Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transmission Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends lowering threshold and tightening standards for electric transmission siting
Summary
The commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors two related measures: a Chapter 86 CUP update lowering applicability to 69 kV and a comprehensive‑plan addendum (CPA 20‑26‑01) setting preferred‑corridor and mitigation expectations for electric transmission routing; public commenters praised the approach and asked for stronger vegetative‑buffer requirements.
Louisa County planning staff presented two linked actions — a conditional‑use permit (CUP) update to Chapter 86 and a comprehensive‑plan amendment (CPA 20‑26‑01) — designed to give the county greater influence on electric transmission siting. The planning commission voted to recommend both items to the Board of Supervisors.
At the outset of the CUP discussion, staff told commissioners the applicability threshold for the CUP would drop from 150 kilovolts to 69 kilovolts based on the chair’s recommendation. Staff also noted a change from “pole color and finish” to “structure color and finish” and read the revised code language: “Structure color and finish shall be selected to minimize visual contrast.” Staff added that a vegetation management plan would be required and that property owners would be notified prior to vegetation clearing, with practices intended to “minimize environmental impacts while maintaining system reliability.”
During the public hearing, Craig McClung of the Mineral voting district spoke in favor and asked whether vegetative buffers could be changed from “encouraged” to a required minimum. McClung asked, “Could that be changed to require a vegetative buffer?” Staff replied that the zoning‑code CUP language includes a required vegetation management plan and screening and that the memo’s phrasing about encouragement did not replace the code requirement.
Staff also presented CPA 20‑26‑01, a comprehensive‑plan addendum that would create preferred‑corridor language and guidance for the State Corporation Commission review of transmission routes. The addendum calls for collocation with existing linear infrastructure, avoidance and minimization of impacts to residential, agricultural and scenic resources, and consideration of undergrounding where feasible. Staff said the language balances stronger local guidance with reasonableness so the State Corporation Commission will consider the county’s plan during route reviews.
Two Mountain Road and Mineral District residents — William Hale and Robin Horn — addressed the commission to thank staff and express support for the county’s proactive approach. After public comment and staff clarification, the commission moved and seconded recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for the CUP update and the comprehensive‑plan amendment.
Next steps: both items were recommended to the Board of Supervisors for consideration; staff said the language aims to influence State Corporation Commission review but noted that too‑stringent language could risk the county’s proposals being dismissed as unreasonable in the state review process.
