saturdays, opening no earlier than 10 am and closing no later than 4 pm. It will have no more than 13 vendors and offer free food distribution via the church’s food pantry. The market will also have an on-site manager.

McWilliams told the planning commission last month that though the church only plans to hold the market on select Saturdays in warmer months, it requested permission to host a year-round event, so it has room to grow.

The “Guiding Procedures” were adopted as a condition of the CUP, meaning if the church wants to change them, it will have to secure permission from the board of supervisors. Other conditions include prohibiting amplified music outdoors and barring the sale of mass produced or multi-level marketing items.

Supervisors mostly responded favorably to the request but raised a few concerns. Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones, who lives near the church, wondered whether outdoor music should be permitted, noting that a neighbor had raised concerns about noise from the event.

Deputy Community Development Director Tom Egeland said that the condition related to music had been tweaked when the planning commission considered the request. The commission agreed to allow outdoor music but prohibited the use of speakers or microphones.

McWilliams added that, regardless of the condition, the market would have to comply with the county’s noise ordinance which limits noise at the property line in agricultural zoning (A-2) to 65 decibels during the day, roughly equivalent to the sound of a normal conversation at arm’s length.

Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams asked what items vendors would be allowed to sell, suggesting that some farmers’ markets are more akin to flea markets.

Egeland noted that the county has a specific definition of farmers’ market in its code, which the church explicitly agreed to adhere to as part of the CUP. That definition permits the sale of “fresh fruits and vegetables; other food-related items; and agricultural/horticultural products, which are home grown, homemade, and/or home produced.”

Given that definition, several supervisors wondered if vendors at a farmers’ market would be allowed to sell cannabis, referencing a potential change in state law that, if agreed to by Governor Abigail Spanberger, would expand the retail market for the substance. Currently, only licensed medical dispensaries are permitted to sell cannabis in Virginia, but the pending legislation would establish a highly-regulated market for recreational sales. Regardless of where the legislation lands, the church’s “Guiding Procedures” prohibit the sale of drugs, legal or illegal, related paraphernalia and alcohol at its market.

In addition, the board last year adopted an ordinance requiring a CUP to sell controlled substances that aren’t provided by a licensed medical facility operating under the supervision of the DEA. The ordinance only permits the use in commercial zoning.

No one spoke for or against the farmers’ market during the public hearing, but Jones said she’d heard lots of positive feedback from constituents.

“This is a good thing for the community,” she said before motioning to approve the request.

Supervisors adopt VDOT six-year secondary road plan

Supervisors held a public hearing and voted 7-0 to adopt the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Road System Construction in Louisa County.

Developed in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the plan covers road improvements in the secondary system from 2026-27 through 2031-32, earmarking between $171,356 and $254,457 a year for improvements for a total projected allocation of roughly $1.366 million.

The funds are drawn from the state’s Rural Rustic Program, which is specifically aimed at improving or paving unpaved public roads that carry more than 50 vehicles per day, and “telefee” funds, money paid by telecommunications companies that use public right-of-ways.

The plan earmarks funding to upgrade or improve several unpaved roads and for traffic and engineering services, including speed studies, signage and incidental work.

The plan includes funding to pave or improve parts of the following roads over the next five years: West Green Springs Road; Harts Mill Road; Poplar Avenue; New Anna Road; Thurston Road; Turners Mill Road; Old Bickley Town Road; and Two County Lane.

In related news, VDOT Residency Administrator Scott Thornton, who has led the Louisa residency for the last four years, said goodbye to the board. Thornton is taking a job as the Residency Administrator in Petersburg.

“I’ve enjoyed working with you. You’ve always been responsive when I’ve called with concerns and never hesitated to meet out in the field where we needed to go,” Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams told Thornton.

Share

Transmission lines, rural preservation efforts top Planning Commission’s agenda

Efforts to mitigate the impacts of large-scale transmission infrastructure and to preserve the county’s farms and forestland top the Louisa County Planning Commission’s agenda on Thursday night.

The commission will hold seven public hearings: two focused on establishing guidelines for new electrical transmission lines and related infrastructure and five to consider expanding Agricultural and Forestal Districts.

Prior to their regular 7 pm meeting, commissioners will hold a 5 pm work session where they’ll discuss the proposed transmission line guidelines, growth management strategies and a draft ordinance that would change how campground is defined in county code.

As concerns about Valley Link transmission line grow, commission looks to beef up land use guidelines

Commissioners will hold a pair of public hearings related to the siting of electrical transmission lines and related infrastructure. They’ll consider an addendum to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that would establish priority corridors for high-voltage power lines and set other parameters for the infrastructure, and an amendment to county code that would set conditional use permit (CUP) requirements for electric transmission facilities and establish standards for the use.

Both proposals, which require approval by the board of supervisors, aim to provide guidance to local decision-makers, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) when considering proposed transmission projects while acknowledging that state regulators ultimately have the power to approve high-voltage transmission lines and federal regulators may also have oversight.

The proposed changes come amid widespread opposition to Valley Link Transmission Company’s Joshua Falls to Yeat line, a 765-kilovolt (kV) power line that, if approved by the SCC, would travel 115 miles from Campbell County to Culpeper, carrying power from the Ohio River Valley to feed burgeoning demand in Northern and Central Virginia, driven primarily by data centers.

The line—the biggest ever proposed for construction in Dominion Energy territory--would slice through Louisa for nearly 20 miles on one of two potential corridors, requiring a 200-foot cleared right-of-way and poles as tall as 160 feet planted every quarter mile.

It would cut through farms and forestland and travel within just a few hundred feet of some homes with one proposed route skirting the western edge of the Town of Louisa and other passing just west of the Louisa County High School/Middle School campus.

Dominion, FirstEnergy Transmission and Transource formed Valley Link, in part, to develop the $1 billion project. They plan to submit a preferred route to the SCC for approval later this year and hope to energize the line by 2029.

Valley Link’s proposal could be one of numerous large-scale electric infrastructure projects that impact the county as demand for energy soars in the commonwealth—the global epicenter of the power-guzzling data center industry—and Dominion and other utilities scramble to upgrade the grid and propose new generation facilities.

County staff has framed the addendum and proposed code changes as mechanisms to object to and potentially mitigate the impacts of Valley Link’s current proposal and as preparation for future projects.

“Together, they provide a consistent framework for decision-making; strengthen the county’s position in state and federal proceedings; [and] ensure alignment between long-term planning and day-to-day land use decisions,” Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon says in a memo to the commission.

The Comp Plan addendum would establish an “Electric Transmission and Corridor Policy,” setting clear guidance for siting the lines and encouraging entities proposing such infrastructure to consider the county’s growth management and rural preservation goals.

The Comprehensive Plan is a long-range planning document that lays out a vision for a locality’s future development. Under state law, the SCC is required to consider proposed transmission lines’ adherence to local plans when considering whether to green-light projects.

“With this, we feel that we’d be in a pretty strong position that there’s going to be several items that [Valley Link] is going to have to address with the SCC. And then, even if this project does go through, this would also help for any [transmission line] project in the future that may come. This would now be the guiding document that people would have to abide by to the best of their ability,” Coon told the commission at its April meeting.

Most notably, the policy prioritizes the use of existing corridors for the placement of new transmission lines, including existing power line right-of-way, utility easements for electric, gas, water and telecommunications infrastructure, public right-of-way along roads and “previously disturbed or developed linear infrastructure corridors.”

In addition, it encourages new transmission line corridors to avoid or minimize impacts on residential areas, agricultural and forestal lands, scenic and environmental resources, conservation easements and historic sites. That includes avoiding established residential areas when practicable and “maximizing the distance between homes and community facilities; not bisecting large agricultural parcels and minimizing fragmentation of working farms. It also includes minimizing visibility from scenic roadways and avoiding “ridgelines and prominent visual features where practicable.”

In acknowledging the importance of a reliable electric grid, the addendum encourages the evaluation of alternatives—from considering multiple routes to demonstrating how the selected route minimizes impacts consistent with the policy—and articulates the county’s support for undergrounding infrastructure.

“Louisa County supports the underground placement of transmission infrastructure where it is technically feasible, economically reasonable and results in a reduction of impacts to the community and environment,” the proposed policy states.

The proposed amendment to county code would strengthen existing conditional use permit requirements for substations and apply to all associated “switching stations, and related infrastructure for electric transmission lines operating at 69 kilovolts or greater.” That includes new transmission facilities and “expansions and modifications of existing facilities that materially increase capacity and footprint.”

Coon said the CUP wouldn’t apply to transmission lines themselves because they fall under the purview of the SCC, not local government.

The draft code section articulates standards for electric transmission infrastructure, requiring applicants to demonstrate that proposed facilities comply with the Comp Plan, minimize impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding communities; and are compatible with existing land uses in its vicinity. They also require applicants to evaluate alternative routes, including using existing transmission corridors and co-locating within existing utility easements.

In addition, the standards include a provision related to buffering and setbacks, requiring “reasonable separation” from homes, public facilities and agricultural operations. The draft says that the board of supervisors would set minimum standards based on voltage.

The amendment also sets standards for environmental protection, like minimizing land disturbance, and requires a construction management plan, among other provisions.

The board of supervisors is set to hold a public hearing on the Comp Plan addendum at its May 18 meeting. At publication time, it hadn’t advertised a hearing for the proposed code amendment.

Commission to hold five public hearings on expanding AFDs

After recommending that the board of supervisors add nearly 3,000 acres to the county’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFDs) over the last two months, the commission on Thursday will hold five public hearings to consider whether to give a thumbs up to expanding the districts by another roughly 1,900 acres.

AFDs are a conservation tool that allow landowners to voluntarily prohibit development on their property for 10-year periods. In return, participating parcels are assured 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.

In addition, AFDs place restrictions on local governments’ ability to enact ordinances that “would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or farming and forestry practices,” per state code.

The districts have emerged as a key tool in the county’s effort to preserve working rural lands because they provide an opportunity to press pause on development amid burgeoning residential and industrial growth. The districts also help keep large tracts of land intact, thanks to restrictions on divisions and subdivisions.

In the five public hearings, the commission will consider whether to recommend that the board of supervisors approve the following items:

• David and Sarah Truslow’s request to add 93.72 acres, comprised of two tax map parcels, to the Cuckoo Agricultural and Forestal District. The agriculturally zoned property (A-2) is south of Cuckoo Road (Route 643) west of Cross County Road (Route 522) and northwest of Indian Creek Road (Route 699) in the Cuckoo Voting District. It’s currently used for livestock production, including horses and cattle.

• Charlotte Morford, Trustee and Hooves and Paws Animal Rescue Inc.’s requests to add 17.3 acres and 36.49 acres, respectively, to the Trevilian Station AFD. The agriculturally zoned parcels (A-1) lie east of Valentine Mill Road (Route 636), northwest of Poindexter Road (Route 613) and south of Louisa Road (Route 22) in the Patrick Henry Voting District. The former is used for pasture, crops and horticulture while the latter is used for livestock and crop production.

• Sidney Barbee Cox’s request to add 157.49 acres, encompassing two tax map parcels, to the Shelton’s Mill AFD. The agriculturally zoned property (A-1, A-2), which is currently used for timber and crop production, sits along the Louisa-Hanover County line on Hopeful Church Road (Route 604).

• Brandi Cox Douglass, Trustee, Brandi and Lindsey Cox, Sidney Barbee Cox, and SB Cox, Inc.’s request to add 1,332.9 acres, comprised of 12 tax map parcels, to the Indian Creek AFD. The proposed addition includes two assemblages with one east of Indian Creek Road (Route 699) and along the western side of Cross County Road (Route 522) and the other west of Cross County Road, along Indian Creek Road, and north, east, and south of the South Anna River. The properties, which are in the Cuckoo Voting District, are currently used for pasture, timber, crops and cattle.

• James Kean’s request to add 253.6 acres, encompassing eight tax map parcels, to the Gold Mine Creek AFD. The property is zoned agricultural (A-1) and located along Ellisville Drive (Route 669), north of Goldmine Road (Route 613), and south of Cales Drive (Route 651) in the Mineral Voting District. It’s currently used for cattle, crops, hay, pasture and timber.

At work session, commission to talk growth management, campground definition

At their 5 pm work session, commissioners will preview the upcoming public hearings related to transmission infrastructure.

They’ll also continue a discussion from previous meetings focused on “zoning methods to help reduce growth impacts,” per the agenda. While the meeting materials don’t include any additional information about the item, the commission at its March meeting appointed Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin and Mountain Road District Commissioner Todd Hicks to a committee tasked with recommending tools that could be incorporated into the zoning code to slow residential growth in the county’s rural areas.

Beyond that, the commission will discuss proposed amendments to county code that revise the definition of “campground” and tweak other provisions related to the use. Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said at last month’s meeting that there are “a lot of individuals” interested in operating campgrounds to allow people to stay in campers long-term. He said that wasn’t the original intent of the use.

The proposed amendments beef up the definition of campground, requiring that the facilities are sited on at least 10 acres, comply with Virginia Department of Health regulations, and limit stays to no more than 60 days in a 12-month period. They also revise the definition of campsite, defining it as a plot in an “approved campground” intended for the exclusive occupancy of a “recreational shelter.”

The draft amendments add a definition of recreational shelter—defining the term as “units designed as temporary living quarters for camping and travel; including tents, tent trailers, travel trailers, recreational vehicles, campers”—and explicitly prohibit their use as permanent dwellings or short-term rentals.

Beyond that, the draft amendments adjust where campgrounds are permitted, prohibiting the use in agricultural zoning, where it’s currently allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP). The use would instead be permitted with a CUP in commercial zoning, where it’s currently barred. Campgrounds wouldn’t be allowed in residential or industrial zoning and would be permitted by-right in resort development zoning, consistent with current code.

While Coon provided limited insight into what prompted staff to propose the changes, Cuckoo District Commissioner George Goodwin alluded to a potential factor during the planning commission’s discussion last month. Goodwin asked whether there were upcoming activities at the North Anna Nuclear Power Station that would draw an influx of people looking for a place to stay.

The plant has periodic outages, which bring in hundreds of temporary workers, usually for about 30 days. The workers sometimes struggle to find lodging.

The draft proposal appears to tighten the screws on workers looking for temporary housing outside of traditional dwellings and landowners hoping to accommodate them.

Any changes to how county code treats campgrounds would require public hearings in front of the planning commission and the board of supervisors and an affirmative vote by the latter body.

Share

LCPS-owned plot recommended as site of fifth elementary school

A 91-acre parcel adjacent to the Louisa County High School/Middle School campus and owned by the school division could be the site of the county’s fifth elementary school.

FutureThink, a consulting firm tasked with evaluating potential locations for the school, recommended the property during a presentation to the school board at its Tuesday, May 5 meeting. (video)

Tracy Healy, FutureThink’s president, suggested that the Davis Highway (Route 22) site would provide the division with flexibility to accommodate future growth and save time and money in the construction process, noting that it’s in the center of the county, has access to public utilities and is already owned by the division.

FutureThink settled on the site after studying growth trends, including evaluating where residential developments are planned and accounting for current school capacity. The firm also considered other division priorities, including minimizing travel times for students, balancing school capacity, achieving socio-economic balance among schools and ensuring the site has access to public utilities, including water and sewer.

In her presentation, Healy identified housing developments that are either being constructed or have been approved by the county and the two towns, ranging in size from the 1200-home Spring Creek development at Zion Crossroads, which is mostly built out, to the four-lot Shepherd’s Trail subdivision, which is under construction near Gum Spring.

Healy’s presentation indicated that growth is occurring, or is expected to occur, across the county, though most multi-unit development is concentrated in central and southwestern Louisa and near Lake Anna. She added that some of the lake’s developments, like the 891-unit Cutalong golf resort, aren’t expected to increase enrollment because they generally aren’t designed for year-round residency.

Healy said that, given those development trends and when factoring in existing school capacity, choosing a location in the center of the county makes sense.

“A new school should be located in the central part of the county. That central location would also allow a pool of students from all of the existing schools to provide that enrollment for the new school as well as allowing room for growth,” Healy said.

As part of its analysis, FutureThink projected the division’s growth through the 2030-31 academic year, estimating that the division will see a “moderate” uptick in enrollment, based on population growth and a rising birth rate. The firm projected slightly slower growth than an internal analysis that the division conducted with the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service late last year, which projected enrollment through 2029-30.

But both studies anticipate that the division will see steady growth, which will be particularly impactful at the elementary school level where three of four schools are at or near capacity.

FutureThink projected the division would grow about 12 percent between the current academic year and the 2030-31 school year, adding 654 students who raise total enrollment from 5,418 to 6,072.

In kindergarten through fifth grade, the division is expected to add 335 students, pushing all four elementary schools beyond capacity. That includes Moss Nuckols in south-central Louisa; Trevilians in the western end of the county; Jouett in the eastern end; and Thomas Jefferson near the center.

If enrollment rises to 2,950 students at the elementary school level by 2030, as the firm projects, the division would exceed its K-5 capacity by eight percent, or more than 200 students. Thomas Jefferson would sit 14 percent over capacity while Trevilians would exceed capacity by 12 percent.

“Where we really like to see elementary school capacity is in that 85 percent window. So, we are really seeing the need for a new elementary school to accommodate our current population as well as the future population,” Healy said.

While enrollment is also expected to increase at the middle school and high school, those facilities should be able to accommodate the uptick, Healy said, at least in the near-term.

The firm expects the division to add 161 middle school students and 158 high school students by 2030-31, pushing enrollment to 1,365 and 1,704, respectively. The middle school would be about 87 percent full while the high school would reach 82 percent capacity.

The division recently completed a 500-seat addition to the middle school and it’s in the process of constructing a career and technical education center adjacent to the high school, which will increase the school’s capacity by about 322 students.

Board Chair and Patrick Henry District representative Greg Strickland asked whether the proposed elementary school site would decrease travel times for students. Healy said that she didn’t expect it to make a significant impact but that would depend, in part, on how the school board decides to draw boundaries that determine where students attend school.

“With some of the scenarios that we ran, they were all under current travel times, but I wouldn’t say they were significantly reduced just because of the size of the county,” Healy said.

Board members reacted favorably to Healy’s recommendation, but it isn’t clear when they’ll formally select a site.

The board of supervisors recently appropriated $3 million for the project, enabling school officials to begin planning for the facility. The county has tentatively earmarked $52 million for the school’s construction in the Fiscal Year 2028 Capital improvement Plan though the timeline for the project is expected to be pushed back at least a year as supervisors sort out how they’ll pay for it.

Healy didn’t offer any other potential options should the board opt not to move forward with recommended parcel. Nor did she or school leaders delve into potential concerns with the site, including traffic impacts in an already congested area and large-scale industrial development that could take place nearby.

Davis Highway between the Towns of Louisa and Mineral is one of the county’s most traffic-clogged corridors, especially at peak morning and afternoon travel times when school is in session. Adding a third school on the road could exacerbate those issues. School officials have previously suggested that they could implement staggered start and dismissal times to mitigate the impact.

In addition, the recommended parcel sits less than 1,000 feet from one of the potential routes of Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line, a 765-kilovolt power line that, if approved by state regulators, would slice through central Louisa. The school board and some residents have raised concerns about the proposed corridor’s proximity to existing schools. Valley Link is expected to settle on a preferred route in the coming months. It’s unclear how that might factor into the division’s selection process.

The property also adjoins the roughly 1,400-acre Fisher Chewning tract, which Amazon Web Services (AWS) acquired earlier this year. The property is in the county’s Technology Overlay District, an area targeted for data center development. AWS applied to build a sprawling data center campus on the tract last year but withdrew its application amid strong resistance from neighbors. Its long-term plans for the property aren’t clear.

Should the board of supervisors green-light data center development on the tract in the future, it could further complicate traffic issues and, potentially, raise environmental concerns.

Share

News roundup: Louisa mourns passing of former mayor; SCOVA overturns redistricting

Engage Louisa focuses on Louisa County government. We recognize we can’t cover everything, and there’s plenty of other news in our neck of the woods. With that in mind, we occasionally include a roundup of links to the work of other journalists and organizations covering noteworthy events and issues that impact our community.

• Town of Louisa mourns passing of former mayor -CBS 19 News, May 8, 2026

  A memorial service for Garland Nuckols will be held on Thursday, May 14 at 11 am at New Life Community Church, 509 East Main Street, Louisa, with a reception to follow at the Louisa County Volunteer Rescue Squad, 83 Rescue Lane, Louisa. Click here for more information.

• Supreme Court of Virginia voids redistricting election as unconstitutional -Cardinal News, May 8, 2026

• A Louisa County doula tends Virginia moms and babies on Medicaid in her home community -WVTF, April 29, 2026

• From loss to leadership: LCHS junior Hurley Lucckese channels grief into purpose and impact -The Central Virginian, May 7, 2026 (metered paywall)

Share

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, May 4 through May 9

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Monday, May 4

Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. The board will convene in closed session at 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)

Tuesday, May 5

Louisa County School Board, Central Office Administration Building, 953 Davis Highway, Mineral, 7 pm. (agenda, livestream)

Thursday, May 7

Agricultural, Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 7 pm. (agenda packet)

Share

Quote of the week

“We were intentional [in bringing data centers to the county]. We did this, and I will wear this like a badge of honor. I will not let people beat me up over it.”

-Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams at the board’s April 27 meeting, defending county leaders’ effort to lure controversial data center development. Read more below.

BOS roundup: Supervisors adopt $201 million budget for FY27, cut personal property tax rate; Williams defends data center development

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors last Monday voted unanimously to slice the county’s personal property tax rate by 15 percent, lowering the levy on cars, trucks, boats and other vehicles from $2.43 per $100 of assessed value to $2.07. (meeting materials, video)

Supervisors touted the move as a dividend of their efforts to attract economic development—namely data centers—which they say will bulk up the tax base and deliver much-needed revenue to pay for county services. They’ve suggested more tax relief is on the way.

“This board and a previous board have been very active in getting what I believe is smart economic development in this county that will help shift the tax burden from residential homeowners and personal property taxes to the businesses that invest here,” Board Chair and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said.

Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams who, along with Adams, serves on the board’s finance committee, agreed.

“We’ve been attracting data centers intentionally. The citizens should see something for that. This is just the beginning of what I hope we are going to be able to share and do for the citizens,” Williams said.

The tax cut is part of a larger budget package that the board advanced for the fiscal year that starts July 1. That includes a $201 million spending plan with $186.4 million allotted for operations and maintenance and $14.6 million slated for capital projects.

The operating budget covers the daily costs of running county government, paying for everything from employees’ salaries to fuel for fire trucks, while the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) covers long-lasting and big-ticket items like new school buildings, ambulances and infrastructure projects.

As part of the plan, the board retained a real estate tax rate of 72 cents per $100 of assessed value, the same rate the county’s had for about a decade and among the lowest in the area. But even though the rate won’t change, many homeowners will see their tax bills rise, a consequence of an uptick in assessments.

The assessed value of real estate, excluding new construction and improvements, rose an average of 6.88 percent this year, meaning a resident whose home is assessed at $400,000 and increased in value in line with the county average, will pay about $180 more than last year.

Since 2022, the assessed value of real estate has jumped about 48 percent countywide, causing most homeowners’ real estate taxes to soar. That’s prompted some community members to urge the board to slash the tax rate to offset the increase in assessments. The board would’ve had to lower the rate more than four cents to counter this year’s rise in property values.

Supervisors have resisted those calls, contending that increased revenue from real estate taxes helps cover the rising cost of county services, driven by inflation and population growth. They’ve also said that they’d prefer to keep the tax rate stable to avoid an annual political fight.

The board, in the last four years, has twice opted to issue modest real estate tax rebates to mitigate the pain of rising taxes. But board members chose to forgo a rebate this year in favor of the rate reduction on personal property.

Adams and Williams have touted the rate cut as the potential first step to eliminating personal property taxes for individuals over the next few years. If that happens, it will come via a combination of rate cuts and rebates due to a provision in state law that prohibits localities from lowering the personal property tax rate for individuals below the rate for businesses. The latter rate sits at $1.90 per $100.

Adams said on Monday that, as revenue from data centers ramps up in the coming years, he hopes to couple cuts in personal property taxes with real estate tax rebates. But he said he wouldn’t support reducing the real estate tax rate outright because the county can’t tax residences and businesses separately. It can extend rebates exclusively to homeowners though.

“We can rebate residences while the commercial development continues to pay the full rate,” Adams said.

As the three data center campuses currently under construction are built out over the next 15 years, the county will derive revenue from real estate taxes on the buildings and land and business personal property taxes on data center equipment. The county taxes the equipment at $1.25 per $100.

Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter, whose district includes the lower end of Lake Anna where real estate assessments and, in turn, tax bills, have skyrocketed over the last few years, said earlier in the budget process that he polled his constituents and most respondents preferred a rebate on their real estate taxes to lower personal property taxes. But McCotter didn’t publicly push for a rebate at Monday’s meeting.

After adopting the budget last year, McCotter expressed frustration with the processes the county uses to craft the spending plan and conduct assessments, saying in a Facebook post last May that it would be the last budget he’d vote for unless there were changes.

Before joining his colleagues to unanimously approve next year’s budget, McCotter acknowledged those remarks, claiming that he’d been looking for ways to make the budget process more transparent and crediting three “budget roadshows”—informal meetings held in different parts of the county to discuss the budget with residents—in achieving that goal.

“I’m pleased now with the budget process, and those concerns have been addressed. Specifically, I wanted to evaluate ways to make the budget process even more transparent, and I am pleased to say that, through the budget roadshows, I feel like budget transparency was never stronger,” he said.

McCotter didn’t address the assessment process, which is handled by the county assessor’s office. The assessor bases its valuations on market values and, by state law, operates independent of the board of supervisors.

Aside from the budget roadshows, which drew less than 20 community members across three meetings, the budget process appeared to deviate little from previous years. The board’s Finance Committee, along with County Administrator Christian Goodwin and Finance Director Wanda Colvin, did most of the heavy lifting in crafting the budget and their recommendations received little scrutiny—at least publicly—from other board members.

Across about five hours of budget work sessions this winter and spring, the board had limited conversation about the bulk of county spending, mostly discussing how to allocate funding for outside agencies, which comprises a tiny fraction of the budget.

In a shift from recent years, the school division, sheriff’s office and Fire and EMS Department presented high-level overviews of their budget requests. But the presentations didn’t result in detailed public discussion among board members or county staff about how the agencies plan to spend more than $131 million of taxpayer money, their collective share of next year’s operating budget.

To read more about the budget, check out the last two editions of Engage Louisa here and here. Check out the draft budget here.

Williams delivers full-throated defense of data center development

As concerns about data center development grow in Louisa County and beyond, one member of the board of supervisors defended local leaders’ efforts to lure the industry, saying that he considers bringing data centers to the county a “badge of honor” and, one day, residents will be grateful.

“We were intentional [in bringing data center development to the county]. We did this, and I will wear this like a badge of honor. I will not let people beat me up over it…We are going to own this. We are going to wear it, and we are not going to back up,” Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams said at Monday’s meeting, flanked by the board’s other six members.

Williams, a Republican who’s been on the board for more than a decade, said the three data center campuses that are either under development or slated to be—Amazon Web Services’ (AWS) campuses by the North Anna Power Station and Northeast Creek Reservoir and EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure’s complex at the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park—could produce more tax revenue annually than the county’s current operating budget, which topped $175 million for this fiscal year.

He said that, as the campuses are built out, the revenue would allow county leaders to reduce the tax burden on citizens, touting the board’s vote to cut the personal property tax rate by 15 percent earlier in the meeting as the first step toward significant tax relief.

The county will derive revenue from the campuses from real estate taxes on the buildings and land and business personal property taxes on the pricey computer equipment inside. That revenue is expected to escalate as the warehouse-like facilities are constructed over the next 15 years though at least 15 percent will be returned to the tech companies based on their level of capital investment.

“We intend on passing this [revenue] through and making sure it counts towards the taxes that individuals in this county have to pay. We got a small deposit on that tonight,” Williams said.

Williams acknowledged that some residents are dealing with negative impacts from data center development right now, a consequence of ongoing construction. But he insisted, the facilities are going to pay big dividends in the long run.

“I attribute this to just like the [North Anna] nuclear power plant was in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. We are going to look back at a time from now, and we are going to be grateful it’s here,” he said.

Williams’ comments come as residents have expressed growing worries about data centers, from their impact on the county’s rural character to its infrastructure.

Community members have voiced concern that the power-hungry and water-guzzling buildings, which power cloud computing and artificial intelligence, will drain the public water supply and raise their power bills. They’ve also decried the onslaught of heavy truck traffic on rural roads, a consequence of a years-long construction process, and argued that noise and light pollution will continue to hinder their quality of life once the campuses are finished.

But Williams mostly brushed off those worries, arguing that if Louisa hadn’t opened the door to data centers, tech companies would just set up shop in a neighboring locality. That, he suggested, would leave the county to deal with the negative consequences, like new transmission lines to deliver power, sans the benefits of increased tax revenue.

“We were intentional. We went after data centers. What about the electricity? That’s not my problem…If we don’t get [data center development] here, Goochland’s going to take it. Hanover’s going to take it…and they’re still going to have to provide electricity to them,” he said.

Williams also minimized public opposition to the facilities, especially in his district where no data center campuses are planned.

“There are 43,000 people in the county, and the most I’ve ever seen in one gathering against anything is about 100. And, I’ll be honest with you, not too many of them come from the Jackson District,” he said.

While none of his colleagues directly responded to Williams’ comments, Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams hailed the anticipated impact of data center revenue earlier in the meeting. He called the facilities currently in the works “smart economic development,” contending that they’ve opened the door to lower taxes for residents in the years to come.

Though few Jackson District residents have weighed in on data center development at public meetings, community members took to social media last week to express displeasure with Williams’ comments. Several people in the Bumpass Residents’ Facebook Group said that community members need to vote Williams out, along other supervisors who back data centers.

“Toni Williams needs to get on the [Facebook] groups and listen to his constituents. No one wants the data centers here. We, as a community, need to vote the supervisors off of the board that are pushing for the data centers to protect our land, electricity, and health,” one commenter said.

Others wondered why their real estate taxes continue to climb even as Williams promises an onslaught of revenue from data centers. The board has adopted the same real estate tax rate of 72-cent per $100 of assessed value for the last decade, but many homeowners have seen their tax bills soar due to rising assessments.

“Nobody’s going to be grateful. We’re still paying more taxes with the real estate assessment jump. Why do we keep voting these guys back into office?” another commenter said.

Opinions about data centers in Louisa seem to reflect broader concerns about the industry across Virginia. The state is home to more data centers than anywhere else in world.

According to a recent poll from The Washington Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, only 35 percent of Virginians say they’re comfortable with a new data center coming to their community. Only 41 percent believe data centers positively impact local government funding while just 20 percent think data centers positively impact property taxes. More than two-thirds of respondents say they oppose extending a state sales tax exemption for data center companies that meet certain investment requirements.

Lawmakers in Richmond are struggling to finalize a biennial state budget as they haggle over whether to ax the exemption, which has helped make Virginia the global epicenter of the data center industry. Williams appeared to allude to the budget fight—and the perceived importance of the exemption for continued data center development—in his comments on Monday.

“[The tax revenue] numbers [the county could get from data centers] are staggering,” he said, “if the General Assembly doesn’t screw this up.”

Supes add nearly 3,000 acres to Agricultural and Forestal Districts

Supervisors on Monday held public hearings and voted unanimously to green-light the addition of nearly 3,000 acres to Agricultural and Forestal Districts.

AFDs are a conservation tool that allow landowners to voluntarily prohibit development on their property for 10-year periods. In return, participating parcels are assured 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.

In addition, AFDs place restrictions on local governments’ ability to enact ordinances that “would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or farming and forestry practices,” per state code. They also offer participating parcels limited protection from the use of eminent domain—the ability of government and public utilities to acquire private land for public use.

AFDs have emerged as a key tool in the county’s effort to preserve working rural lands because they provide an opportunity to press pause on development amid burgeoning residential and industrial growth. The districts also help keep large tracts of land intact, thanks to restrictions on divisions and subdivisions.

With Monday’s action, the board expanded five of the county’s 14 AFDs by a combined 2,968 acres, tacking on 2,047 acres to the Ellisville AFD north and west of the Town of Louisa; adding roughly 402 acres to the Gold Mine Creek AFD in northwestern Louisa; expanding the South Anna AFD in south-central Louisa by 413 acres; increasing the Taylors Creek AFD in the southeastern end of the county by about 80 acres; and adding 25 acres to the Indian Creek AFD, also in southeastern Louisa.

The county’s AFD program has grown by about 3,100 acres since the board last September hired Maggie Brakeville as the county’s first agricultural development and land conservation coordinator. Another 2,100 acres are expected to be added over the next couple months, pending board approval.

Board Chair Duane Adams praised Brakeville’s efforts to grow the program. “You’re doing a really great job, so I wanted to commend you on that,” Adams said.

Other business

• Supes move five LCPS capital projects to FY26: Supervisors voted unanimously to move $305,000 earmarked for five capital projects requested by Louisa County Public Schools from the Fiscal Year 2027 Capital Improvement Plan to the budget for this fiscal year. The school board asked supervisors to fund the projects early so they can be completed before the start of the next academic year. They include $140,000 for cafeteria equipment; $75,000 for parking lot repairs and additions; $50,000 for field repairs and replacement; $25,000 for carpet and flooring; and $15,000 for classroom furniture. The money will be drawn from the schools’ long-term capital reserves.

• Board approves county’s participation in proposed opioid-related settlement agreement: Supervisors voted unanimously to approve the county’s participation in a proposed settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit against six pharmaceutical distributors related to their role in the opioid epidemic. The companies, collectively known as the Six Remnant Defendants, agreed to pay more than $97 million to participating local governments for opioid abatement initiatives. By agreeing to participate in the settlement, Louisa County will get .00977 percent of the money, according to County Attorney Patricia Smith, minus attorneys’ fees.

• Board authorizes use of TOT revenue for tourism related expenses: Supervisors greenlit the allocation of $85,160 for tourism related expenses. Of that, $71,000 is earmarked for the Louisa Arts Center and $14,160 is slated for the Louisa County Historical Society (LCHS). The arts center plans to use its money for event costs, including performer fees, and to support the upcoming Queen Legacy concert. The society plans to spend its allocation on programming supplies and advertising and marketing, among other event-related expenses. The money will come from the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), a seven percent levy tacked on to visitors’ bills when they stay the night at a hotel, bed and breakfast or short-term rental. Per state law, a portion of the money generated by the tax must be used for tourism-related expenses.

Share

Board to consider broadening tax relief program for elderly, disabled; BOS expected to allocate funding to fight proposed 765-kV power line

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Monday night will convene for its first May meeting with three public hearings on tap. Here’s a preview.

BOS to consider expanding tax relief program for elderly and disabled

Supervisors on Monday will hold a public hearing and consider changes to a program that offers real estate tax relief to income-eligible elderly and disabled residents. The tweaks would slightly raise the annual income cap to participate, and adjust the sliding scale that determines how much relief a household qualifies for.

Currently, the program provides real estate tax relief to totally disabled residents and residents 65 years old and over whose combined household income falls at or below $50,000 a year and whose net worth, excluding their home and 10 acres, falls at or below $200,000. It caps the amount of tax relief annually available to participating households at $3,000.

The county provides the relief based on a sliding scale. Residents with a combined household income up to $18,000 and with a net worth up to $70,000 are eligible for an up to 100 percent exemption. At the other end of the scale, residents who make between $40,001 and $50,000 a year and whose net worth is between $150,001 and $200,000 are eligible for an up to 45 percent tax break.

The proposed changes, which were recommended by staff and the board’s Finance Committee, would increase to $55,000 the program’s annual income limit and up the income thresholds that, in part, determine how much tax relief residents get.

For example, households with an annual income of up to $19,800 and a net worth of $70,000 or less would be eligible for 100 percent tax relief while residents who make between $44,001 and $55,000 and have a net worth between $150,001 and $200,000 would get a 45 percent reduction. The amount of relief would still be capped at $3,000 a year.

The proposed tweaks are aimed at easing the burden of rising real estate taxes on some of the county’s most vulnerable residents.

Though the board has maintained a level real estate tax rate of 72 cents per $100 of assessed value for about a decade, many homeowners have seen their tax bills soar in the face of rising assessments. The assessed value of the county’s real estate, excluding new construction and improvements, has jumped about 48 percent since 2022. It climbed, on average, 6.88 percent this year.

During the last several budget cycles, many residents have urged the board to slash the tax rate to offset the increase in assessments, contending their rising taxes are unsustainable. But supervisors have resisted those calls and instead opted for more modest and targeted tax relief.

The board has broadened the tax relief program three times in the last five years. Over the last few years, supervisors have increased by $2,000 the maximum tax break allowed under the program.

Finance Director Wanda Colvin said at the Finance Committee meeting late last month that she isn’t sure how the proposed changes to the program would impact the county’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget because it’s unclear how many more residents will qualify for relief and how many will be eligible for a larger tax break.

Supervisors last week adopted a $201 million spending plan for FY27. They’ll formally appropriate the budget on Monday night.

To learn more about the tax relief program, call the Commissioner of the Revenue’s Office at 540-967-3432.

Supervisors expected to allocate $250k to fight proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line

Though the item isn’t on the board’s advertised agenda, supervisors on Monday night are expected to allocate $250,000 to fight Valley Link Transmission Company’s proposed Joshua Falls to Yeat transmission line.

If approved by state regulators, the 115-mile, 765-kilovolt (kV) power line would slice through as many as nine mostly rural localities, including Louisa, delivering electricity generated in the Ohio River Valley to power-hungry users in Northern and Central Virginia, especially data centers.

Board Chair Duane Adams confirmed to Engage Louisa that supervisors are set to add the allocation to the agenda at Monday’s meeting and earmark the money to help cover legal expenses to support efforts to block the line and press the State Corporation Commission (SCC) to consider alternatives. The commission ultimately has the power to approve the infrastructure.

The line has sparked widespread opposition from residents in Louisa and the eight other potentially impacted localities—Fluvanna, Buckingham, Orange, Spotsylvania, Culpeper, Goochland, Appomattox and Campbell—with some arguing that rural land is being sacrificed to feed data development to the north.

Valley Link, a joint venture between Dominion Energy, FirstEnergy Transmission and Transource, announced plans to build the line earlier this year. Dominion and its partners say the line, which would require a cleared 200-foot right-of-way and poles as high as 160 feet every quarter mile, is necessary to meet the burgeoning demand for power across the region and to stabilize the grid.

Valley Link has shared two potential corridors for the line and a handful of variations. The proposed routes cut through farms and forestland and pass by neighborhoods and schools en route from the Joshua Falls substation in Campbell to the proposed Yeat substation in southeastern Culpeper.

Valley Link plans to settle on a single preferred route in the coming months and submit its plan to the SCC for approval in September. At that point, stakeholders, including impacted localities, will have an opportunity to make their case for why the company’s proposal isn’t the right fit and to present alternatives.

Louisa and several localities have made clear that they plan to take their fight to the SCC, potentially as a united front. County leaders from eight of the potentially impacted counties gathered for a summit in Louisa in early April to strategize about ways they could work together to oppose the project. While no concrete plans for regional cooperation have been publicly shared, Louisa County said in a press release that the meeting “highlighted a willingness to cooperate regionally.”

In a sign that a regional coalition could be taking shape, Louisa, Fluvanna, Goochland, Orange and Culpeper last week filed a Joint Motion to Intervene and Protest in a case pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that could potentially play a role Valley Link’s effort to secure approval for the line.

Louisa isn’t the only locality that’s ponying up money to fund its opposition. The Goochland County Board of Supervisors last month allocated $250,000 for the same purpose. In a press release, the county said that the money would be used for a range of initiatives, including “collaboration with community members who have offered to assist the Board and the engagement of professional and technical experts to advise the Board.”

“These efforts are intended to ensure that Goochland County’s interests are clearly represented and that potential impacts to the community are thoroughly evaluated,” the release said.

Aside from the anticipated action on Monday night, Louisa County officials have taken other steps to advocate against the project. Supervisors last month passed a resolution expressing strong opposition to the roughly 20-mile segment proposed to traverse the county.

In addition, local officials are preparing to approve an addendum to the county’s Comprehensive Plan that articulates guidelines for future transmission infrastructure. The guidelines prioritize the use of existing utility corridors as well as public right of ways along roads. They also encourage new transmission line corridors to avoid or minimize impacts on residential areas, agricultural and forestal lands, scenic and environmental resources, conservation easements and historic sites.

A county’s Comprehensive Plan is a long-range planning document that lays out a vision for future development, establishing guidelines for land use, infrastructure and public services. Per state law, the SCC is required to consider proposed transmission lines’ conformance with local comp plans when deciding whether to green-light projects.

The planning commission will hold a public hearing on the addendum at its May 14 meeting while the board of supervisors will consider the item at its May 18 meeting.

Supes to consider CUP for farmers’ market near Zion Crossroads

A farmers’ market could be coming to Zion Crossroads.

Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider whether to approve Zion United Methodist Church’s request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a year-round farmers’ market in the church’s parking lot at 1674 Zion Road.

The 5.68-acre parcel is zoned agricultural and straddles the boundary of the Zion Crossroads Growth Area Overlay District.

Per a set of “Guiding Procedures” prepared by the church, the market would operate only on Saturdays, opening no earlier than 10 am and closing no later than 4 pm. It would have no more than 13 vendors and offer free food distribution via the church’s food pantry. The church would also abide by a county-approved parking plan.

Pastor David McWilliams told the planning commission at its March meeting that he envisions the market as a space to foster community.

“More so than just being a market, we’d want to be a third space for community. A third space is basically a place where a community gathers outside of home and work,” McWilliams said, adding that the church hopes to bring in food trucks, use its playgrounds and host live music.

McWilliams noted that the church would likely host the market only on select Saturdays and during warmer months, but it’s asking for permission to hold a weekly market year-round so the event has room to grow.

Community Development Department staff recommended 11 conditions as part of the CUP, including that the church adhere to the “Guiding Procedures” submitted as part of its application, prohibit fireworks and amplified outdoor music and bar vendors peddling mass produced or multi-level marketing items.

The commission voted unanimously to recommend that supervisors approve the CUP.

Board to hold public hearing on VDOT’s six-year secondary road plan

Supervisors will hold a public hearing and consider approval of the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Road System Construction in Louisa County.

Developed in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the plan covers road improvements in the secondary system from 2026-27 through 2031-32, earmarking between $171,356 and $254,457 a year for improvements for a total projected allocation of roughly $1.366 million.

The funds are drawn from the state’s Rural Rustic Program, which is specifically aimed at improving or paving unpaved public roads that carry more than 50 vehicles per day, and “telefee” funds, money paid by telecommunications companies that use public right of ways.

The plan earmarks funding to upgrade or improve several unpaved roads and for traffic and engineering services, including speed studies, signage and incidental work.

The plan includes funding to pave or improve parts of the following roads over the next five years: West Green Springs Road; Harts Mill Road; Poplar Avenue; New Anna Road; Thurston Road; Turners Mill Road; Old Bickley Town Road; and Two County Lane.

Other business

• Supervisors to appropriate FY27 budget: After adopting the Fiscal Year 2027 budget last week, supervisors on Monday night will formally appropriate $186.4 million to cover the daily costs of running county government in the coming fiscal year and $14.6 million for capital projects.

• Supervisors to hear presentation from Louisa County Historical Society: Supervisors will hear a presentation from the Louisa County Historical Society. The nonprofit organization is set to receive $24,000 in county support as part of the FY27 budget.

Share

Louisa Town Council welcomes Craig, says goodbye to Purcell

The Louisa Town Council last week said hello to one member and goodbye to another.

At a special meeting Tuesday night, council voted 3-1 to appoint Graven Craig to temporarily fill the seat vacated by Daniel Crawford. Craig will serve until a special election in November to fill the remainder of Crawford’s term, which runs through 2028. Crawford resigned in March to move back to his native southwest Virginia.

Craig’s appointment was followed, at the end of the meeting, by the resignation of council’s longest-serving member: John Jerl Purcell IV. Purcell, who has been on council for nearly eight years, said that he resigned because he plans to move to a home outside the town limits.

In a letter of resignation shared at the meeting, Purcell said that it had been an honor to serve on the body and touted the town’s efforts to improve its utility infrastructure during his tenure.

“During my two terms, I have been grateful for the opportunity to contribute to several important initiatives. I am particularly proud of the progress made toward strengthening the financial stability of the town’s utility funds and advancing the continued improvement of both the water and sewer systems. Through engineered assessments and long-range planning, we have laid the groundwork for ongoing modernization of critical infrastructure, and I remain hopeful that these efforts will support the long-term health, resilience, and well-being of the community,” Purcell wrote.

Council instructed staff to advertise the vacancy and set a May 8 deadline for town residents to apply to temporarily fill the seat. Purcell’s term expires at the end of the year, and the seat is on the ballot this November.

Craig, council’s newest member, is well known to many town residents, having lived and raised a family in the community for more than 20 years and practiced law in the town for almost 30. He’s currently a partner in the Main Street law firm Craig Williams, where he litigates criminal and civil cases.

Craig also has deep roots in local Republican politics. He’s a former chair of the Louisa County Republican Committee and twice ran in Republican primaries of House of Delegates.

While Craig was the only citizen who applied to fill the vacancy, his appointment wasn’t without controversy and appeared to divide residents in the Tanyard neighborhood where he resides.

Rick Meyer, president of the Tanyard Property Owners Association (POA), submitted written comment just prior to Tuesday’s meeting, urging council not to select Craig. Meyer suggested that Craig had a conflict of interest because his law partner, attorney and developer Torrey Williams, is suing the town. The suit stems from council’s decision early last year to deny a special use permit that would’ve cleared the way for Williams to build a pair of duplexes on Barnstormer Circle across the street from other multi-family dwellings.

The property is, in part, owned by a company operated by Williams’ father, Toni Williams, who represents the Jackson District on the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

“We have been trying for over two years to prevent duplexes [from] being built in our neighborhood. Thanks to council’s vote to deny a special use permit for the entity that Mr. Torrey Williams represented, we did. Mr. Willams has subsequently filed [a] suit against the town and the town council that is still pending [with] a court hearing June 1, the third postponement since last August. Mr. Craig is a law partner of Mr. Williams,” Meyer wrote.

Meyer wrote that Craig recently attended the Tanyard POA’s annual meeting where his actions “indicated that he would like to see the suit prevail.” According to Meyer, Craig derailed an effort by the POA to adopt restrictive covenants that would’ve prohibited new duplexes in the subdivision.

Meyer expressed concern that Craig wouldn’t be “impartial” in decisions about proposed development and its potential impact on residents and businesses.

“[Craig] has had no concerns or involvements in the past about the flooding issues, the sewer issues, traffic issues that we have had in our neighborhood. Now he wants to be on town council for 6 months,” Meyer wrote.

But two other Tanyard residents voiced support for Craig prior to Tuesday’s meeting with one praising his conduct at a recent POA meeting. In a letter, Diane McCourt said Craig had worked to deescalate tensions at the meeting and, in her view, exhibited the skills necessary to be an effective public servant.

“While I have not known Graven for a long period of time, I had the opportunity to meet him during a recent [POA] meeting where discussions around neighborhood guidelines became somewhat tense. What stood out to me was his ability to remain calm, thoughtful, and grounded in his approach. He consistently spoke in a rational and respectful manner, with a clear focus on finding common ground rather than escalating disagreement,” McCourt wrote. “In fact, he proactively offered to help form a collaborative group to bring different perspectives together and deescalate the situation; an approach that reflects the kind of leadership and temperament I believe is essential for public service.”

Before voting on the appointment, Council Member Roger Henry asked Craig about Meyer’s concerns. Craig said that he isn’t directly involved in Williams’ litigation, and he doesn’t believe it presents a conflict.

“I don’t have a conflict of interest in that particular matter because I have nothing to do with it other than that my law firm represents the parties that own the lots,” Craig said.

Craig also pushed back on Meyer’s contention that his action at the POA meeting indicated support for William’s lawsuit. He said that he merely offered his opinion that the town was unlikely to prevail in its effort to convince the court to dismiss the case based on the comments the judge made when he scheduled the hearing.

With respect to some residents’ push to amend the subdivision’s covenants to block duplexes, Craig said he advised the POA that the move could invite a legal challenge, noting there are already duplexes in Tanyard.

“He commented that I swayed some votes, and I’m glad I did because I’m trying to save the [POA] from litigation,” Craig said, adding, “I think that’s the one thing I bring to council. This is what I do for a living, and I, hopefully, can maybe head off some problems that we might walk into.”

Craig’s answers appeared to satisfy most council members. Henry, Purcell and Sylvia Rigsby voted in favor of his appointment while Tanyard resident Vicky Harte opposed.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, April 27 through May 2

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Monday, April 27

Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. The board will convene in closed session at 5 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)

Tuesday, April 28

Human Services Advisory Board, 114 Industrial Ave., Louisa, 10:30 am.

Other meetings/events

Wednesday, April 29

Louisa Town Council, special meeting, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda)

Share

Quote of the week

“Louisa County provides excellent core public services, and this budget builds on those services, including a step increase for teachers, salary increases for county and school employees, and increased funding for new positions needed to meet the demands of a growing community.”

-County Administrator Christian Goodwin in a memo discussing the county’s proposed $201 million budget for Fiscal Year 2027. Read more about the spending plan in the article below.

Supervisors poised to adopt $201 million budget for Fiscal Year 2027; In push to preserve working rural land, board to consider expanding AFDs

After a three-week hiatus, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors will convene on Monday night with a relatively busy agenda on tap. Most notably, supervisors will adopt the Fiscal Year 2027 Operational and Maintenance Budget and Capital Improvement Plan and a slate of local tax rates. They’ll also hold five public hearings, all focused on expanding Agricultural and Forestal Districts.

Board to adopt FY27 budget, tax rates

Supervisors on Monday night are poised to adopt a $201 million budget for Fiscal Year 2027, comprised of $186.37 million for operations and maintenance and $14.68 million for capital projects.

The new fiscal year kicks off July 1.

The budget is about seven percent, or $13.45 million, more than this year’s spending plan, driven by an $11.5 million, or 6.6 percent, increase in the daily costs of running county government, and a $1.9 million, or roughly 15 percent, jump in capital spending, which covers big ticket items and large-scale maintenance projects.

To help fund its spending, the board is expected to implement the same real estate tax rate that the county’s had since 2016—72 cents per $100 of assessed value.

If the board sticks with that rate, many homeowners will see their bills rise as the assessed value of real estate, excluding new construction and improvements, increased an average of 6.88 percent this year. The board would have to lower the rate to about 67.4 cents to offset the jump in assessments. Real estate taxes are determined by multiplying a property’s assessed value by the tax rate.

Last year, supervisors chose to provide a 2.4-cent rebate on real estate taxes to ease the pain of rising assessments, which are based on market values and have soared about 40 percent countywide over the last four years. But, the board’s Finance Committee, which includes Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams and Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, hasn’t recommended doing that this time around.

Instead, Adams and Williams are expected to recommend that the board slash the personal property tax rate by 15 percent, reducing the levy residents pay on cars, trucks and boats from $2.43 per $100 to $2.07.

Both men have signaled throughout the budget process that they wanted to lower personal property taxes for individuals, but it wasn’t clear exactly how they’d get that done—via a rate reduction or a rebate. The county had advertised a level personal property tax rate and the draft budget includes a one-time 15 percent rebate, indicating that might’ve been the path forward.

But Williams said at the Finance Committee’s meeting last week that he plans to make a motion on Monday to lower the rate. That’s significant because increasing the rate in a future budget cycle would require a vote to raise taxes, a trickier political move than forgoing a rebate.

“Somebody would have to physically vote to raise it back up,” Willliams said.

Williams and Adams have touted the proposed rate cut as the first step in a four-year plan to eliminate the personal property tax. But accomplishing that goal would likely involve a combination of rate cuts and rebates due to a stipulation in state law that bars localities from setting their personal property tax rate for individuals below their levy on businesses. The county taxes most business personal property (BPP) at $1.90 per $100 and, to date, supervisors haven’t shown any interest in lowering that rate.

Williams and Adams contend that eliminating the personal property tax for individuals, via incremental reductions and rebates, is within their grasp thanks to anticipated revenue from data center development. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is in the process of building two data center campuses in the Technology Overlay District and EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure plans to develop a campus at the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park.

As those projects are built out, the county expects to see significant revenue from real estate taxes on the giant warehouse-like buildings and BPP taxes on the pricey computer equipment inside. Finance Director Wanda Colvin has projected that the AWS campuses alone could produce more than $36 million in new revenue in FY31 with that figure rising to more than $60 million annually over the next decade.

The county taxes data center equipment at a reduced BPP of $1.25 per $100 and uses an accelerated depreciation schedule to determine its taxable value. The county is on the hook to return to AWS at least 15 percent of the local taxes it pays over the next 25 years, contingent on the tech giant’s level of capital investment. The county has agreed to return 15 percent of EdgeCore’s tax payments too, through 2041 or up to $15 million, whichever comes first.

The Finance Committee is also expected to recommend expanding a real estate tax relief program that benefits income-eligible elderly and disabled residents. The proposed changes increase, from $50,000 to $55,000, the annual income limit for eligibility and tweak the sliding scale that determines how much tax relief participants receive. The county has advertised a public hearing on the changes for the board’s May 4 meeting. (See below for more information).

The board plans to retain level rates for other local taxes, including the $1.90 BPP, the $1.25 rate for data center equipment, a $1.90 rate for machinery and tools, a 65-cent rate for merchant’s capital and a 48-cent rate for aircrafts.

Budget breakdown

Of the $186.4 million allotted for operations and maintenance—the cost to run county government from day to day—the lion’s share goes to Louisa County Public Schools. The budget sends more than $103 million to the school division, about 55 percent of the county’s operating expenses, with about half that coming from local funds.

The school division’s budget is roughly 5.3 percent more than this year. Driving the increase is 12 new teaching and support positions, six of which were added ahead of the current academic year, and a three percent pay hike for staff plus a step—a pay bump based on an employee’s years of service.

County employees are also set to receive a three percent raise. In addition, the county and schools are on the hook for a 16.7 percent jump in the employer portion of employees’ health insurance costs.

The operating budget dedicates about $28.7 million, or 15.4 percent of its spending, to public safety, which covers the costs of running the Fire and EMS Department and sheriff’s office. Spending on public safety is expected to rise 9.2 percent in the coming fiscal year with six new sheriff’s deputies and an additional dispatcher pushing the costs upward.

The spending plan allocates $14.65 million to health and welfare, including the county’s Human Services Department; $8.4 million to General Services, which covers routine maintenance costs and funds the animal shelter, landfill and other services; and $3.56 million for parks, recreations and cultural expenses, which mostly pays for the Parks and Rec Department.

“Louisa County provides excellent core public services, and this budget builds on those services, including a step increase for teachers, salary increases for county and school employees, and increased funding for new positions needed to meet the demands of a growing community,” County Administrator Christian Goodwin said in a memo in the proposed budget.

Of the $14.68 million allotted for capital projects, about a third is slated for General Services with another third split between the Fire and EMS Department and the schools. About $1.6 million will be deposited in long-term reserves—essentially savings for future projects.

General Services plans to spend just over $2 million on an expansion at the Louisa County Animal Shelter and another $867,000 on a maintenance shop for the Parks and Rec grounds crew. The school division intends to use most of its money for new school buses, technology upgrades and maintenance projects while the FEMS Departments plans to buy new vehicles and equipment and renovate one of its stations.

The capital budget is undergoing a few late-game tweaks. The board on Monday night is expected to move $305,000 in school capital projects to the current fiscal year so they can be completed over the summer. That move is already reflected in the proposed budget.

To fund its daily operations, the county expects to pull in just over $201 million in revenue, leaving a roughly $14.6 million operating surplus. The board plans to use that money to cover its capital costs.

The county pulls its operating revenue from a variety of sources with about 54 percent generated by general property taxes, 28.9 percent derived from state and federal sources and 9.37 percent sourced from other local taxes.

Even with the proposed cut in the personal property tax, revenue from general property taxes is expected to increase more than 12 percent over FY26, primarily driven by the increased value of real estate and new construction. Money from other local taxes is expected to rise more than 14 percent, thanks, in part, to escalating revenues from levies on sales and lodging.

Looking ahead

After adoption, the budget will likely see additional tweaks. Lawmakers in Richmond are still negotiating a two-year state budget, which will determine exactly how much money the county gets for schools and other state-supported services. And the board is free to approve budget supplements throughout the year to cover unforeseen expenses or make up for a decrease in anticipated revenue.

As of early April, the county had nearly $8 million in unrestricted money in its General Fund. It held $54 million in long-term capital reserves with $33 million of that earmarked for water and wastewater upgrades. The school division has $12.4 million in its capital reserves, which is expected to help fund a fifth elementary school. Supervisors have tentatively earmarked $52 million for that project in the Fiscal Year 2028 capital budget.

Check out the proposed FY27 budget here.

In rural preservation push, board to consider expanding Ag and Forestal Districts

Supervisors on Monday night could take a step forward in their effort to preserve the county’s farms and forestland by green-lighting the addition of nearly 3,000 acres to Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFDs).

The board will hold public hearings focused on expanding five AFDs, mostly in north-central and southeastern Louisa. The public hearings and affirmative votes by the board would clear the way for additions to the Ellisville, Gold Mine Creek, South Anna, Indian Creek and Taylors Creek districts.

AFDs are a conservation tool that allow landowners to voluntarily prohibit development on their property for 10-year periods. The districts have emerged as a key tool in the county’s efforts to preserve working rural land because they offer an opportunity to press pause on new development amid burgeoning residential and industrial growth. The districts also keep large tracts of land in tact, thanks to restrictions on divisions and subdivisions.

Since the 2020 census, Louisa County has ranked among the five fastest growing localities in the state based on percentage of population growth, a consequence of its proximity to three cities—Charlottesville, Richmond and Fredericksburg—and its affordability relative to surrounding localities.

From July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025, the county added nearly 1,000 residents, per the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, and its population now tops 42,000. County officials have said that much of its growth—in the form of new home construction—is coming in its rural areas.

“The county is undergoing some tremendous change right now. We’ve already undergone a lot…I would venture to bet you that [the Jackson District] probably has the most residential new construction…county-wide,” Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams said at a meeting earlier this year, noting that his district is the only one that doesn’t include an area designated for growth. “We’ve probably almost lost the county. We've got to do some things if we're going to maintain some of the rural nature.”

To bulk up its tax base, supervisors have embraced large-scale industrial projects, which have also contributed to the loss of working rural lands. Over the last few years, the board has green-lit more than 2,000 acres for data center development, mostly land that was formerly used for timber production.

Now county officials say they want to dedicate some of the tax revenue anticipated from data centers to preserving farms and forests. Last September, the board took an initial step, hiring Maggie Brakeville as its first land development and agricultural conservation coordinator. The board tasked Brakeville, a Louisiana native with a law degree from the University of Kansas, with identifying ways to preserve farm and timberland and working with stakeholders to implement county-approved conservation measures.

Over the last eight months, Brakeville has worked to grow the county’s 14 AFDs. She hosted a pair of informational meetings with the cooperative extension office, which, in part, focused on educating property owners about the initiative. She’s also contacted landowners with property already enrolled in the districts to remind them of the opportunity to include additional parcels and let them know about other potential conservation efforts.

That outreach has yielded significant fruit. The board of supervisors recently added 100 acres to AFDs in response to landowner requests. Supervisors will consider adding 2,968 acres on Monday with another 2,139 acres set to begin the public approval process in May.

But Brakeville’s ideas for the AFD program are far bigger. At public meetings, she’s pitched the program as the foundation for a larger rural preservation project—what she’s describes as a lease of development rights initiative—in which landowners voluntarily agree to keep their property as farm or forestland for a 10-year period and, in exchange, receive cash payments from the county. Enrolling property in an AFD would be a prerequisite for eligibility.

Brakeville has said that she modeled the program after purchase of development rights initiatives (PDR), a conservation tool utilized by more than a dozen localities statewide. Generally, PDR programs enable landowners to sell residential and industrial development rights on farm and forestland to a locality while maintaining ownership and continuing to use the land. Through the acquisition of development rights, the programs essentially conserve farms and forestland in perpetuity, limiting future uses.

Brakeville has called her proposal a “termed PDR.” Landowners would sign a 10-year contract with the county, agreeing not to develop their land, among other stipulations, and, in return, receive a set amount of compensation per acre annually. Brakeville has said the program could serve as a bridge to permanent conservation easements with the goal of preserving farms for future generations.

By offering cash payments, the termed PDR program would provide more incentive for property owners to forgo development. Currently, the AFD program guarantees that participating parcels are enrolled in the county’s land use taxation program, which reduces real estate taxes on farm and timberland. But the land use program is open to any property that meets its criteria and isn’t an exclusive benefit of enrolling in an AFD. The AFD program also offers limited protection from county-imposed regulations on agricultural activities and, in some instances, the use of eminent domain.

County officials are still trying to figure out the logistics of a termed PDR, especially its funding mechanism. To jumpstart the program, Finance Director Wanda Colvin said at the Finance Committee meeting last week that the county could potentially tap some $900,000 in building permit fees, courtesy of Amazon Web Services’ data center projects. By state law, that money must be used by the Community Development Department. The program would fall under the department’s purview.

From there, the county would likely look to sustain the program over the long-term with tax revenue from data centers, including real estate taxes on the buildings and business personal property taxes on the pricey computer equipment inside.

But county officials made clear during the meeting that getting the program off the ground involves a lot of moving parts, and it’s unclear when it will be ready for consideration by the board of supervisors.

Williams emphasized that a termed PDR program hasn’t been tried anywhere in the state, so the county is charting new territory. He also noted that the program would be part of a larger effort to preserve rural land, including potential changes to the zoning code.

“This is cutting edge stuff. Nobody’s doing this…We need to figure out how all the pieces come together. I want to roll out a comprehensive plan…that, hopefully, makes an impactful difference to curb development [in rural areas] and pushes it to growth areas,” Williams said.

One of the key sticking points, he suggested, is how the county will ensure it has funding for the program over the 10-year contract period. It’s also unclear how much money the county would pay out to participating landowners and how it would decide which properties get funding if it doesn’t have resources to pay every landowner who applies.

Brakeville has floated the possibility of prioritizing parcels based on their acreage, number of division rights and road frontage thus maximizing the program’s preservation potential. Unlike AFDs, which are open to property regardless of its zoning or inclusion in a designated growth area, the program could be limited to agriculturally zoned properties and properties outside of growth areas, she’s said.

As county officials continue to work on the program’s logistics, Brakeville’s busy bringing more parcels into AFDs as evidenced by the five public hearings on Monday’s agenda.

Read more about the proposed AFD additions here and here.

Board to discuss potential changes to tax relief program for elderly and disabled residents

Supervisors will discuss potential changes to a program that offers real estate tax relief to income-eligible elderly and disabled residents, including slightly raising the annual income limit to participate and adjusting the sliding scale that determines how much relief a household qualifies for.

Currently, the program provides real estate tax relief to totally disabled residents and residents 65 years old and over whose combined household income falls at or below $50,000 a year and whose net worth, excluding their home and 10 acres, falls at or below $200,000. It caps the amount of tax relief annually available to participating households at $3,000.

The county provides the relief based on a sliding scale. Residents with a combined household income less than $18,000 and with a net worth less than $70,000 are eligible for an up to 100 percent exemption. At the other end of the scale, residents who make between $40,001 and $50,000 a year and whose net worth is between $150,001 and $200,000 are eligible for an up to 45 percent tax break.

A proposal shared by the board’s Finance Committee last week would increase to $55,000 the program’s annual income limit and increase the income thresholds that, in part, determine how much tax relief residents get.

For example, households with an annual income of up to 19,800 and a net worth of 70,000 or less would be eligible for 100 percent tax relief while residents who make between $44,001 and $55,000 and have a net worth between $150,001 and $200,000 would get a 45 percent reduction. The amount of relief would still be capped at $3,000.

The proposed tweaks are aimed at easing the burden of rising real estate taxes on some of the county’s most vulnerable residents.

Making changes to the program requires a public hearing and an affirmative vote by the board. The county has advertised a public hearing for the supervisors’ May 4 meeting.

To learn more about the tax relief program, call the Commissioner of the Revenue’s Office at 540-967-3432.

Supes to move three LCPS capital projects to FY26

Supervisors are set to appropriate $305,000 to Louisa County Public Schools for three capital projects.

The money was initially part of the Fiscal Year 2027 budget, but the school board requested it sooner so the division can complete the projects before the start of 2026-27 academic year.

The division plans to tap $140,000 to replace cafeteria equipment; $75,000 for parking lot repairs and additions; $50,000 for field repairs and replacement; $25,000 for carpet and flooring; and $15,000 for classroom furniture.

The county will draw the money from the school division’s long-term capital reserves.

Board to approve county’s participation in proposed opioid-related settlement agreement

Supervisors are expected to approve the county’s participation in a proposed settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit against six pharmaceutical distributors related to their role in the opioid epidemic.

The companies, collectively known as the Six Remnant Defendants, have agreed to pay more than $97 million to participating local governments for opioid abatement initiatives. By agreeing to participate in the settlement, Louisa County would get a slice of that money, but it’s unclear how much.

“The County seeks recovery of the public funds previously expended and to be expended in the future to abate the consequences and harms of the opioid epidemic,” the proposed resolution says.

Board to authorize TOT revenue for tourism related expenses

Supervisors are poised to green-light the allocation of $85,160 for tourism related expenses. The money will come from the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT).

Of that, $71,000 is earmarked for the Louisa Arts Center and $14,160 is slated for the Louisa County Historical Society (LCHS). The arts center plans to use its money for event costs, including performer fees, and to support the upcoming Queen Legacy concert. The society plans to spend its allocation on programming supplies and advertising and marketing, among other event-related expenses.

The board of supervisors provides funding to the arts center and LCHS via its annual budget process. For the coming fiscal year, supervisors suggested pulling some of the allocation from revenue generated by the Transient Occupancy Tax, instead of from the county’s General Fund. The Tourism Advisory Committee, which is tasked with advising the board on how to spend TOT revenue, subsequently recommended using the money for the purposes the board suggested.

The committee also recommended supporting the concert, contingent upon the art center developing a revenue-sharing model with the county in which the county receives a portion of ticket revenue for sales exceeding 350 tickets.

The TOT is a seven percent levy that’s tacked onto visitors’ bills when they stay the night at a local hotel, bed and breakfast or short-term rental. Under state law, the county must use about 40 percent of the money generated by the tax on tourism related endeavors. Per the proposed resolution, the county expects to have more than $862,000 in TOT revenue for tourism initiatives in FY27.

Share

Amid legal challenges, voters narrowly approve redistricting plan

Virginia voters last Tuesday narrowly approved an amendment to the state’s constitution that, if enacted, opens the door to mid-decade redistricting. The measure would allow lawmakers in Richmond to temporarily implement a new congressional district map that could net Democrats an additional four seats in the narrowly divided House of Representatives in high-stakes mid-term elections this fall. The map would move Louisa County from the Republican-friendly 5th Congressional District to the Democrat-friendly 7th.

But on the heels of the amendment’s approval, a circuit court judge blocked certification of the vote, contending that the process used to place the referendum before voters was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Virginia is ultimately expected to decide if the new map takes effect.

According to unofficial results from the Virginia Department of Elections, the amendment won support from 51.6 percent of voters while about 48.4 percent opposed, good for a roughly 99,000-vote victory out of nearly 3.1 million ballots cast. The contest, which could tip control of Congress and gain Democrats an edge in a redistricting war with Republicans, drew high turnout for an out-of-season special election with nearly half of the state’s registered voters weighing in.

The amendment would allow Democrats, who control the General Assembly, to put in place a congressional district map that includes 10 districts that favor their party and only one that favors Republicans, suspending an anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment backed by Virginians in 2020 that established a bipartisan commission to draw congressional and state legislative districts. Currently, six Democrats represent the state in Congress to five Republicans.

The proposed map would stand through 2030 when the current redistricting process would be restored.

For months, Democrats urged Virginians to vote “yes” on the referendum, framing it as a way to rein in President Donald Trump and counter Republican moves in Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere to adopt new maps that benefit their party. Trump has urged Republican-controlled states to enact partisan gerrymanders, via mid-decade redistricting, in hopes of retaining control of the House this fall.

Democrats celebrated Tuesday’s vote as a win for fairness and a check on the president.

“Virginia voters have spoken, and tonight they approved a temporary measure to push back against a President who claims he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress. Virginians watched other states go along with those demands without voter input — and we refused to let that stand. We responded the right way: at the ballot box. I understand the urgency of winning congressional seats as a check on this President, and I look forward to campaigning with candidates across the Commonwealth working to earn Virginians’ trust — and their votes,” Governor Abigial Spanberger (D) said in a statement.

But Republicans have vowed to continue the fight in court. Prior to last week’s election, they’d already filed multiple lawsuits, mostly arguing that Democrats didn’t follow proper procedure in advancing the amendment and that the language on Tuesday’s ballot was misleading. The Virginia Supreme Court agreed to hear legal challenges but not until after voters weighed in.

On Wednesday, Republicans scored a court victory when a Tazwell County judge paused certification of the vote. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones (D) immediately appealed. The Supreme Court of Virginia will hear oral arguments in the redistricting cases this Monday.

“While these weren’t the results we were hoping for, they were not unexpected. From the start, this process was tilted: misleading ballot language and a massive spending advantage made this an uphill climb for voters trying to make sense of a deeply complicated issue. But the ballot box was never the final word here. Serious legal questions remain about both the wording of this referendum and the process used to put it before voters. Those questions have not been resolved, and they now move where they belong: to the courts. Tonight marks the end of the campaign. It does not mark the end of this fight,” Del. Terry Kilgore, the top-ranking Republican in the House of Delegates, said in a post-election statement.

Should the new map take effect, Louisa County will be moved from the 5th Congressional District to the 7th. The current 5th, represented by one-term incumbent John McGuire, R-Goochland, is a Republican-friendly district covering a broad swath of central and southside Virginia. The proposed 7th is a Democrat-friendly district, stretching from Arlington south to Powhatan, taking in part of vote-rich Fairfax County along the way. The district, which covers all or part of 16 localities, also pushes west, grabbing part of the Shenandoah Valley.

McGuire campaigned heavily against the amendment in the run-up to the special election, attending rallies across Central Virginia where he and other Republicans characterized the measure as an unconstitutional power grab aimed at robbing rural Virginians of their voice in Washington while consolidating power in the state’s urban crescent, particularly Northern Virginia.

In an email to supporters on Thursday, McGuire reiterated his commitment to representing the 5th District and expressed confidence that the state Supreme Court would block the new map.

“We expect the Virginia Supreme Court to do its constitutional duty and uphold the lower court ruling on the redistricting referendum as unconstitutional and illegal. Until then, I will continue to campaign and represent the amazing people of the current Fifth District…It is an honor to serve you and your family,” McGuire said.

While supporters of the amendment prevailed statewide, bolstered by backing in vote-rich and bright blue Northern Virginia, residents in more conservative, rural areas, including Louisa, turned out in high numbers to oppose the measure.

According to unofficial results, Louisa voters opposed the amendment nearly two to one, with about 66.1 percent casting “no” votes and 33.8 percent voting “yes.”

The “no” campaign cruised to victory in 13 of the county’s 14 precincts, scoring its largest win in Jackson where it garnered support from 76.7 percent of voters to the “yes” campaign’s 23.3 percent. Jackson covers of a slice of eastern Louisa.

Supporters of the referendum prevailed only in Patrick Henry 1, winning 52.9 percent of the vote to opponents’ 47.1 percent. Patrick Henry 1 covers a swath of south-central and southwestern Louisa, traditionally the county’s most Democrat-friendly terrain.

About 55 percent of Louisa’s nearly 32,500 registered voters turned out for the special election, nearly six percent fewer than participated in last November’s gubernatorial contest. Of those, 47.3 percent voted early in-person or by mail while 52.7 percent voted on Election Day.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.

Share Engage Louisa

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.

This week in county government: public meetings, April 20 through April 25

For the latest information on county meetings, including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here.

Wednesday, April 22

Community Policy Management Team, Executive Boardroom, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.

Finance Committee, Administration Conference Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 3 pm.

Other meetings/events

Tuesday, April 21

Special election for proposed amendment to the Virginia Constitution related to mid-decade redistricting, polling places across Louisa County, 6 am to 7 pm. Click here to find your polling place. Click here for a sample ballot. Read more about the proposed amendment in the article below.

Louisa Town Council, Louisa Town Hall, 212 Fredericksburg Ave., Louisa, 6 pm. (agenda packet)

Share

Quote of the week

“This is not sustainable. My husband just retired from the power plant, and I feel like I’m paying rent back to the county to live in my home.”

-Lake Anna resident and realtor Libby Sandridge at the board of supervisors’ April 6 meeting, expressing concern about real estate assessments around the lake and her rising tax bill.

Board one step closer to adopting proposed $201 million budget for Fiscal Year 2027

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors is one step closer to adopting a budget for the coming fiscal year.

Supervisors at their April 6 meeting held a public hearing on a proposed $201 million spending plan for Fiscal Year 2027, including $186.3 million for operations and maintenance and $14.7 million for capital projects. (meeting video)

The budget is about seven percent, or $13.45 million, more than this year’s spending plan, an increase County Administrator Christian Goodwin tied to inflation and steady residential growth.

“The combination of growth and inflation is driving a lot of what we are seeing right now and what our citizens are feeling in our budget right now,” Goodwin said.

No one weighed in during the public hearing. The board is expected to adopt the budget at its April 27 meeting with the document potentially seeing tweaks between now and then. Fiscal Year 2027 starts July 1.

Spending on schools and public safety drive increase in operating budget

Of the $186.3 million for daily operations, about 70 percent is slated for what some supervisors have called “the core functions of county government”—public education and public safety.

Funding for Louisa County Public Schools (LCPS) totals more than $103 million—a nearly 5.3 percent jump over this fiscal year—and comprises 55 percent of the operating component. Spending on public safety, including the daily costs of running the Louisa County Sheriff’s Office and Fire and EMS Department, takes up another 15.4 percent, or $28.7 million, 9.2 percent more than this year.

In total, operating expenses are up about 6.6 percent over FY26, or $11.8 million, an increase driven by several factors, including compensation hikes for staff plus the rising cost of fringe benefits and new staff positions for both county government and the schools.

The draft budget includes funding for six new sheriff’s deputies; six new positions for LCPS, mostly comprised of support staff; and six teaching positions that were added prior to the start of the academic year. It also includes a three percent raise for county and school staff and covers a 16.7 percent rise in employees’ health insurance premiums.

The budget was initially expected to include a four percent pay increase for county staff. But officials opted to reduce the raise to three percent, saving about $287,000. Roughly $211,000 of that will cover the hike in health insurance, Finance Director Wanda Colvin said in a presentation at the meeting. Staff had initially estimated that health insurance rates would rise about 10 percent and built that assumption into the budget advertised in March.

Capital spending for FY27 sits at $14.7 million, but big expenditures bypass normal budget process

The draft budget includes $14.7 million for capital projects with about a third of that going to the General Services Department, nearly $3 million earmarked for the schools, almost $2.5 million slated for the Fire and EMS Department and about $1.6 million allotted for long-term reserves—essentially savings for future projects.

General Services plans to spend just over $2 million on an expansion at the Louisa County Animal Shelter and another $867,000 on a maintenance shop for the Parks and Rec grounds crew. The school division intends to use most of its money for new school buses, technology upgrades and maintenance projects while the FEMS Departments plans to buy new vehicles and equipment and renovate one of its stations.

While capital expenditures are relatively modest for the coming fiscal year, the board at its April 6 meeting bypassed the normal budget process to approve $37 million for major infrastructure projects, which are set for funding this fiscal year. Those projects haven’t recently been included in the long-range Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), a 20-year roadmap for spending on new buildings, infrastructure projects and other tangible items.

Of the roughly $37 million allocation, $11.5 million is slated to design and install a clarifier at the Ferncliff Water Treatment Plant, a key component of the as-yet-unused plant which was deferred when it was constructed as part of the long-awaited James River Water Project a decade ago. Another $21.5 million is earmarked for an overhaul of the New Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant near Lake Anna. The county bought the troubled facility for $90,000 three years ago with a dated estimate in hand that said it would cost about $7.5 million to upgrade.

The board will tap proceeds from the sale of the Shannon Hill Regional Business Park to data center developer EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure to cover those costs.

Supervisors also reshuffled $3.55 million in funding they had previously allotted for projects at the county’s landfill to buy 450 acres of timberland adjacent to the facility. The board agreed to pay $4.05 million for the property in December and had already remitted a $500,000 deposit. They intend to use the land to expand the landfill as solid waste intake rises.

Board eyes flat real estate tax rate, personal property tax reduction

To fund the budget, the county expects to pull in just over $201 million in revenue from a mix of local, state and federal sources, an 8.6 percent, or $15.9 million, jump over this fiscal year.

Some 54.1 percent of that money is anticipated from general property taxes, including levies on real estate and personal property like cars, trucks and boats. Another 28.9 percent is expected from intergovernmental sources—namely state funding, though that pot is still somewhat in flux as the General Assembly has yet to finalize the biennial state budget.

The board has advertised a slate of level local tax rates, including a 72-cent per $100 of assessed value rate for real estate and a $2.43 per $100 rate for personal property. But the draft budget anticipates a 15 percent reduction in the latter rate, a move championed by the board’s finance committee, which includes Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams and Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams.

While the draft budget says the reduction would come in the form of a rebate, Adams said in an interview earlier this month that he intends to propose a rate cut. Under state law, the board is free to lower the advertised rate but not raise it.

Adams and Williams have said that they’d like to eliminate the personal property tax, colloquially called the car tax, over the next four years via a combination of rate reductions and rebates. The move is possible, they contend, because of anticipated revenue from data center development, including EdgeCore’s project at Shannon Hill and a pair of Amazon Web Services’ (AWS) campuses.

But Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter said last month that he conducted an informal poll of his constituents, and nearly all respondents preferred a rebate on their real estate taxes to a reduced personal property tax bill—at least for this year.

The assessed value of real estate, excluding new construction and improvements, rose an average of 6.88 percent this year, meaning many homeowners will see their tax bills jump if the board retains a flat rate or doesn’t offer a sizable rebate.

McCotter’s district includes most of Lake Anna below the Route 208 bridge where assessments have soared in the last few years. That’s prompted some of his constituents to turn out for public meetings and urge the board to slash the tax rate and the county to re-examine the assessment process.

While the board sets the real estate tax rate as part of the annual budget process, it plays no formal role in assessments. That’s handled by the county assessor’s office, a function of the commissioner of the revenue’s office. The commissioner is one of the county’s five elected constitutional officers.

The assessor’s office values real estate yearly, basing its assessments on fair market value. Its valuations are multiplied by the tax rate to determine levies on real estate.

The board has retained the same real estate tax rate of 72-cent per $100 for a decade even as assessments have climbed about 40 percent county-wide in just the last four years. This year, the county expects to see a 17.3 percent, or $10.8 million, increase in revenue from taxes on homes, buildings and land. Colvin said the jump is driven by rising property values plus new construction.

While no one spoke during the budget public hearing, two of McCotter’s constituents weighed in during the public comment period to raise concerns about assessments and rising taxes. Both argued that assessments around Lake Anna are inconsistent and don’t reflect market values, urging the county to reevaluate the assessment process and contending that their taxes aren’t sustainable.

“One of my neighbor’s [homes] went up 3.4 percent. The one on the other side of me went up nine percent. Mine goes up 17 percent. None of these structures had any changes…I know them all very well,” Lake Anna resident and realtor Libby Sandridge said. “This is not sustainable. My husband just retired from the power plant, and I feel like I’m paying rent back to the county to live in my home.”

Lake Anna resident Kristin Barmoy sounded a similar note. Since 2021, Barmoy said that her tax bill has nearly doubled, a consequence of a rising assessment. But she argued that the county’s valuation doesn't match her home’s market value.

“Our property has not doubled in value in that time,” she said.

Beyond urging the county to adjust the assessment process for lakeside homes, Barmoy asked the board to use anticipated revenue from data center development to deliver tax relief to residents.

“Another request that could help all Louisa County residents is dedicating a significant portion of anticipated Amazon data center windfall to reducing property taxes, not just spending it on more services. We drive by the unsightly [data center] complex every day and deal with traffic delays because of dump trucks entering and exiting on Kentucky Springs Road, deal with mud on the road, deal with slowing down to ride behind street sweepers,” Barmoy said, referencing AWS’s campus by the North Anna Power Station.

In a Facebook post following last year’s budget process, McCotter seemed to share his constituents’ frustration, warning that if changes weren’t made to “the current assessment and budgeting process,” he wouldn’t support future spending plans.

“You heard it first here - this is the last budget I am voting for using the current assessment and budgeting process. Something must change,” McCotter said last May.

In a follow-up interview at the time, McCotter declined to specify what sort of changes he was looking for.

McCotter and his colleagues had little to say about the proposed budget at the April 6 meeting. They’ll have one more chance to weigh in at their April 27 meeting when the spending plan and tax rates are slated for adoption.

Check out the proposed FY27 budget here.

Share

Supervisors clear way for another upscale golf course at Wares Crossroads

With limited discussion, supervisors voted unanimously to approve a rezoning and conditional use permit (CUP) that clears the way for another upscale golf course near Lake Anna, accompanied by high-end dwellings and other amenities.

The board’s action rezones, from A-1 and A-2 to Planned Unit Development (PUD), four tax map parcels, covering 394 acres (tmp 28-97D, 28-97E, 29-3, 29-2), near the corner of Zachary Taylor Highway (Route 522) and New Bridge Road (Route 208) at Wares Crossroads. The rezoning and CUP permit Wares Crossroads Development, LLC to build up to 134 residential dwellings, a 19-hole golf course and other amenities, running the gamut from a distillery to an indoor shooting range.

The property is in the Mineral Election District and the Lake Anna Growth Area Overlay District. It’s designated for mixed-use development on the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

Wares Crossroads Development is a subsidiary of Utah-based Reef Capital Partners. The firm is well known to many in the Lake Anna community as the developer of the Cutalong Golf Club and Tributer Resort. The as-yet-unnamed club will adjoin Cutalong to the west and be folded into Tributer. The properties will share an entrance, a private road network, utilities and amenities.

Beyond its properties near Lake Anna, Reef operates other upscale golf destinations, including Black Desert in Utah and Cornerstone in Colorado. Its development in Louisa will employ a similar model as some of its other resorts, featuring two golf courses with Cutalong allowing some public play via stay and play packages and its ultra-exclusive neighbor remaining private.

“A second golf course is a proven strategy that the company has used at other projects. It will have, in essence, Cutalong as the resort golf course,” Project Director Joe Walsh said.

Cutalong has already been approved to build some 900 dwellings on its nearly 1,000-acre property, including many designed as short-term rentals. The new development will feature a mix of 79 single-family dwellings, accommodating year-round residency, and 55 cottages and villas available for rent only to members and their guests.

Walsh said the project is expected to be developed over about eight years, beginning with the golf course.

Aside from residences and golf, the development will feature other high-end private amenities, including a spa village, amphitheater, indoor recreation facility with pickleball courts, helipad, glamping area and more.

Walsh noted that one portion of the development will draw on the property’s agricultural roots, incorporating reclaimed wood from an old barn and featuring agritourism. Dubbed “the farm,” it will be home to a distillery and rickhouse—Reef is a partner in the Sweetens Cove whiskey brand—plus an event venue for weddings and other gatherings.

The Reef team touted the project’s economic benefits, describing it as a “destination” golf resort that will drive tourism. Charlie Payne, a land use attorney representing the applicant, said the project would net the county about $500,000 in tax revenue annually, mostly from real estate and transient occupancy taxes. It’s expected to create 58 permanent full-time jobs and about 900 jobs during construction.

Payne acknowledged that the project could have some impact on county services, including emergency services. But he noted that, since the 79 single-family homes would be marketed to second and third homebuyers, it isn’t expected to drive up enrollment at Louisa County Public Schools (LCPS).

To offset service impacts, Reef agreed to pay the county about $376,000 in cash proffers, or roughly $4,700 per single-family unit; chip in $10,000 to the Lake Anna Civic Association (LACA) to address water quality issues at the lake; and donate $30,000 to the Louisa County Resource Council. The firm also plans to establish an internship program with LCPS’s career and technical education program.

Walsh noted that Reef has a strong relationship with the school system. Together, Cutalong and LCPS will host the state high school golf championship this fall, he said. Cutalong also hosts fundraisers for community organizations, including LACA and the Foundation for Lake Anna Emergency Services.

The new development’s potential impact on traffic around Wares Crossroads and on Lake Anna’s water quality emerged as key concerns during the public approval process. Wares Crossroads is one of the county’s most congested areas, especially in the summer, and the lake has struggled with water quality issues in recent years, including ongoing battles with Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB).

According to a traffic impact study, the complex is expected to generate 2,234 total vehicle trips on an average weekday. To help disperse traffic, the community will be accessed by four entrances: one shared with Cutalong; a new one off Route 208; and two new entrances off Route 522 with one of those mostly used for emergency access.

Reef has agreed to construct a westbound left turn lane and eastbound right turn taper on 208 and southbound left turn lanes into both entrances on 522. The improvements will be installed when requested by VDOT and warranted by the project.

Within the resort, the roads will be privately owned and maintained and include an inter-parcel connection with Cutalong. The connection and shared entrance are, in part, designed to alleviate pressure on the Wares Crossroads roundabout.

At the planning commission’s request, Reef also agreed to dedicate just over three acres along 208 as public right of way should VDOT opt to straighten the road in the future.

When it comes to protecting the lake from pollutants like excess nutrients, which feed HAB, Walsh said that Reef worked closely with LACA to design a project the community’s comfortable with. As part of that effort, Reef spent $1.5 million on an extensive stream and wetlands restoration project, which included dismantling a 19th century dam, he said.

Walsh also noted that its planned wastewater treatment facility will treat nitrogen and phosphorus beyond the standards required by the state and that effluent from the plant will be used to keep both golf courses green, reducing the reliance on groundwater.

“We worked closely with LACA. They’ve been a good partner and given us some good advice, and we’ve done our best to follow that,” Walsh said.

Aside from the rezoning and CUP, the board approved two other requests: changes to Cutalong’s master plan to allow it to share utilities and access points with the new development and to allow any portion of the proposed golf course to be placed on Cutalong’s property; and a modification to the county’s Planned Unit Development standards to allow a set of cottages to be reached via a private road with a 20-foot access easement.

Tom Egeland, Louisa County’s deputy community development director, noted that the applicant originally asked for only two holes to be on the neighboring property but the request was broadened after the developer agreed to dedicate more than three acres of right of way for potential improvements to 208.

Three community members spoke during the public hearing, all in support of the project.

Jack Matthews, a Cutalong member who formerly represented the Mineral District on the planning commission, said Reef’s vision for Wares Crossroads would transform the community for the better.

“This is first-class. People show up there and this is now going to be a beautiful face of Louisa. People are going to be coming here from New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and North Carolina. And the buzz is already out there about what we have and where we are going,” Matthews said.

Share

Voters to weigh in on redistricting referendum

Virginia voters will head to the polls on Tuesday (April 21) to weigh in on a controversial proposal that would open the door for mid-decade redistricting. But they won’t necessarily have the final say on the measure.

On the ballot is a proposed change to the state constitution that would allow lawmakers in Richmond to redraw the state’s 11 congressional districts ahead of high-stakes mid-term elections this November. The measure would enable Democrats, who control the General Assembly, to implement a new congressional district map that includes 10 districts that favor their party and only one that favors Republicans. Currently, six Democrats represent the state in Congress to five Republicans.

The amendment would temporarily suspend an anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment backed by Virginians in 2020, which established a bipartisan commission to draw state legislative and congressional districts. It would allow Democrats’ proposed map to stand through 2030 before restoring the current redistricting process.

The General Assembly passed the proposed amendment during a special session just ahead of last November’s gubernatorial and state legislative elections and again at the start of this year’s legislative session. Per Virginia law, a proposed constitutional amendment must pass the legislature twice with an election in between, then get voters’ approval.

Democrats say the temporary change is necessary to counter Republican moves in Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere to adopt new maps that benefit their party. President Donald Trump has urged Republican-controlled states to implement partisan gerrymanders via mid-decade redistricting in hopes of retaining control of the narrowly divided House of Representatives this fall.

“This referendum presents an opportunity to even the playing field on the national scale, while ensuring that any redistricting measures are temporary. Virginia voters will ultimately decide what action the Commonwealth takes in response to federal overreach,” 55th District Delegate Amy Laufer, D-Albemarle, said in an email to supporters last week, encouraging them to vote “yes.” Laufer represents the western edge of Louisa County in the General Assembly’s lower chamber.

Virginia Republicans say the measure is unconstitutional and would leave millions of residents without a voice in Washington. Locally, Republicans have characterized the move as a partisan power grab that would rob rural voters of representation while consolidating power in Northern Virginia.

“Politicians shouldn’t get to hand-pick their voters to guarantee their own re-election. You should choose who represents you, not some politician in Northern Virginia you are never going to meet,” 5th District Congressman John McGuire said in an email to supporters last week. McGuire, whose district currently includes Louisa, would likely face long odds for re-election if the proposed map moves forward.

Republicans have also challenged the proposed amendment in court, mostly contending that the General Assembly didn’t follow proper procedure in passing the measure and placing it before voters. The Virginia Supreme Court has agreed to consider legal challenges, but not until after voters weigh in. That means, even if voters green-light the amendment, the court could still strike it down on constitutional grounds.

Should the proposed amendment pass and the new map take effect, Louisa County would be shuffled from the 5th Congressional District to the 7th. The current 5th is a Republican-friendly district covering a broad swath of central and southside Virginia. The proposed 7th is a Democrat-friendly district, stretching from Arlington County south to Powhatan, taking in part of vote-rich Fairfax County along the way. The district also pushes west, grabbing part of the Shenandoah Valley.

Some political observers have dubbed the district “the lobster” because of its unusual shape. Nearly 53 percent of voters in the proposed 7th backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

Given the high stakes, the referendum has attracted plenty of attention and high turnout across the state, especially when compared to other special elections.

As of Saturday, the last day of the 45-day in-person early voting period, nearly 1.36 million voters had cast ballots, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, about 23 percent of the state’s registered voters. Nearly 26 percent of Louisa County’s registered voters had weighed in either in-person or by mail.

On Tuesday, polling locations are open from 6 am to 7 pm. Click here to find your polling place. Click here for a sample ballot. Questions about voting? Call the Louisa County Office of Elections at 540-967-3427.

Share

Craig seeks appointment to Louisa Town Council

A familiar face in local politics is eyeing a spot on Louisa’s Town Council.

Graven Craig, a former chair of the Louisa County Republican Committee who has twice run for a seat in the House of Delegates, has applied to temporarily fill a vacancy on the town’s five-member governing body.

The seat came open last month when former Council Member Daniel Crawford resigned, having served just over a year of a four-year term. Crawford plans to move back to his native southwest Virginia.

According to Town Clerk Stephanie Dorman, Craig was the only community member to throw his hat in the ring for the appointment before the town’s April 15 deadline. Council will review Craig’s application, which includes a letter of interest and resume, at its April 21 meeting. It’s expected to fill the vacancy on April 29.

The appointee will serve until a special election in November to fill the remainder of Crawford’s term, which runs through 2028.

Craig, an attorney who holds a law degree from George Mason University, is well known to many town residents. He began practicing law in Louisa nearly 30 years ago before moving to the town in 2005. He’s currently a partner in the Main Street law firm Craig Williams where he litigates criminal and civil cases.

Beyond his professional career, Craig has been active in the community in other ways, according to his letter of interest and resume. Most notably, he’s served in a leadership role with Linkages for about 25 years, a group that helped establish the Betty Queen Intergenerational Center in partnership with Louisa County. Craig is also a member of St. James Episcopal Church.

In his letter of interest, Craig says that his 20-plus year residency in the town, professional background and community involvement make him well-suited to serve on council.

“I have been practicing law in the Town of Louisa since August 1997, and in October 1999, I established my own law practice here, which I continue to operate to this day. My wife and I made Louisa our permanent home in March 2005, and we have proudly raised our three children in this community. Through nearly three decades of professional practice and family life in Louisa, I have developed a thorough understanding of the needs, challenges, and opportunities that define our Town,” Craig wrote.

Craig also has deep roots in local Republican politics. He previously served as chair of the county’s Republican committee and twice ran in party primaries for House of Delegates. In 2017, Craig finished second to now-Congressman John McGuire in a six-man field in the Republican primary in the 56th House District. After the decennial redistricting process delivered redrawn districts three years ago, Craig challenged five-term incumbent Buddy Fowler in the Republican primary in the 59th District, but came up short in that contest.

In his letter, Craig says that he’s eager to join council and work “collaboratively with [his] fellow Council members and Town staff to help Louisa thrive now and into the future.”

“If appointed to the Council, I would bring to the position a strong commitment to ensuring that the Town of Louisa remains welcoming to both businesses and families. I am dedicated to policies and initiatives that foster economic vitality, community cohesion, and a high quality of life for all of our residents,” Craig wrote.

Share

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.

Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.

Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.

Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.