[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-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",[32,74,86,98],{"_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",6218138,"mediaKeyId","3631096-ae9e3b2a9560f7b3bd2c0f9508761f84","parentId",3631096,"title","Board tables wide-ranging zoning amendments after debate over sign, subdivision and VDOT language","audioSeconds",2350,"startMs",6900000,"endMs",9250000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3631096-ae9e3b2a9560f7b3bd2c0f9508761f84&start=6900&end=9250","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3631096-ae9e3b2a9560f7b3bd2c0f9508761f84/thumbnail_6900000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6218138/Louisa-County/Virginia/Board-tables-wide-ranging-zoning-amendments-after-debate-over-sign-subdivision-and-VDOT-language","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218138-acfaafd57e8425c70be5e27a8cc95dec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166449&Signature=meeig2KRpChzJYRJLyfqKIb8HswmvUMHD3v0afk3ab~AXQh5LDdLOJgT~8AgN79sxmASZLvQEt45t-ISp7QldxjyhBuho1PZgcVXurngmHcFE~EuaqC0v-XiQt2Mm7I8Tw4K2odbuHvpSW~~taY7pt-dRR9rvdVImXgR8QIpVxz~yTHdRK8p9FqUSruN1ytJpXX8HGOHAa-SBOV-HZjT24LgA0KfQb5sai6qzO1PhT8k8pAdgUshNoA0HrBce9Y50yRtdaUpvlvZ1pGX7nE~Y2EeqUyyY8IIU3LOAuXR7WXKXUXyvlj4cBfgCtH11mEIAqCNJhs7lM7nsdxRC7EMbw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-03T11:59:57Z","article","The Louisa County Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing June 2 on a broad “Phase 3” update to Chapter 86 (land development regulations) covering sign rules, short‑term rental language, subdivision standards, shoreline and telecommunications language, among other items. After substantial debate focused on electronic message signs and provisions that govern subdivision plats and private road maintenance, the board voted to table the package for further review.

What was proposed: Planning staff summarized multiple amendments in a single package that included updated definitions, a revised short‑term rental definition, new yard and shoreline rules, minimum road frontage standards in agricultural zones, changes to telecommunications regulations, and updated sign rules that create an electronic message sign definition and reference dark‑sky lighting considerations. The packet also included an interim road maintenance agreement and a draft performance agreement for private internal roads.

Safety, grandfathering and enforcement concerns

Several supervisors raised concerns about proposed brightness standards for electronic message signs and whether existing signs — including some at schools and churches — would be required to be modified. \"It would be retroactive and they would have a certain amount of time to come into compliance with those regulations,\" staff said when the board asked whether existing signs could be required to meet new brightness limits. Supervisors argued for sensitivity to schools and long‑standing community signs and repeatedly asked whether exemptions or grandfathering would be appropriate.

Subdivision and VDOT review

A second, more technical but politically sensitive dispute centered on whether subdivision plats and related road plans should be routed to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for review or approval. Several supervisors said their experience was that VDOT had been reluctant to conduct on‑site reviews or issue approvals before an entrance permit is applied for, and that sending plats to VDOT for “approval” created delays and uncertainty for developers. Planning staff said VDOT could be asked for concurrence letters and that the county had amended language to allow review by a licensed engineer (which could be VDOT or a third‑party reviewer) where appropriate. Multiple board members said they wanted clearer, documented direction from VDOT and requested staff return with clarified language.

Public process and schedule

Planning staff told the board the package had been considered by the Planning Commission and included proposed outreach and a draft performance agreement that would require legal review before use. The board opened the public hearing and heard one speaker in favor of medical facility language (a resident identified as Bridall Hamilton of the Mineral District) before resuming discussion.

Board action

After extended discussion the board voted to table the amendments to allow staff to: (1) clarify whether and how VDOT will participate in plat/road reviews or whether third‑party reviewers should be used; (2) refine sign‑brightness language and grandfathering/exemption approaches for existing community and school signs; and (3) resolve the interim road maintenance/agreement language for private internal roads. The motion to table carried in a recorded voice vote.

Why it matters: The Phase 3 package contains multiple routine and substantive zoning updates that affect how new subdivisions are reviewed and permitted, how electronic signs are regulated at night, and how short‑term rentals and telecommunications facilities are defined and handled. The board’s decision to pause and seek clarifications is aimed at avoiding unintended consequences for homeowners, schools and developers.

Next steps: Planning staff will return with revised language and (where appropriate) documentation from VDOT or guidance on use of third‑party engineering review; the board instructed staff to bring the item back after those clarifications. Staff also noted that some agreement language will require county‑attorney review before final adoption.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting, June 2, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Louisa County Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing June 2 on a broad “Phase 3” update to Chapter 86 (land development regulations). After extended debate over electronic sign brightness, subdivision/VDOT review and private road maintenance language, the board voted to table the package for further review.","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},6218143,"Louisa County revenue committee outlines allocations tied to projected data center and reactor revenues",1335,4040000,5375000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3631096-ae9e3b2a9560f7b3bd2c0f9508761f84&start=4040&end=5375","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3631096-ae9e3b2a9560f7b3bd2c0f9508761f84/thumbnail_4040000.jpg","/articles/6218143/Louisa-County/Virginia/Louisa-County-revenue-committee-outlines-allocations-tied-to-projected-data-center-and-reactor-revenues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218143-5e5de7cfbdf94319fab6246c658e894f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166449&Signature=MpFHUr~sDG4GeJVNcCSDvoO5zcAtGE7vJk-E9VwgGTlExc2jy4NIAmOSM8wtwsrMf-0zweJCJVO-NmhFa7~hF~WJOwBt53mN8-4Owr~rnxqQpohuNItGp3oD9DK-hBB1mmPQBaZ7HZ3EK3x7QWr8JIKn8SktPs1qE8bQ5KAOUYJ2dsSi0YrbjvH8uaQuNafiBt13bQuK6fkqi-t4pmQMfDwK9M8-J8Z0CBbsifQi2Bsk9ZNSmTDbmf7uwR4eDvgPrhFZ-Pz3f5IFIKcgTxdi1eqRPodFKyjU-8H3ZzL8XzEK6hyo3o3l6OovgbAFkUqlIckpI077q1~loXNI31VEwA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Louisa County Board of Supervisors’ revenue work group presented a recommended allocation framework on June 2 that would automatically split future new revenues among priorities such as planned capital, roads, rural preservation and tax rebates.

The committee, which supervisors Rachel Jones and Ray Woodward represented, described the presentation as the product of six months of work intended “to take care of the citizens of Louisa County,” and emphasized the recommendations are a working document to be refined with public input. “This is an accumulation of the past 6 months of work, and our primary mission has been, to take care of the citizens of Louisa County,” Supervisor Jones said.

Why it matters: The county’s revenue forecast assumes new revenues from large-scale private investment and possible public utility projects—specifically an assumed 25 data centers (cited as “Amazon Web Services” in staff remarks) and one modular reactor—could produce sizable, recurring tax and real‑estate receipts. The committee presented allocations so any incoming dollars would be committed by percentage to named priorities rather than being spent ad hoc.

Key points from the presentation

- Revenue assumptions: staff used a conservative scenario of 25 data centers and one modular reactor to estimate future receipts. Committee members described those assumptions as conservative and illustrative rather than guaranteed. “Some of the new revenue sources we’ve identified are the Amazon Web Services… Our assumptions were conservative. We used the 25 data centers as the basis for our assumptions,” a staff presenter said.

- Estimated scale: The committee showed an illustrative fiscal‑year‑2031 (FY31) scenario of roughly $36,500,000 in new money; the presentation translated the allocation percentages into dollar amounts under that estimate (for example, roughly $9 million toward planned capital projects and about $6.2 million toward road projects in the FY31 example).

- Proposed allocation percentages (committee recommendation): 5% for tax rebates/reductions; ~25% for planned capital projects; 17% for road projects; 15% for rural preservation; 10% public safety/judicial facilities; 10% recreation; 9% water/sewer infrastructure; ~4.5% for harmful‑algal‑bloom (HAB) mitigation; 3% for airport upgrades; 1% each for general‑fund and long‑term capital reserves; 0.1% for litter mitigation. The committee said percentages can be adjusted by the board over time.

- Uses and constraints explained: The presentation noted some uses are limited by law or external programs—school debt cannot be prepaid in the same way as other VRA (Virginia Resources Authority) loans and state formulas may change (the presenters warned that a higher local revenue base could reduce state school funding via the local composite index). Staff also listed payoff of certain non‑education VRA loans, additional local matches for programs such as SmartScale, and funding for long‑term capital as potential uses.

Board response and next steps

Supervisors commended the work group, raised questions about affordable housing and public engagement, and asked for additional review. Supervisor Barnes asked that affordable housing (for teachers, first responders and similar local workers) be considered for inclusion in the allocations; supervisors Jones and Woodward said they had discussed that and expected future review by subsequent work‑group members.

Chairman Adams said he would rotate additional supervisors onto the group to solicit broader input and recommended continuing public engagement; he proposed appointing two more supervisors for two‑month terms to expand the committee’s membership through November.

The committee characterized the allocation table as advisory — “not chiseled in stone” — and recommended using percentage allocations so the plan scales automatically with changing receipts. The board did not adopt the allocations as binding policy at this meeting; the presentation was accepted for further consideration and public comment.

Sources and evidence: Presentation and discussion by the revenue work group and staff during the June 2 Louisa County Board of Supervisors meeting. The committee repeatedly described the document as a recommendation and invited public input.","The Louisa County Board of Supervisors’ revenue work group presented a recommended allocation framework on June 2 that would automatically split future new revenues among priorities such as planned capital, roads, rural preservation and tax rebates.",{"_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},6218128,"Board unanimously waives Bowler’s Mill fishing permit fees, coordinates reciprocal permits with water authority",397,6205000,6602000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3631096-ae9e3b2a9560f7b3bd2c0f9508761f84&start=6205&end=6602","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3631096-ae9e3b2a9560f7b3bd2c0f9508761f84/thumbnail_6205000.jpg","/articles/6218128/Louisa-County/Virginia/Board-unanimously-waives-Bowlers-Mill-fishing-permit-fees-coordinates-reciprocal-permits-with-water-authority","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218128-3aa86b1bb5d9ccd6d8397af32d4f4bb3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166449&Signature=gO45Mr7klWa7TO-QKEH14Ww6kVJvzv37dkDBj21mPZsHBP6q8pXtpjvLn5kyra1ZQprWLKLRJKuccbYTBEMg45ENjCYOqV-Niij7JP-Dzjf~QxzzOtOSBYoxvt5t1VXO5RNmWXcIZ89NEvKrHLAMu4So6bH9uJudy9FDBL625PjjJWa6TMod8p3jZQzJEpoefM5o4aqNh-pb15ysBjT4tlcNMX0qUh~EOD2zm27vb0yQyHifH-8O2FYcB2y86eRWNV1m7A5xIm-WrteXgiJOOnz2XgBvtFjjREbuUo3T8k4vNs3OMwpH5aOkVlQoGg~A~mFlWwzC0eyFmd8GGhs1og__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Louisa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously June 2 to waive county fishing permit fees for Bowler’s Mill Reservoir and to authorize reciprocal use with Northeast Creek Reservoir permit holders, following discussion of fee amounts and permit administration.

Action taken: The board adopted a resolution that waives the county fee for Bowler’s Mill and authorizes an arrangement whereby holders of a Northeast Creek permit issued by the water authority may use Bowler’s Mill and vice versa if the water authority adopts a similar reciprocal approach. Board members and staff confirmed the water authority had voted to forgo its fee and indicated an administrative arrangement would allow either entity to issue a single permit covering both impounds.

Details discussed

- Fees and administration: County staff noted Northeast Creek permits are $10 (with a $2 senior discount) and that Bowler’s Mill permits historically have been lower; the water authority manages Northeast Creek while the county manages Bowler’s Mill. \"The water authority does manage Northeast Creek, so we can't give the reciprocal. If you have a Bowler's Mill, you can go to either. However, we can allow that if they have a permit with Northeast Creek, they go to Bowler's Mill,\" staff said.

- Practical effect: The intent voiced by board members was to simplify access for county residents and reduce duplicate transactions; one supervisor suggested the water authority issue permits for both impounds and waive the fee, a proposal the board accepted.

Why it matters: The resolution removes a modest fee barrier for anglers using county‑owned Bowler’s Mill and aligns permitting across two nearby impounds, simplifying administration for residents and the county.

Next steps: County staff will coordinate with the water authority to implement the reciprocal permit process; the board did not adopt a residency carve‑out beyond the general waiver and deferred operational details to staff coordination with the water authority.","The board approved a resolution waiving the county fishing permit fee for Bowler’s Mill and authorized reciprocal permit recognition with Northeast Creek Reservoir permits administered by the water authority; the water authority agreed to issue permits for both impounds and to waive its fee.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6218133,"Louisa County staff report few short‑term rental complaints in May; enforcement, monitoring to continue",266,5666000,5932000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3631096-ae9e3b2a9560f7b3bd2c0f9508761f84&start=5666&end=5932","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3631096-ae9e3b2a9560f7b3bd2c0f9508761f84/thumbnail_5666000.jpg","/articles/6218133/Louisa-County/Virginia/Louisa-County-staff-report-few-shortterm-rental-complaints-in-May-enforcement-monitoring-to-continue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218133-e1b67971e1ffc440bafc6535f8c9a530/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166449&Signature=OEhTQHPGIK2xoxJ6yJh~j~9pDDqyOfwm51s1wErhbP9sBEz2DyuZiU40MswY2FhYWUAa0MTPEzI3CosKiZbhViI88VABol5W9yhMSETgFEyRPfMANcjhqhcmow9IK4z9FSKDEd1xsRsnV88zzJrsAh1IYTZ~2Bmm~72yZNr-0xhE239VKWp9HEeP9Teo7tDlB45aTaN6AwEzRewjkiq9eSo~NV56gjLjeFB7kfPj-HScXheAo3pRLxna8r~vrssCPCPAc8HPKakBQBWxcp-e~MdDMWTL8XbtVHPnfGmIrAr3dszSvFU9t~QMQRcnfdPupWXddZfW29HwQrI~ByQAYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County staff updated the Board of Supervisors June 2 on short‑term rental (STR) compliance, saying the county has begun active monitoring and outreach as the summer season begins.

What staff reported: Staff said the county mailed a reminder to operators who had registered under the local short‑term rental requirements and shared the rules and regulations with them. Staff has also asked the sheriff’s office to provide a monthly log of calls for service related to short‑term rentals; the county requested May’s log and reported that May produced three properties with calls for noise complaints. “Over the month of May, we only had 3 properties that were short term rentals that also had calls for service for noise complaints,” the staff update said.

Enforcement steps and letters

Staff said it has template letters ready: (1) a reminder letter for registered operators, (2) a targeted letter for operators whose advertised occupancy may exceed their VDH (Virginia Department of Health) permit that is forwarded to VDH for follow up, and (3) a letter in response to noise complaints reminding operators of local noise rules. Staff told the board letters were sent to the contact listed on the STR registration form; most contacts were individuals rather than management companies.

Escalation and code path

Planning staff reminded the board that Louisa County Code contains a provision that allows a short‑term rental owner who fails to meet requirements to be prohibited from operating without obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the Board of Supervisors (citing the applicable ordinance language). Staff said the current approach emphasizes outreach and tracking, and the county will report back with a fuller season’s data after the summer — staff suggested a report in September after the busy season.

Why it matters: The lake and other tourist areas in the county see concentrated STR activity in late spring and summer. County staff said the monthly sheriff’s reports and the mailing campaign are intended to identify compliance gaps quickly and to provide documented outreach before pursuing formal code enforcement or a CUP.

Next steps: Staff will continue monthly coordination with the sheriff’s office, send targeted reminder letters, and produce a seasonal report in September summarizing complaints and any recommended ordinance changes or enforcement steps.","County staff said they sent reminder letters to registered short‑term‑rental operators, have begun monthly coordination with the sheriff’s office on calls for service and plan follow‑up enforcement letters; in May staff identified calls at three short‑term rental properties.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board tables wide-ranging zoning amendments after debate over sign, subdivision and VDOT language

Louisa County revenue committee outlines allocations tied to projected data center and reactor revenues

Board unanimously waives Bowler’s Mill fishing permit fees, coordinates reciprocal permits with water authority

Louisa County staff report few short‑term rental complaints in May; enforcement, monitoring to continue