Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Lake Anna Resort topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays Lake Anna Resort unit increase after proffer and traffic concerns
Summary
Developers asked to increase condominium units from 96 to 124; board deferred a rezoning amendment after public comment raised concerns about proffers, traffic and infrastructure.
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 7 deferred action on a request from Lake Anna Resort LLC to increase the condominium portion of its planned unit development from 96 units to 124 units.
Mike Grossman, manager for LA Resort LLC, told the board the change would reconfigure interior unit layouts—replacing larger five‑bedroom stacks with multiple one‑bedroom units—without changing the building footprint. Grossman said the reconfiguration was needed for market feasibility and said the applicant would proffer monetary support to nearby emergency services and affordable‑housing efforts.
The applicant proposed voluntary contributions tied to units above 96: $500 per additional unit to the Lake Anna Emergency Services foundation within 15 days of approval and additional payments timed to issuance of occupancy permits; similar payments were offered to the Fluvanna and Louisa Housing Foundation. Grossman described the payments as support for fire/EMS and housing partners.
Public commenters, including local residents and community foundation representatives, gave mixed reactions. Patrick Gallagher of the Lake Anna Emergency Services Foundation thanked the developer for past fundraising and said the developer had supported Newbridge Station 8. Other residents raised traffic and safety concerns along Route 208 and nearby roads, said the proposed proffers were inadequate relative to expected development value, and questioned the potential effect on schools and local services.
The applicant presented a traffic estimate drawn from the VDOT trip generation manual that indicated the 28‑unit increase would generate roughly 200 additional daily trips. The applicant also said the development’s market analysis suggested the net number of bedrooms could decline because the proposal would replace larger units with more, smaller units.
After extensive board discussion and public comment, the applicant requested additional time to work with staff on unit counts and voluntary proffers. A motion to defer consideration was put forward and approved by a recorded vote (6–1). The board asked the applicant to consult with county staff and return with revised proffers and a revised unit plan for future action.
Ending: The board will not vote on the rezoning amendment at this meeting; staff and the applicant will meet to refine the proposal and report back to the board at a later date.
