[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6395335,"mediaKeyId","2101335-07595e44bdb91e419514ff58c7ccb330","parentId",2101335,"title","Overton Fork homeowners ask county for flexibility on porta-potties and dry hydrant; staff says permit under review","audioSeconds",514,"startMs",520000,"endMs",5468,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2101335-07595e44bdb91e419514ff58c7ccb330&start=520&end=5","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2101335-07595e44bdb91e419514ff58c7ccb330/thumbnail_520000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6395335/Louisa-County/Virginia/Overton-Fork-homeowners-ask-county-for-flexibility-on-porta-potties-and-dry-hydrant-staff-says-permit-under-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6395335-f64cbd7fd7ff9a3dc67c6785a241d33a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773769980&Signature=Fls8AEyotrp8n4p6alkpt2~HoxZ0zA5eV26Eocht6dON1-qirTBHH~OPY7X3H5Eqx5JZRAn3oF2NaWblySCWBhklP-f524MP5fajZFBMAE~LR1TaUIgPSS-b6vmu8HrXSGT38r7GAepFueDLzjcfc1sPs722bj-p5oncUyLkTon2l~xlo3Bk29WpgWofM-mmTkIUbaiTA6pMu8wqfPPESpfICxi~7-YgrZjCQKeLC5sk67JrghypTw7aOgCQjas3wc3P1USqXRuhiIKoC8OCBqiup1XMlAoHzg-0dIFfy4jVzI~0E205oARahNEA~tcx0O3sL54x7jrNeR80mI-qMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-01-10T13:33:46Z","article","Robert George, representing the Overton Fork Property Owners Association, told the Louisa County Planning Commission that Dominion Energy's easement restrictions make it difficult for his homeowners association to comply with county requirements for on-site bathroom facilities and a dry hydrant for a common-area ramp project.

\"I would like to see some kind of allowance ... that the staff would have, so we don't have to come to county meetings,\" George said, asking for an administrative exception or a permission pathway that would avoid conflict with Dominion and reduce repeated appeals to the county.

Community Development staff and the county's building-permit reviewer responded that the Overton Fork project currently has a building permit under review for replacement of common-area docks, and that a recent revision was submitted late last week. Tom Eglin of Louisa County Community Development said both Dominion Energy and county staff will need to review the revision and estimated the review could take \"a week or two,\" depending on holiday workloads.

Eglin said the department can place contingencies on final inspection and certificate of occupancy, for example withholding final inspection until a dry hydrant and bathroom facility are installed. He also said staff is working on code amendments that could give staff greater flexibility to require or not require the bathroom and dry-hydrant elements when appropriate.

George said Overton Fork has adjusted previously to Dominion's restrictions and that the association is working with county staff and Captain Luck on a forestry grant to support a dry hydrant, but timing may not align with project construction. He asked that the county consider either an exception or a temporary accommodation so the HOA can proceed without escalating a dispute with Dominion.

Staff committed to continue working with the HOA and to process the permit revision. Commissioners asked staff to expedite review where possible and suggested staff return to the commission with any recommended code changes under consideration.

No formal action was taken by the commission beyond staff direction to continue the permit review and to consider proposed ordinance changes that could provide administrative flexibility for similar situations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting, January 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At the Louisa County Planning Commission meeting, Robert George of the Overton Fork Property Owners Association asked staff for administrative flexibility to address Dominion Energy easement restrictions that complicate county requirements for porta-potties and a dry hydrant.","taxTitle","Louisa County, Virginia","taxId",37258,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6395340,"Planning commission recommends approval of 199-foot Arcola Towers telecom tower; staff and applicant cite coverage need",1157,3709000,4866000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2101335-07595e44bdb91e419514ff58c7ccb330&start=3709&end=4866","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2101335-07595e44bdb91e419514ff58c7ccb330/thumbnail_3709000.jpg","/articles/6395340/Louisa-County/Virginia/Planning-commission-recommends-approval-of-199-foot-Arcola-Towers-telecom-tower-staff-and-applicant-cite-coverage-need","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6395340-39f74da321e5a05c76bf865f30fe8317/orig.mp4?Expires=1773769980&Signature=GcI4hGvf~hxwSXpABSk9iu9eeJ0EWDxLkPtZ4kL2SZmQ0NHeeCAZ00ZQNR4lNKZsfmrUjcWalAtQVthskf3HadPovqU6ocfLaW71Ma4OyETDppr0QB8OY0VWQANGA1McAYLx2qEpHqnYTBzq8LsXL0tsEa5q5rhvUaAGnmDRHrmqmKUgbBaC1Q0e8w6C8iFmGRMZPW~QfJnJSH0Nyw-9RnB0A5J86qDAndLfKLNlvkbf~Cc31GMNcyxo1sH4lIeSXfQxWKnBOZOF~-Dcngm9AsNmXnx7pTdHzkHnulYw3nno3IlyPuY4VtJbFm2JrCrYqFASGyerw5lEXP-zOLlTDA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Louisa County Planning Commission on Tuesday voted to recommend the Board of Supervisors approve a conditional use permit for a proposed 199-foot telecommunications tower on Charles Lane (CUP 2024-08), after staff found the project in substantial conformance with the county's 2040 comprehensive plan and the applicant presented visual-impact mitigation and coverage rationale.

Staff said the proposed monopole, developed by Arcola Towers LLC, sits on a 6.94-acre wooded parcel identified as tax map parcel 56-15 in the Patrick Henry election district; the parcel is between the Ferncliff and Louisa designated growth areas. The project seeks to add coverage between two existing Verizon Wireless sites and would place Verizon antennas near the top of a 199-foot monopole designed to accommodate future collocation.

\"The proposed tower will provide additional coverage,\" staff said in its report, citing the board-adopted public facilities plan and a telecommunications master plan update. The applicant's consultant, Stuart Squire, said Verizon's radio engineers identified coverage gaps along Courthouse Road where the road drops toward the South Anna River, and that the site lies near the midpoint between two existing Verizon sites.

Squire and developer representative Ryan Fultz described an access improvement to an existing gravel drive and a 50-by-50-foot fenced compound for the base station equipment. The applicant conducted a balloon test to show the structure's visibility; photos and a follow-up balloon test with neighbors were presented to the commission. The applicant said the site has received a Federal Aviation Administration determination of no hazard, SHPO approval and is undergoing NEPA review.

Two neighbors attended the applicant's neighborhood meeting; the commission heard that those neighbors expressed concern about proximity but were satisfied after the balloon test. At the public hearing, no opposing speakers appeared to challenge the application.

Commissioner Quarles, whose district includes the site, moved to find CUP 2024-08 in conformance with the comprehensive plan and then moved to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors. Both motions carried on roll call with recorded affirmative responses from commissioners present.

The commission recommended approval subject to the conditions staff provided (22 conditions listed in the staff packet), and staff noted the consultant Alteris had reviewed the application and recommended approval. The recommendation now moves the CUP to the Board of Supervisors for final action.

The applicant and staff said the tower is intended to fill an identified coverage gap and to reduce load on nearby sites; the commission did not add new conditions beyond staff's recommendations.","The commission found CUP 2024-08 in conformance with the 2040 Louisa County comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors after hearing staff and applicant presentations and limited neighborhood engagement.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6395344,"Louisa County planning commission forwards timeline requirement from proposed solar ordinance, says other provisions lack sufficient information",2889,810000,3699000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2101335-07595e44bdb91e419514ff58c7ccb330&start=810&end=3699","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2101335-07595e44bdb91e419514ff58c7ccb330/thumbnail_810000.jpg","/articles/6395344/Louisa-County/Virginia/Louisa-County-planning-commission-forwards-timeline-requirement-from-proposed-solar-ordinance-says-other-provisions-lack-sufficient-information","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6395344-96e40f2dccba457cc2d3f016c8cb8e50/orig.mp4?Expires=1773769980&Signature=WLQ1rWFF3fqcxkl45584PFC9xf9t7av8-DPlXGAKBgfPcicizr~8lJ0JuQOjAIQxuqIjqDX9tSQ3UOGe~NBRvoklZO4xsDygvzCkQkJrfk0ij5cEPKeyh3wvL3BjCsnSNZqr6KIxqV-hT~4~V6~HXw2GA~~HXEElIUY4ddyQ5F53muG9XDKNouk9Y2w94NmPGJ~UXmWk1ytkayjCOq5~84nEwykHpv1W2mLqm2htAUlvN20WZnCtXSr4dLWRcVKEi2acFocghhiIyI97lOazBGuAT2JdbMZC1wXQ8KO4prchWlMsA4L7ftUIwfU3XZ5hr6OegOFoANn0V58RLOMy1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Louisa County Planning Commission on Tuesday voted to forward the proposed project-timeline provision from Ordinance 2024-14, a package of land-use changes for solar siting agreements, to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval while reserving judgment on three other major provisions because commissioners said they lacked background and analytic support.

Commissioners said the county and the committee that drafted the policy had provided insufficient documentation about how key dollar figures and percentages were derived, making it impossible for the commission to provide an informed recommendation on items addressing per-megawatt contributions, the proposed affordable-housing allocation and a per-parcel adjacent-owner payment.

The ordinance package originated with a board-appointed committee and proposes minimum requirements for solar siting agreements. Planning staff told the commission the public hearing was held in December and that the committee supplied citing agreements from eight other localities and a memo, but the commission said that material did not include the calculations or policy rationale underlying several numbers in the draft ordinance.

\"I don't know where that number came from,\" Commissioner Goodwin said of the proposed 1.1% capacity-type contribution, adding that commissioners had not been given a basis to analyze it. \"We don't know how to provide feedback to that.\" Commissioner Brooks and others also pressed for justification for the proposed per-megawatt and per-parcel payments and for clarity about how 25% of site-agreement funds earmarked for affordable housing would be allocated. Commissioner Brooks said comparable locality examples he reviewed showed large variation in per-megawatt figures and questioned the county's proposed level.

Supervisor Barlow, the board's representative at the meeting, told the commission the Board of Supervisors had not yet fully discussed the committee's numbers and that the ordinance was forwarded to the planning commission for review and comment. \"If you want to send it back to the board with Mr. Kersey's motion, that's perfectly fine,\" Barlow said, adding the item was likely to receive more debate at the board level.

After discussion, the commission adopted a motion (moved and seconded) to send item 3 of the ordinance package (the project-timeline requirement) to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval and to include a statement that the commission did not have sufficient information to properly comment on items 1, 2 and 4. The motion passed on roll call.

Commissioners called for additional review steps, including the idea of a joint working group of planning commissioners and supervisors to develop clearer calculations, to review the committee's basis for proposed dollar amounts and percentages, and to return to both bodies with common, documented rationales. Several commissioners said they would not vote to endorse items they could not justify.

Staff signaled that it is already drafting further ordinance amendments and will provide additional materials; staff also confirmed the eight citing agreements the commission requested had been forwarded to the commission earlier but were large and were not included in the packet. Commission members asked that future packets include the original application package when it is deemed complete so commissioners can begin review earlier.

The commission's action forwards only the project-timeline provision to the board with a recommendation; it did not adopt the proposed compensation or affordable-housing provisions. The board will next receive the commission's recommendation and any accompanying comments.

The commission's discussion occurred during the unfinished-business portion of the agenda after the public-address period and prior public hearing on other items. Staff said the committee's memo and citations were provided to the commission on January 2 but did not include the detailed calculations commissioners requested.

The commission did not set new dollar figures or percentages; it asked the board and staff to provide the committee's supporting analysis and to consider a joint working group for further review.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to forward item 3 (project-timeline requirement) of Ordinance 2024-14 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, and to state the commission does not have sufficient information to comment on items 1, 2 and 4: passed (roll call; recorded votes include Commissioner Goodwin: No; Commissioner Kersey: Yes; motion carried).","The Louisa County Planning Commission voted to send only the proposed project-timeline provision of Ordinance 2024-14 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, and said it did not have enough information to comment on the ordinance's proposed compensation, affordable-housing and adjacent-owner provisions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Overton Fork homeowners ask county for flexibility on porta-potties and dry hydrant; staff says permit under review

Planning commission recommends approval of 199-foot Arcola Towers telecom tower; staff and applicant cite coverage need

Louisa County planning commission forwards timeline requirement from proposed solar ordinance, says other provisions lack sufficient information