[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6218637,"mediaKeyId","3626211-14a506f036a35cede3a33cf3fc50323a","parentId",3626211,"title","Board agrees to advance process for possible public safety site at Charlie’s development; some supervisors prefer to delay rezoning","audioSeconds",636,"startMs",5199615,"endMs",5836435,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3626211-14a506f036a35cede3a33cf3fc50323a&start=5199&end=5836","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3626211-14a506f036a35cede3a33cf3fc50323a/thumbnail_5199615.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6218637/Campbell-County/Virginia/Board-agrees-to-advance-process-for-possible-public-safety-site-at-Charlies-development-some-supervisors-prefer-to-delay-rezoning","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218637-64c8bb6ceb369d1546da88611659dd3c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775220602&Signature=oFFG-YG8HqsTokZwqzvMavstvpb7WS5F0Pk3fnfLNvsaI0Ms57CXKYvmZ5PPteSz7NNcYoSCVkM4KzSiVVqWbpNQyvXSP95ulcdMncYdaRBmjlZVPDzRU1Z8AW~WR4AWX7-KlSboMumJKSSrS6GaK5lvfPXgGp23NJ8YGEqcKXxfP4QAnCEQBE1Te1t9DQCjpKgB2-G2cG76xh5vODDoKb6-kLAscEZER~dnJ81d~AD9eO~a1mOZ7wfuDAQAHaIVZAuJUsHW0eouoSASNRZse1j0zb36QQHY91vA~Nc2aZTq4u2K8OkJT-xdNCnlI16Zy7QlRIvsnhHfSJeFMDwHAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Campbell County","date","2025-05-20T00:00:00Z","article","Supervisors discussed whether to place a sign and begin rezoning steps for a possible public safety facility on property near Charlie’s development. The discussion followed earlier agenda items and focused on whether the county should advertise the site and begin a formal zoning change now or wait until the Board has a firmer timetable for building.

Staff noted the parcel under discussion is currently not zoned for public safety and that rezoning would require public notice, a planning commission review and, ultimately, formal board action. Several supervisors said the site’s location is centrally positioned for emergency response, and some supported moving ahead with sign placement and the rezoning process. Other supervisors expressed caution, saying they preferred not to lock in rezoning before the Board has a firm plan and timeline for constructing the facility, and noting potential community opposition if a future Board chooses a different site.

Why it matters: Supervisors said a public safety facility at the location could shorten response times for large portions of the county and would be sited near transport corridors; rezoning and sign placement would be visible public signals of intent and would trigger notice and review processes.

Board direction and next steps: Staff will advance the administrative steps needed to place the sign and initiate rezoning (advertising, planning‑commission referral and public‑hearing scheduling). Supervisors did not adopt an ordinance or authorize property acquisition during the meeting; any building decision, design approval and debt authorization would require separate board action.

Budget and timing: A supervisor mentioned a typical advertisement/rezoning processing cost (a referenced item in the meeting noted $500 for a similar process); staff said they had not yet placed the sign and would coordinate with emergency services leaders before public placement.

Ending: Staff said they will proceed with the process steps discussed and coordinate with fire and EMS leadership for outreach. Supervisors showed mixed views on immediate rezoning but agreed to move procedural work forward so the county can keep options open for a future public safety project.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","May 20, 2025 Campbell County Board of Supervisor's Work Session (1)","oneSentenceSummary","Supervisors discussed placing a sign and pursuing rezoning for a potential public safety facility near Charlie’s development; some members favored immediate rezoning while others preferred to wait and run public outreach first. Staff said they will move the process forward and handle sign placement and rezoning steps at the board’s direction.","taxTitle","Campbell County, Virginia","taxId",3744,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6218642,"Supervisors direct staff to draft plan for raising lodging tax; options include dedicated tourism spending and higher rates",1636,3500570,5137305,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3626211-14a506f036a35cede3a33cf3fc50323a&start=3500&end=5137","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3626211-14a506f036a35cede3a33cf3fc50323a/thumbnail_3500570.jpg","/articles/6218642/Campbell-County/Virginia/Supervisors-direct-staff-to-draft-plan-for-raising-lodging-tax-options-include-dedicated-tourism-spending-and-higher-rates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218642-c77795df95076b8b70fb8e585ebb247b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775220602&Signature=dNixsXkLSDzSNSjk7beYSKdCzmyOlhNUwZ7iuTaVGYuPPEJ~HZX-IkV4nG0RLWTObFtDdOR1RX9h7NgIQ0K9vPdpIP5COj1qWOCpsFICIjSVvsGoxm9Bm6jxBQ5rOxG~RNKJbG2uaOsj86maoAspzDe3WJ7xkGeoX~XPe~3Xz0p2jkgoWjTrkWkunJz3FJMSdAS8dRgl~ug-nRgeImLfsL8jMSVkWeLTb4eosnjXQVe-~LXyEDzZvrYD8p8AyRNZpSCNu9CMowx8sx5TUYYVTIzH1-YVAEyBNMGkcMjlBYHiKJd7lXjgvkE8C8gIcGcYXZpup5H800xfXlzRRk6-gA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Supervisors discussed options to adjust the county’s transient occupancy tax (lodging tax) and directed staff to develop a programmatic plan and revenue scenarios for the board’s review.

Staff said the county currently budgets roughly $400,000 in lodging‑tax revenue for fiscal year 2026, up from just over $250,000 in FY 2024 as new rooms have come online. Presenters summarized state code provisions: an initial band of levies (described in the staff presentation as 0–2 percent) can be used at the county’s discretion, additional increments (3, 4 and 5 percent) must be directed to tourism‑related purposes, and amounts above 5 percent revert to general discretionary revenue. Staff and supervisors noted that the county would need to consult hotel operators and hold a public hearing before implementing tourism‑earmarked increases.

Why it matters: County leaders said lodging‑tax revenue could be used to expand tourism programming, market the county, support events that bring multi‑night stays (for example, tournaments), and fund capital improvements that attract visitors. Board members said they want a clear plan tying proposed tax increases to concrete tourism outcomes and operating costs before proceeding.

Key fiscal and program details quoted by staff:
- FY 2024 lodging tax collected: just over $250,000.
- FY 2026 expected lodging tax: approximately $400,000 (staff projection).
- Rough rule of thumb cited in discussion: each percentage point of lodging tax was estimated to bring roughly $200,000 in annual revenue (presenters framed this as a rough estimate and asked staff to quantify precisely).

Board direction and next steps: Supervisors asked county staff (economic development, parks and recreation and finance) to prepare a multi‑year program plan (years 1–10) showing: expected revenue at various tax levels; an outline of tourism programming and capital investments that would meet state code requirements for tourism‑earmarked funds; operating and maintenance costs for proposed amenities; and a recommended public‑engagement sequence (hotel operator meetings and public hearing). Several supervisors expressed interest in exploring the 3–5 percent band (tourism‑earmarked) and asked staff to also show scenarios above 5 percent. No formal vote was taken.

Staff cautioned that capital projects and ongoing programming require operations and maintenance funding; presenters said staffing, equipment and maintenance costs should be included in any plan so capital investments are sustainable. Supervisors asked staff to examine recent budgets to identify existing items that could be shifted into tourism categories and to show how incremental percentages would be allocated across marketing, special events, facility debt service and operations.

Ending: Staff will draft and return to the board with revenue scenarios, a recommended programmatic framing for tourism‑earmarked spending, and an engagement plan for hotel operators and the public. Any change would require the statutory engagement steps and a public hearing before a final board decision.","The board discussed raising the transient occupancy (lodging) tax, heard staff estimates of current and projected revenue, and asked staff to return with a program‑level plan showing how tourism‑directed revenue could fund capital and programming; supervisors were open to up to 5% (tourism‑earmarked) and asked staff to analyze higher levels.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6218647,"Board, IDA push draft covenants for Seneca Commerce Park; staff to return with final document",3411,1520,3412845,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3626211-14a506f036a35cede3a33cf3fc50323a&start=1&end=3412","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3626211-14a506f036a35cede3a33cf3fc50323a/thumbnail_1520.jpg","/articles/6218647/Campbell-County/Virginia/Board-IDA-push-draft-covenants-for-Seneca-Commerce-Park-staff-to-return-with-final-document","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218647-e684af4e5599b98a8010345b02e60f7d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775220602&Signature=KLIFPdNjewesS0WPjaOnG5EN3S-h6AQohixaVLZdSM-xasut3Zk-I0VTCd~X7iMomQMdBttaS1RxYoEUJeRQgOuhFyuAxDqXUoUPVDBW38Y3qqGyOQqL-ptDqFvNVcxTaUqsWAUfPAwJixKye1NGu6QFjqBhdmzng-TvTOUrZVJMUAux0UF~wc-naqUKpRUDNim~4Lgm~H41yx8hrdOIAIngzZhOOiAzlc~CHZm0KeFSXYHpU3JMFUI67VeTWHh6~eZogMqG7-Xj~QBlXFY74z6HPfOnlqw-7Ig-sXni32BiFUYqL6P-UeKBSnPPdjGzuGDmr6Ugqtb3ldCP0iR2wQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Supervisors and the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) reviewed a six- to seven-page draft of deed-recorded covenants intended to guide development and protect public investments at Seneca Commerce Park.

The document, presented by county staff and IDA leaders, would apply to all lots in Seneca Commerce Park and covers signage, lighting spillover, front-yard setbacks, parking location and surfacing, limits on temporary structures, stormwater maintenance responsibilities, restrictions on subdividing master-planned parcels, and a seller’s right-of-first-refusal and buy‑back option for greenfield parcels that do not commence development within specified time periods.

The covenants’ authors said the draft was pared down from larger public-park examples to avoid overly restrictive language while protecting the county’s investment, including two county-funded shell buildings. Vance Trisco, chairman of the IDA, and Dennis Rossert, vice chair, told supervisors the IDA incorporated prior board feedback and wants the covenants recorded before additional lots fill with new development.

Why it matters: County staff said Seneca is drawing growing commercial interest, and the covenants would create consistent, industrial‑park standards intended to preserve property values and the park’s marketability as mid‑ to large‑lot industrial development proceeds.

Board members pressed staff and the IDA for specifics. Presenters said key features include:
- A minimum 75‑foot building setback from the road (stricter than county code in that respect) so trucks, fleet equipment and loading are located to the sides or rear of lots rather than in front yards.
- Requirement for paved, off‑street parking for employees and visitors; prohibition on unloading/parking in the right of way.
- Prohibition of billboards and digital rotating signage within the park; property owner approval required for all signs.
- Screening for outside storage visible from road frontage and a process for detached sheds or equipment (examples in the park were cited as already compliant).
- Temporary structures permitted only for interim construction use; the draft disallows temporary buildings being used as permanent operations.
- Stormwater on each pad/building parcel would be the buyer/property owner’s responsibility to construct and maintain; an existing pond placed during road construction was described as currently overgrown and not on a separate parcel, and would be reworked as lots are graded.
- Restrictions on subdividing parcels once a master plan is recorded, to avoid fragmenting lots intended for midsize/large industrial users.
- A first‑right‑of‑refusal and limited buy‑back mechanism giving the county/IDA an option to reacquire greenfield parcels at the original purchase price if development does not commence within a defined period; staff clarified the first‑refusal period and the subsequent market listing period would each trigger distinct rights and obligations described in the draft.

Presenters said the covenants include a two‑step appeal process for uses the document flags as needing prior approval (for example, outdoor storage‑intensive or environmentally sensitive operations). The first review would be before the IDA; if denied, the applicant could appeal to the Board of Supervisors, which would have three months to act.

Board direction and next steps: Supervisors expressed general support and asked staff and the IDA to clarify some language in Section 4(a) (the first‑refusal provisions) and other timing details. Supervisors did not take a formal vote; instead, staff recorded consensus and will return a final, recordable document to the Board in open session for formal adoption (July was mentioned as a target). Presenters also said the covenant text is written so the IDA and Board are the guardians of the recorded restrictions; changes to recorded covenants would follow normal planning‑commission and public‑hearing processes.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the Seneca covenants discussion and are identified in the public transcript; quoted material appears as spoken.

The Board and IDA said the draft is intended to remain a living document that can be amended later if the county and IDA decide to allow a different use or approach.

For residents and prospective businesses: the IDA and county emphasized that the covenants apply to new sales and greenfield development and are not retroactive to operate mandatory controls over currently occupied facilities unless owners voluntarily agree.

Ending: Staff and the IDA will refine language on the first‑refusal mechanics and bring a final recorded covenant document back to the Board for a formal vote in open session; meanwhile the IDA and county will continue prospect outreach based on the protections and standards outlined in the draft.","The county and the Industrial Development Authority discussed a shortened draft of covenants for Seneca Commerce Park to regulate signage, setbacks, outside storage, parking, stormwater maintenance and sale/lease terms; board members gave general consent to proceed and staff will bring a recordable document back for formal adoption.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board agrees to advance process for possible public safety site at Charlie’s development; some supervisors prefer to delay rezoning

Supervisors direct staff to draft plan for raising lodging tax; options include dedicated tourism spending and higher rates

Board, IDA push draft covenants for Seneca Commerce Park; staff to return with final document