[{"_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",6274014,"mediaKeyId","2995215-ecbba43d99ee6cc5e9fbcdf8228b1c25","parentId",2995215,"title","Commission moves most Chapter 86 amendments to public hearing, shelves emergency-shelter language for further review","audioSeconds",3856,"startMs",2800000,"endMs",6656000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2995215-ecbba43d99ee6cc5e9fbcdf8228b1c25&start=2800&end=6656","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2995215-ecbba43d99ee6cc5e9fbcdf8228b1c25/thumbnail_2800000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6274014/Louisa-County/Virginia/Commission-moves-most-Chapter-86-amendments-to-public-hearing-shelves-emergency-shelter-language-for-further-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274014-858786f5df2adcc40823c355318dcd88/orig.mp4?Expires=1770725851&Signature=k8jjnORHpUUiSq9mV-V9YT3~IZVUJtwrukVhEt-N8xd7swOfyVXG~Hz9o~tOvJAnFrqa5MkjEDS5eIC~Ciw558RzqSZM0ha-oeupfNrbo3FzjxKlHsCIiVW~wGsEpMm129AYZVPH-tUazY4wtHvFNVVFmwV92rdOOHmHHalTFy7b7S~0XB4E9NlHWQFbOu5ILJQ3ny7xI6zrK2DUIMWIJM6zqLToNkWfb1cRkv0i0rl01rXq2LJow59c0Mnu2CVmDPOyBC9LoGN5NFwNQLoHH6i~Zf-7Um4sh6wqvoSzZq6dSzOLmMLOtfjfqLeOw-ymJOjD6709-QhAoue36bfWCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-15T18:11:14.827Z","article","Louisa County planning staff briefed the Planning Commission on a broad package of proposed amendments to Chapter 86 (land development regulations) and the commission voted to move most of the package to a public hearing in May while postponing changes to emergency-shelter, homeless-shelter and religious-assembly language for additional staff research.

Staff said the package contains multiple changes: updated definitions (including off-grid construction and short-term rental effective-date corrections), adjustments to yard regulations in the A-2 zoning district, subdivision-plat and performance-agreement language (including a draft interim road-maintenance agreement), limits on the number of private lanes in subdivisions, and updates to security/bonding language that would require periodic reviews (staff proposed a 24-month review tied to published market indices such as Engineering News-Record for cost updates).

On telecommunications, the county’s new consultant recommended tighter application materials and follow-up documentation for tower collocations and modifications. Staff proposed ordinance language to allow the county or its consultant to request a recent (five-year) structural-analysis report for an existing tower and, if equipment is added, a like-for-like structural assessment at the mount or radome level. Staff also proposed (and the consultant recommended) requiring an as-built, engineer-signed report after modifications are installed to confirm the work matches the consultant’s approved review; staff noted the county building official typically lacks authority under the state building code to perform certain post-installation telecom inspections, and an engineer’s certification would close that gap.

Regarding generators at wireless sites, staff proposed that on-site generators be operable only during power outages or testing; the draft language removes broader allowances for continuous operation.

The commission also reviewed proposed changes to sign regulations—specifically electronic message signs and nighttime brightness. After reviewing multiple options and outside jurisdiction practices, staff recommended an alternative labeled “Option 2” as the clearest and most enforceable path forward; that alternative narrows how brightness and change intervals are regulated and avoids conflating flashing signs and electronic-message signs, which the staff said are distinct categories.

The most contested portion of the package concerned the definition now labeled in staff materials as “emergency shelter” and a separate discussion about homeless shelters and religious assemblies. Public commenters asked the commission to allow religious organizations to operate hypothermia or cold-weather shelters from November through March without the full conditional-use-permit process. Dwayne Surgeon of the Louisa Homeless Coalition told the commission he would “like to encourage the committee to adopt ordinance that allows for...hypothermia shelters during the winter months from November to March, in religious organizations, churches, etcetera.” Pastor David McWilliams of Zion United Methodist urged an amendment to permit religious assemblies to provide “hypothermia shelter from November through March, without the requirement of a conditional use permit.”

Commissioner John Goodwin and staff emphasized a need to separate Code of Virginia–defined emergency shelters (activated by a governor or local emergency declaration and included in the locality’s emergency-management plan) from locally regulated homeless-shelter uses. Goodwin recommended using the state Code definition for “emergency shelter” and moving any separate homeless-shelter definition into a distinct local code section if the county wants to regulate that use differently. Staff agreed to research the Code of Virginia definition and return with a clearer draft.

On a motion that excluded the emergency-shelter / homeless-shelter / religious-assembly sections, the commission voted to send the remainder of the Chapter 86 package — including the telecommunications and electronic-sign provisions with staff’s preferred sign Option 2 — to a public hearing in May. Commissioners also asked staff to produce sample VDOT/TJPDC plan excerpts and the draft performance and interim road-maintenance agreements for the public packet.

The commission directed staff to come back to a future work session with clarified emergency-shelter and homeless-shelter language that aligns with state code and explains how religious assemblies could participate (for example, being included in the locality’s emergency-management plan if they intend to operate a state- or locally activated emergency shelter). No final code change on that topic was adopted at this meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Worksession, April 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The planning commission agreed to send a package of Chapter 86 ordinance amendments to public hearing in May — including telecommunications and electronic-sign provisions — but held the emergency-shelter/homeless-shelter and religious-assembly language for more research and a separate work session.","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},6274019,"Planning commission approves zoning amendments to require CUPs for certain cannabis-related sales and clarify agricultural exceptions",555,2250000,2805000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2995215-ecbba43d99ee6cc5e9fbcdf8228b1c25&start=2250&end=2805","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2995215-ecbba43d99ee6cc5e9fbcdf8228b1c25/thumbnail_2250000.jpg","/articles/6274019/Louisa-County/Virginia/Planning-commission-approves-zoning-amendments-to-require-CUPs-for-certain-cannabis-related-sales-and-clarify-agricultural-exceptions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274019-d238882d5ff200d24f1b1a138b8f2c02/orig.mp4?Expires=1770725851&Signature=dU362jAOpReeIJB~6FIeGok4omJ1WEL3GLgug8hMAL0U1F0ZNYFsTQwIC2fH4Lat2LqBRNxWbVptCIgv2BJ5qSWoefUU8pNUd-77cHBwO8RbdOOCtNcTdF6mZpzxQT090fUG2cnOzIrDbe58Pk2vjPsHAZTi0bxhHoka8DLog0zJ35EhCbgDRKBofc41CKDc3gXyD5CcL7TkFA2o1jI~zaLjrMGe7qtF24eP3kzXQT0LKdGOc8DQhGj1piUjI1Lz6ryEHX5qgPkLahMP5gDptQzV3mQwY2P0V3mYk3Qo01NS9M7gCp1zsRq35TrxhzvC~dMATpeKQvvq15vA0pgfYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Louisa County Planning Commission voted in April to approve amendments to Chapter 86 of the county’s land-development regulations that add or clarify conditional-use permit (CUP) requirements for certain cannabis-related sales and update definitions to avoid unintentionally subjecting farm operations to retail zoning rules.

Planning staff explained the revisions are intended to distinguish retail transactions from agricultural production and to avoid a situation where cultivation of a regulated crop — for example hemp, and if legalized in the future, marijuana — would be treated as a retail activity subject to different zoning rules. Staff told the commission the proposed definition language was adjusted to “state the sale or transaction” and to explicitly reference passive agricultural activity as exempt from retail zoning provisions so that farms remain governed by agricultural regulation rather than retail rules.

During public comment, Bridal Hamilton, a resident from the Cuckoo District, told commissioners she supports careful study and urged the commission to “be open minded and just really do some research” on the medical and agricultural aspects of cannabis and hemp. Staff said the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services currently regulates hemp cultivation and that any future regulatory framework for marijuana cultivation would likely be administered through state agriculture authorities as well.

After staff presentation and limited discussion, the commission moved and seconded the ordinance change with the staff’s noted edits. The commission adopted the amendments on a roll-call vote; commissioners present voted to approve.

The approved change directs that specified cannabis-related activities be subject to CUP review in designated zoning districts and clarifies that ordinary agricultural activities, including passive cultivation, are not themselves retail uses requiring a CUP. Staff said the amendment is intended to prevent regulatory overlap between ordinary farming and retail cannabis operations and to clarify which districts require discretionary review.

The ordinance will proceed to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration consistent with the county’s adoption process.","The commission voted to approve proposed changes to Louisa County Chapter 86 that add conditional-use permit (CUP) requirements for specified cannabis-related retail activity and update definitions to protect agricultural operations; the amendment passed on a roll-call vote.",{"_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},6274023,"Planning commission advances focus-area plans; asks staff for maps, code list and parcel counts",704,1405000,2109000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2995215-ecbba43d99ee6cc5e9fbcdf8228b1c25&start=1405&end=2109","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2995215-ecbba43d99ee6cc5e9fbcdf8228b1c25/thumbnail_1405000.jpg","/articles/6274023/Louisa-County/Virginia/Planning-commission-advances-focus-area-plans-asks-staff-for-maps-code-list-and-parcel-counts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274023-6c72a9a08f14523a0bbc6402669c3bca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770725851&Signature=c8JgbU2IYucaYDp04Yr~wSK~S5ztKSQvv83eLaJG-95NbQ0rwKeMqHN6siiwGLB2Kml3twBRN9xNq2xZKSL3m1vwp9IDE4-zMT~XAU-1uR0MA0CLrY0f26ne-jyz~b4~UO4049r~U6R6VYj0eAvBSbmuKBDBh4SMqf2kJ9FbsL-Yl4Xl8~G8wygLpavHtVeBxf9m8ZJsTb5hpzxnN9-jZqAcmDpDYU1WbuRuZHT0MY32Fc7UsA2OPQEfqdwjcZCkceDw495EAqPGBqySoUK1dGw8LrbmP-x7qT5uoNt-kuCexbfD8BQLpU0dMX3I0WoVE6~cVjumFaaM1h1hzXBVLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At an April work session the Louisa County Planning Commission discussed draft focus-area plans that identify growth corridors around Zion’s Crossroads, Route 15/250 and Lake Anna and asked staff to produce visual maps and a list of affected zoning code sections to support further action. The commission’s discussion ranged from requiring developers to contribute to transportation solutions to whether front setbacks and parking should be limited in some growth areas.

Planning staffer Mr. Eglin told commissioners the draft language now asks that “future development near Route 15, Route 30 3, and Cloughner Road should contribute toward transportation solutions,” and that focus-area guidance calls for “promote shared driveways and interparcel connectivity for commercial industrial uses.” He also identified an available transportation study for the Zion’s Crossroads area: the 2022 Cross Zion’s Crossroads Small Area Study produced through the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), and noted that the plan recommends things such as roundabout or “bow tie” concepts the county has repeatedly pursued through SmartScale funding.

Commissioner John Goodwin said the commission should protect rights-of-way identified in those studies and show small plan excerpts in the packet so the public and developers can see where future improvements are intended. Goodwin urged the commission to consider increased setbacks in some focus areas “to enhance traffic flow” and to require coordinated landscape plans and enhanced architectural standards on gateway corridors.

Commissioner Quarles disagreed about raising setbacks across the board. He warned that increasing front setbacks and including parking within those setbacks could “hinder businesses,” particularly in Zion’s Crossroads, where he said many parcels and existing developments were approved under the 50-foot growth-area setback adopted in February 2021. Commissioners repeatedly referenced the current growth-area setback rules (50 feet inside growth-area mixed-use or industrial designations versus a typical 100-foot standard outside growth areas) and named the county code sections that may need amendment (examples discussed included sections cited as 86-115 and 86-116 and landscape/architectural sections 86-123/86-124).

Several commissioners and staff agreed the right next step is a targeted review, not a blanket code change. Mr. Eglin said he will assemble a list of all code sections that affect setbacks, parking and landscape standards and present that list at the next work session. The planning commission asked staff and the county GIS coordinator, Matthias Smith, to prepare maps for each growth area showing zoning and parcel details and to run parcel counts: for each growth area, how many parcels are designated low-density residential, how many parcels are agricultural versus residential, how many are 1.5 acres or greater, and how many undeveloped parcels have road frontage. Commissioner Kersey specifically requested counts of lots in low-density residential portions of growth areas; staff said the GIS coordinator had earlier reported countywide counts of parcels of certain sizes (for example, 1,356 parcels countywide at or below 1.5 acres with road frontage, and 412 vacant parcels at or below 1.5 acres with frontage) and will refine the counts by growth area per the commission’s direction.

The commission also discussed design topics raised in the draft focus-area guidance: encouraging interparcel connectivity and shared driveways to reduce new curb cuts, establishing walking networks so patrons could walk between stores rather than drive, discouraging linear commercial strip development, and encouraging solar panels on existing impervious surfaces (parking lots, rooftops) to preserve agricultural land where possible. Mr. Eglin reiterated the draft’s call for coordinated architectural standards at county gateways so commercial entrances do not read as uncoordinated strip development.

On process, commissioners asked staff to return with (1) maps for each focus area and parcel counts, (2) the list of applicable code sections and suggested edits, and (3) an appendix or short excerpt of relevant VDOT or TJPDC studies (for example the Zion’s Crossroads transportation study) to include in the focus-area packet. Commissioners Goodwin and Quarles offered to work with staff on a focused code review for the next meeting.

The commission did not vote to adopt new setbacks or design standards at the meeting; instead it directed staff to provide the requested analyses and maps and to prepare code-section options for discussion at a future work session. That follow-up will inform any ordinance change brought to the Board of Supervisors for further review.","Louisa County Planning Commission reviewed draft focus-area plans for growth corridors including Zion’s Crossroads and Lake Anna, directed staff to produce maps and a code-section list, and debated whether to increase setback and landscaping requirements in growth areas.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission moves most Chapter 86 amendments to public hearing, shelves emergency-shelter language for further review

Planning commission approves zoning amendments to require CUPs for certain cannabis-related sales and clarify agricultural exceptions

Planning commission advances focus-area plans; asks staff for maps, code list and parcel counts