Planning Commission Worksession   6/11/2026

All right

and Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission.

Point of clarification, which you'll see before you, it's the same document that we had presented last month.

The only difference is step one is still the same from what we talked about last month.

And then we've got step two, which is establish a residential density framework is where you'll see the track changes.

And that's where you'll see the different changes that we're talking about.

So this is a residential growth management strategy.

The areas that we're focused on, step one was how the land was going to be divided to reduce fragmentation and preserve larger agricultural forest tracks.

Step two, the main focus of this is try to focus on how much development can occur and then where growth should occur and then align the density with infrastructure and services.

So that's why we focused on the growth areas.

I've talked about this before, but why evaluate residential density?

The county continues to show residential growth.

The school capacity concerns with additions at elementary schools, middle schools, and a potential fifth elementary school needing to be built in the very near future.

The increased public service costs, the fragmentation of rural land, strong public support for preserving the rural culture.

you know in the comprehensive plan surveys that we saw and like we've said before without change you know residential built out occurs by right service demands continue to increase and then the preservation goals become harder to achieve as we move forward.

So what we're going to talk about today is really four key components, the growth area density adjustments, transfer of development right incentives, which we will touch on.

But next month, when we talk about step three, which is the preservation programs, that's really when we will get into the TDR and PDR, which is transfer of development rights and purchase of development rights.

So we'll just briefly

mentioned TDRs and how they interconnect into this process.

We also are going to focus on the plan unit development density framework.

And then in the same vein of PUDs is the commercial development requirements and timing.

Because that is something I think, just about all of us have discussed in some capacity when a PUD comes forward, how much commercial when are we going to see it, and there's no real timing mechanisms.

So we figured this would be a perfect opportunity to

build it in and as we move forward there won't be any more questions because it'll be built into as we move forward.

So right off the bat one of the things that we're looking at doing is increase the minimum lot sizes in R1 and R2 from 1.5 acres to 2.5 acres.

What the objective of this would be is to reduce buy right residential build out and

It would better align with some of the growth in infrastructure because we don't have all the water and sewer available throughout all the growth areas.

Anybody that has had to try and perk a site, 1.5 can be difficult, especially nowadays in drought and everything else where 2.5 acre gives some more flexibility and the ability for people to move forward.

This would also support long-term financial stability because, again, it would slow the residential growth.

We don't think substantially, but it would slow it, which would help make sure that our infrastructure and services are being provided at a comprehensive timing.

And then this would create a lower baseline density framework, which would then lead into the TDR program.

So what we would look at doing with the TDR program is instead of granting the higher density of 1.5 acres in R1 and R2, it would be 2.5 acres.

But if they purchased development rights, then they could get back to the 1.5 acres.

And the reason why that would work is

To purchase a development right outside of the growth area, that means that a parcel that they purchased it from can divide at least one less time, depending on how many numbers they purchased, two, three, six, whatever the property has to offer or several properties, depending on how they go about it.

They would then purchase those to get the higher density.

What that does is the growth areas would receive the development and then the rural areas would preserve that land.

So then if you had a 30 acre parcel that sold all the development rights on it, that 30 acre parcel will remain a 30 acre parcel forever.

And those divisions that are available there would go to the growth area and that's where they would get the increased density.

and there'd be a market that whoever's developing in the growth area would purchase those development rights for whatever the market says the TDR is worth and then the individual with the rural land that wanted to sell the development rights would get whatever that market rate is.

And that's the benefit, it does preserve farm and forest land, it creates a market incentive for the preservation and it directs growth into the designated growth areas where we want to see it.

Now moving to the plan unit development framework, what we had provided right now is a 0.75 dwelling units per acre.

And then additional density could be earned through the TDR participation is the big one.

But then also in addition to that, as you all are aware, when a PUD comes in, what are the mitigating factors of their project?

So are they providing workforce housing?

Are they

providing affordable housing infrastructure improvements open space or other public benefit where as long as Planning Commission is interested in this which you can come up with is basically create an equation that based on whatever provisions they're providing in the benefit to the community

They could get additional density bonuses, and then the purchase of the TDRs would help make that a viable option.

So that's something where like, I've got on the bottom density bonuses are performance based rather than automatic.

So this way, if somebody comes in the door, the 100 acre parcel, they could build 75 units right out of the gate, but depending on what they're willing to contribute to Louisa County, the higher the benefit, the higher

With this, too, we would also look at the mixed use development requirement.

We do have some commercial in PUD, but it's very loosely discussed.

I think the purpose of making sure we create it in our

you know conscious about what we're doing is we create the complete community we provide options to reduce vehicle trips provide local services create employment opportunities and then the retail uses that we are looking at in most of these PDUs I think we'd want to define it instead of it being just any commercial entity something that we would want to see like in a neighborhood so that's the retail

The restaurants, personal services, medical offices, professional offices, or employment uses.

So not something that's just, you know, one or two people go there to work and that's 10,000 square feet of something.

It would just be more focused on residential type neighborhood businesses.

This is one that we also took a shot at with the commercial space requirements is creating a commercial square foot limitation or a minimum per housing units.

So if they wanted 10 units, it would have to be 4000 square feet.

If it was 20 units, it'd have to be 8000 square feet.

and so on and so forth.

That is something that we absolutely can change the ratio.

But that's something that I think we all can agree that we have a substantial amount more homes than commercial entities right now.

So maybe if we're a little heavy in the commercial for the next couple PUDs, you know, we can always evaluate if you know they can or can't, you know, fund them or get them.

We might have to reevaluate that, but I do think it would be something that we wouldn't consider.

Then what I have, like I mentioned, the commercial must be delivered.

So what we would look at doing is before residential growth can fully occur, we would require commercial site plans submitted and approved.

So essentially, they could submit their site plans, get their site plans approved, but before they pull building permits for residential, they'd have to at least submit the commercial site plans.

The having the site plan approved, I think that's something that we could discuss.

It might not be necessary, but as long as they have a

site plan that is done fully because I don't want someone saying oh here's my site plan that's you know on the back of a printed piece of paper in crown saying oh that's my site plan like we need to come up with some kind of parameters that it's a

reasonable site plan before they can get building permits, so that way we've got it in house.

And then the same thing if we require that no more than 25% of the residential COs can be issued without the commercial building either receiving building permit or CO, that's something that I think we could change that ratio if we want to say no more than 25 before the commercial gets a building permit and then no more than 75, you know, the

commercial needs to get the CO.

I think this these are all just mechanisms that we can establish that as we move forward that expectation of when these commercial portions of PUDs are gonna come forward will be established and if they don't want to do it that way then you know building permits or COs may be withheld from them and I'm sure they're gonna want to move as soon as possible to get that done.

I asked where I said additional residential occupancy may be withheld if commercial commitments are not met.

So we would just, like I said, the COs or the building permits is what we would no longer issue past a certain point.

So ultimately what we're looking at is with this

section the the framework should align the zoning and subdivision regulations from what we did in step one to now what we do in step two it recognized the larger the impact of the larger lot sizes and the frontage standards in the A1 and A2 zoning districts which that's where the TDR would help cover

the loss division rights from these changes.

We would evaluate the appropriate baseline density levels, which we are still one of the fastest growing counties in the Commonwealth.

We do know that about 40 it's

Between 42 and 48% of the growth is happening in the growth areas.

It's a little more than 50% outside, but it's still, you know, 40% plus inside the growth areas.

So if we lower that baseline density, that'll support the infrastructure planning, making sure that stays in in the growth areas.

And then it does lay the groundwork for future TDR implementations.

And we think this would better define where growth should occur inside the growth areas.

expected outcomes.

We do think that we would see reduced rural density, reduced by right density in growth areas.

There'd be a greater consistency between regulations, especially right now where like R1 is 1.5 and R2 is 40,000 square feet if you're in a particular future land use map.

And there's a lot of factors that, depending on what it is, R2 may be 40,000 square feet or maybe 1.5 acres.

So we would just have the 1.5 acres for R1 and R2.

There'd be a stronger distinction between the rural and growth areas, especially with those two different lot size requirements.

And then we do think the increased opportunity for the TDR implementation would be very beneficial.

And then better balance between residential and commercial developments in those PUD processes.

And then, like I said, making sure that we keep the growth inside the growth areas that would help align the infrastructure and service capacities where the home should be going.

What I did do as well is think about what are the potential considerations, unintended consequences, if you will.

I think that we would look at with lower baseline densities, there's going to be reduced by right housing opportunities, and that could increase housing costs.

I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

There is a pretty good chance that that is going to happen.

But that's the hope is that the TDR program and the increased density will hopefully help offset that to keep the market about where it is now.

So that's where I've got that, you know, housing costs could increase if density incentives are not widely utilized.

So that's something that is, you know, a concern.

Workforce housing production may depend on the efficiency of the bonus incentives as well.

That's something I think that we'll also have to keep an eye on, you know, as we

If we move forward with this as presented and individuals start wanting to utilize the density bonuses and then choose not to based on different factors, I think we're going to need to try and discuss with them and figure out why they did or didn't use the density bonuses and see what incentives that could change it.

If we need to increase it a little bit more or change some of the parameters, I think that's something we need to keep tabs on.

The development feasibility, larger lot sizes are going to increase the

per unit development costs, and the lower densities may affect project financial viability.

That's something that, you know, it all goes to the cost and affordability of it.

And the smaller mixed use projects may have difficulty supporting the required commercial space.

So that's something that, you know, like I said, it may be a little high.

But I think here in years past, many of you have been on Planning Commission for several years know what I'm talking about where there's been some PUDs that have been very

Residential heavy, but not so much commercial heavy.

So that's just something that we need to weigh that, you know, if the residential is the way that they want to go, we just have to evaluate that.

Then when you look at implementation and market factors, the commercial development, commercial space may be difficult to lease in some markets.

I'm sure that's something that we would hear.

The commercial construction requirements could delay residential development, which that goes back to the previous one.

Slow residential development could

affect affordability of the TDR program success.

The effectiveness depends on the demand for additional density.

If you know the 2.5 acres is perfectly fine and the developers are willing to move forward with that and build the homes and make their money and they don't need the additional density then you know like I said that's where we would reevaluate the TDR program.

The growth patterns, development pressure may shift to surrounding localities, which I wouldn't be too upset about, but that is a factor that we also want to concern with workforce and everything else that we've got that we want to make sure that

Louisa County can keep the community feel.

And like I said, we would have to ongoing monitoring to evaluate the outcomes and make adjustments.

That's something that step five in this process is before you.

I think that's going to be a really important piece that, you know, we try and do small calculated decisions.

And as we move forward, we evaluate and track everything that's happening so that if we need to come back and make small changes and changes to the percentages or changes to the acreage, we can do that.

And like I said, the key question is what adjustments may be needed over time to maintain the desired balance between growth and preservation.

That's we're trying to keep that balance and and that's what we're working on.

And then for next month, like I mentioned, the transition to long term preservation tools.

So with the subdivision standards and densities established at three, we'll focus on

The transfer of development rights and then the purchase of development rights and those preservation incentives and the long term farmland protection tools.

So ultimately, when you put it all together, it's how's the land divided was last month, this month is how much development occurs.

And then step three would be how development rights can preserve and be transferred as we move forward.

So that's all I had.

I know it was a lot and I'm sure you guys are jumping into bit to ask questions.

Great work.

Mr. Kuhn, question.

So do we have the resources available to support the potential power density incentives in those growth areas?

Because it's a great concept of if they're going to be

As we continue to move forward with our capital improvement plans and everything that we've got planned in the near future, there's more capacity coming online.

We will need to make sure that

The efforts that we're doing today is something that will slow growth enough that we will be able to stay ahead of the service demand.

So right now, I don't know if I would be able to say yes, if this was, you know, TDR program and everything started full tilt tomorrow, and everybody that

you know want to develop in growth areas used all the TDR programs I don't know and I don't think that that would be feasible but I also think this is going to be something that it'll be a learning process I think there'll be some people utilize it some people not some people are going to sit on the sidelines and see because that's the one benefit of getting into TDRs but

Some of the benefits of TDRs is that these are rural landowners that have it.

They evaluate, I've got seven development rights.

I don't intend on using all of them, so let me go ahead and sell five.

Well, if a project

developer whoever comes to you and says hey I want to buy five because you'd have to be on the list and we get into that next but they would come to you and say I want to buy five well if that person doesn't like that project they don't have to sell the TDRs so that density is lower so then now what you're doing is you're actually giving residents of Louisa County an opportunity to honestly decide what

you know density bonuses and where it goes if they don't like the project and no one that is selling TDRs likes the project then it doesn't happen and it would have to be that base development so I think we have capacity I think we could start but I think if if we were to you know continue building 430 homes in Louisa County every year

And we just pushed all of them into the growth areas.

I don't know how long that would be sustainable.

Can I assume that they do purchase a density, like a TDR, to increase the density?

If they, for whatever reason, decided to sell that entire, like, they rezone it, they purchase this, does that convey with it?

The TDR process is dictated by the Virginia Code.

If someone sells their TDRs, that's forever.

The one thing that we're still figuring out is once it is placed onto another property, the mechanism in which is it the same when it's sold and given up by the first property, that's forever.

if it is tied to that second property forever or what so that process we're still figuring out that's one of the reasons why we need another month before we talked about TDRs but that's something that as of right now the state code would dictate it and as of right now I know that it is recorded with the plat and the deed right so more than likely if it was sold to another property owner it would be recorded on the plat indeed of that property that they have

First of all, a couple of thank yous.

Thank you, Chris, for

reduce into 20 minutes the work that you all primarily have been doing.

I think you did a great job, thank you.

I want to thank you Mr.

Chair for putting me on this work detail.

I'll let Todd speak for himself, but I've learned a lot.

We learned a lot.

We were told to come up with ideas to get us out of the top five which we have been in the state in growth for over six years.

And we found out pretty quick that it's not that simple because we've got other mandates that have to mesh with that.

You got the comp plan, which is maintain the rural character of the county.

We've got the preserving the agricultural industry efforts going on, which we had to mesh into this.

We have affordable housing that has

gotten a lot of interest on the board and in the county, which had to be meshed with this.

And the list got long pretty quick, and it made things challenging.

I think, I mean, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, if you're gonna slow growth, one byproduct is going to be increased cost per unit.

It's pretty hard to get away from that.

But we've established and put in here enough variables that we can watch what's going on and change, as Chris said during his presentation, ratios.

If the market is not acting the way we want it to act, we can take a look at those incentives, increase, decrease, depending on how things are reacting.

Any other thing I wanted to say was the emphasis in comp plan on the growth areas.

These two steps together does that.

So it's a lot of different moving parts in here, but we've tried to put variables in there that allow us to respond to what goes on when we put them in place, if we put them in place.

So again, I thank you for putting it on.

I've learned a lot.

And thank staff.

I mean, to me it was all I could do to keep up so that I could make comments and ask questions between meetings.

Mr. Hicks, would you like to?

And thank you so much to staff and and Mr. Goodwin.

It has been challenging, educational, fun.

I mean, just just all of us working together is for the for Louisa and for the future of what Louise is going to look like.

And it's this kind of mimic step one in a way is step one, we had a larger

A1, A2 minimum and doing the same thing here.

It's about putting the right topics in front of the board and not giving them one single option and saying here are some useful tools.

You know, let's let's get our public input.

Let's

Let's give them more than one way of doing it.

And this program gives development more than one way.

They can take what's buy right, they can get higher density, they can help citizens preserve the role of character.

It's so many moving parts to this and I strive for the public to tune in because

Mr. Goodwin said it.

This is a lot of knowledge to try and take in and understand and seeing a big picture for what it is and what it can do for the county to come is, you know, this is this is a big deal and everybody should be should be highly focused on it.

When we're talking about these R1s, R2s, as Mr. Kuhn said, we're going to dive into this a little bit more in step three with the TDRs.

But

One thing I'd like to see us take consideration of as we move forward together, differences between R1s and R2s with private water and well versus public.

Because in a public sense where we do have the infrastructure in place and we can strongly implement this TDR program,

We can start to talk about affordable housing, workforce housing, when we can get condos, we can get townhomes, we can get apartments, we can get a higher density in an infrastructure based area.

But then we pull it back a little bit.

If we're talking residential, we're trying to put septic tanks and wells and stuff we need to, you know, maybe keep that acre and a half or with it with an implemented or it's just the right discussion to have as a group is to say,

One can be different than the other based on infrastructure and based on private or public.

Those are things to come that we need great advice on, great feedback.

Staff has done just incredible job, everybody, on giving us examples of what's worked in other places, what hasn't worked, the right topics to discuss.

Last month, I asked everybody, be patient.

Kind of the same thing.

It's a lot to put together and it's a tremendous amount to absorb, especially just reading through it.

For the public to hear this, as this comes over, even for me, it was a lot to take in at first.

I know Mr. Goodwin now, we go back home for hours and hours and study and research and try and dive everything we can into this.

There are just so many factors.

Louisa is so different from Zion's Crossroads to Lake Anna to Gum Springs to the center of Louisa and our vast rural areas.

It really is a long-term way of preserving our rural character and slowing the growth.

But I do want to be clear in saying I don't believe that those two items that we're trying to achieve lowers the cost of housing.

When we're preserving rural character, we're making availability less.

So a natural reaction to an action is cost goes up.

And that's not us sitting here in a government forum.

That is a market base.

That's standard supply and demand.

So implementing this into it gives us a possibility for affordable housing that many say does not exist right now.

We don't want people to think that that's just thrown into the wayside.

Whether it's affordable housing or workforce housing, this tool is the way I see it, about the only tool that can be a possibility if done right.

I had another concern during our work session.

What if we all had 100 acres and wanted to sell seven division rights?

Wouldn't that be nice?

But if we did and we all go to the county to get on this list and county staff will qualify us, they will check our zoning, they will verify our division rights and they will add us to this TDR list that somebody from the growth area could come to the county, obtain this list, contact those citizens directly and participate in a private sale.

that's then recorded, recorded through the county.

It's that's a lot on county staff, you know, I asked a question, do we have county staff that can take the time to do this, take the time to record how many people in a rural area might jump into this.

And, you know, we want to sell our division rights, preserve all rural character, let's get paid for these division rights.

We need to train staff.

We need to hire staff.

You know, there's a thing, well, we said this TDR is not a cost to Louisa.

But it is a cost.

It's a cost in staff.

It's a cost in training and time, just like our police officers, just like fire and EMS, administration.

It's all a cost.

So we've talked about things that will come up in a month from now about putting caps on this.

So we can manage the amount of TDRs that go out.

It can give the board and us a year to see how much we're filtering into a growth area or manage it so it doesn't get out of hand.

Our county staff doesn't get overstressed or overworked.

Just kind of want to stress that we are taking our time.

We're trying to look at every possible back door, every option, every consideration.

And as we go through this, I really hope the county citizens come up during the public sessions and do the same.

Give their advice and say what's concerning to them.

Is it step one?

Is it step two?

What's concerning to everybody?

Let's take all that into consideration before we throw this giant thing at the board and they get a flood from the public.

Let's make them aware of it.

We're getting through it pretty good now.

In another month or two, as Chris said, we're going to be close to a holistic approach.

That's ready for good consideration.

So now's a good time for the public to start paying attention, really start focusing on each one of them.

But again, patience is a virtue.

So be patient with us, patient with staff.

We are diligently working through it very hard.

I'm curious to see if anybody else has any specific concerns about

Other questions or comments?

I'll just have to say I'm glad you all are happy that you were put on the project.

I'm really happy the two of you were put on the project because I think the product that's coming out is very good as it comes out.

And again, thanks to the staff as well.

there's a lot to proposing what we're proposing but there's a lot of content here and a lot of opportunity everybody participate in so I agree that some patience is required to see all of this and to see that there is

They're going to be limitations, but they're also going to be opportunities.

So I think I think you're working down the right path here.

You all have the document, it's in the agenda packet, so as you review, if any questions come up, staff or Commissioner Hicks or Commissioner Goodwin, I'm sure they'd be happy to talk to you guys as well about some of the rationale behind it.

Very well.

This is the temporary workforce housing campground definition.

So essentially what we're looking at doing is with the proposed changes Linda had emailed last night, the amendment should amend campground and campsite definition, create a definition for recreational shelters,

clarify where recreational shelters can be utilized, clarify where they can't be, and then some campground standards and overnight RV parking and clarify that recreational shelters are not permitted for short-term rentals.

So what we're looking at, why is this needed?

Recreational shelters are not currently defined.

There's limited guidance regarding RVs, campers, trailers, and tents.

Uncertainty regarding recreational use versus residential use.

And there's lack of clarity regarding campground operations.

And then there's some potential conflicts that have arisen regarding short-term rental regulations.

So really the goal here is to be clearing consistent with the standards when it comes to these items.

What we're looking at doing is having a new definition of recreational shelter, which would be units designed for temporary living quarters for camping, traveling, whether recreational or work-related.

You can see the examples below.

Pretty much everything you guys are thinking about now.

The purpose is to establish a consistent term throughout the ordinance.

We have recreational shelters are not dwellings.

Travel trailers, campers, motorhomes, tents, camp cabins, recreational vehicles, and similar recreational shelters shall not be utilized as a permanent or full-time dwelling.

Used as a dwelling includes primary or secondary residence, sleeping accommodations, and then rented, leased or occupied for compensation, and connected to permanent utilities.

The reason that connected to permanent

utilities is included in there is when it goes to enforcement some people may want to store it and slide out the thing let it air out a little bit but if you're connected to the utilities for an extended period you're using it for the terms in this definition

And like I said here, connected to utilities would include the physical utility connections, extension cords, water hoses, temporary electrical service or pedestal, and other temporary utility connections.

To clarify, the temporary utility hookups are treated the same as the permanent utility connections when determining whether recreational shelter is being used as a dwelling.

Like I said, this is a clarification we put in there for enforcement purposes.

What uses are permitted?

So what this section would not prohibit would be storage.

So parking or storing recreational vehicle on private property when not occupied.

Right now the definition is a little vague and we've had previous directors say that basically if you store it on site for more than 30 days, based on how the code was written, it could be construed as available for occupancy.

So we wanted to make sure we address that so that storage could occur.

Temporary recreation.

So

If recreational use on the owner's property, picture you've got out of town family coming in for a wedding or funeral or something like that, you'd have the ability to open it up and let them stay in for 10 days in a 30 day period.

So if they wanted to come and stay for a week, this would address that.

So they'd be able to utilize that recreational vehicle just for a short period.

It can't be used as a primary and secondary residence though.

and then campgrounds.

So it wouldn't prohibit campgrounds that that use would be as long as it's zoned and permitted.

Recreational shelters and short-term rentals.

So we don't allow it, but we are better defining it, if you will, that it shall not be used for short-term rental occupancy.

So the tents, the tent and travel trailers, recreational vehicles, campers and everything else.

The Designations of Recreational Camping Accommodations from Dwelling Bay Short-Term Rentals.

This is people live at the lake, have an Airstream, and they're renting out on Airbnb.

That's not something that's allowed, and they could rent their home out, but not the campers or RVs.

The campground definition.

So the proposed definition, campground is an area managed providing accommodations for a minimum of three campsites for recreational shelters.

They must comply with the Virginia Department of Health requirements and obtain a conditional use permit in every case.

Additional

restrictions, they wouldn't be able to have mobile homes, manufactured homes or residential trailers would be prohibited.

The reason why we chose three before I get the reason why we chose three is because with VDH standards, if you have three campsites or more, it pushes it to a different category specific to campsites at VDH.

So those well and septic requirements would be a process through VDH they'd have to go through.

We also have the campground operational standards.

So we had two options.

Either they have an onsite administrative office or they have a main entrance sign.

containing the manager on duty and phone number with fiscal campground address and then campground layout or emergency procedures.

I think that, you know, campground layout and emergency procedures would probably be on the back of the sign, but that was something that they would have an option of either one.

And we did have in here that the campground addresses shall not be used to register school-aged children within Louisa County Public Schools.

So from the last meeting we did take out the time constraint where we had only a set number of days per month or six months or year that would be removed but with that we did add the

The campgrounds would not be able to have school-aged children registered with Moos County Public Schools.

And that would be grounds for replication of the CUP campgrounds size requirements.

What we had here is that the minimum acreage standards

So that if an individual wanted three to five campsites, it'd have to be a 10 acre site.

And then once you got to campsite six in additional, it'd be two additional acres.

Math is pretty easy.

Basically, if you wanted 20 campsites, it'd have to be 40 acres.

If you wanted 50 campsites, it'd have to be 100 acres.

And the purpose of that is to limit the campground density, maintain compatibility with surrounding properties and ensure there's adequate space for facilities and buffering of the adjacent properties and public right away.

We do have in here some design standards.

The concept plan would require a certified surveyor, engineer or other qualified licensed professional.

The plans would need to include the number of campsites, layout, auxiliary buildings and facilities, and then any existing in proposed utilities that are on the property.

And then there's also the landscape requirements landscape plan would need to be prepared by a qualified professional in addition to a minimum of a 200 foot landscape buffer.

And the purpose of that would be screening from adjacent properties and public rights of way.

The reason we did both the 200 foot buffer and the landscape plan is because there are situations, and you all are aware of some of them, where there have been, you know, 100, 150, 200 feet buffers.

But unfortunately, due to the topography, somebody that's sitting at the bottom of the hill can look right up the hill or at the top of the hill, look down and see it without it really blocking any or screening any of the viewshed.

So that's why the landscape plan was included in addition to the 200 foot landscape buffer.

In addition to the campground restrictions, as we mentioned earlier, the mobile homes, manufactured homes and the residential trailers would not be included in this.

The purpose is to maintain campgrounds as recreational accommodations and prevent conversion into the residential developments.

which they'd have the right to, they would just need to come and get a different CUP for that process.

One point of clarification we got in these discussions that we just wanted to point out, we do have in this section overnight RV parking.

There's a lot of concern about that but the reason why we put that in there is to verify that if someone is traveling on 64 and they decide they want to pull off the road and sleep for a couple hours, if they were to pull off and park at

Walmart parking lot or Lowe's parking lot for eight hours and then get back on the highway that Louisa County is not going to go after Lowe's or Walmart for operating an unapproved campground.

That's somebody that's pulling off and stopping for less than 12 hours.

There's no camp type services provided.

It's no it's literally what they're doing is pulling off on the road, getting some sleep and leaving.

And because of that, that distinction is there for code enforcement to make sure, you know, we're not going after somebody for something that

They have no intent to do.

Where the proposed zoning districts would be is A1, A2, C1, and C2 both inside and outside of the growth areas.

A CUP would be required.

And just summary of this, you know, the definition of recreational shelters, clarification of they're not considered dwellings, the prohibited actions of the recreational shelters for short term rentals, and then establish campground standards and identify the zoning districts where campgrounds may be considered for the CUP process.

I've got a couple of questions, Mr. Coon.

First of all, when we talk about a definition of a shelter, have we checked against the action that the Planning Commission took last

August, I believe, on humanitarian shelters to make sure that the language meshes between the different types of shelters.

And if not, I just want to bring it up to make sure that we do make sure that it does.

The other thing, wherever you had that slide of the different types of recreational shelters, you had

I think that's it right there.

Travel trailers, recreational vehicles, and I would have not sprung this on you tonight, but I didn't realize all this stuff.

I could have done my own research.

I'm more concerned, Mr. Kuhn, about the state code's definition of

Manufactured housing, they just passed this code that says manufactured housing cannot be more, have more stringent requirements than a built on site home.

We're not going to run into any of that stuff with an RV or a recreational vehicle, any of that?

No.

Okay, just wanted to throw it out there and I appreciate the answer and appreciate the time, Mr.

I have a question for you.

Notwithstanding what's stated in section 86.111 that these things shall not be used for permanent or full-time dwelling in any district, how do we prevent a travel trailer parked in a campground from becoming a permanent resident?

Enforcement would be the only way.

And that's the one where I guess the conversation needs to be had about if

There's two different ideas here because if someone, if I buy a five acre piece of property and then I just pull up my RV because I already dug the well and have the septic there and hook up and start living, that's one thing.

Where if I'm staying at a campground,

that's got that infrastructure provided specifically for staying in campers and campgrounds, that's another.

And I think that's where when you look at 86-111, at least when I view it that way, that's the primary and secondary residences where if someone's staying at a campground, I mean, I'm not blessed to be going on long vacations, but I do know people that go down to Florida for six months out of the year and live in campers down in those RVs.

So I think it would be a little,

But that's like I said, based on the enforcement, we would have to go through that process when it came.

Under the last section, the section does not permit campgrounds the use of qualifying recreational shelters improperly zoned and permitted campground facilities and we took the time period to

That was in the previous draft out of the campground definition.

So there is now no time stipulation in the definition of a campground.

I understand, I appreciate that point.

So if it is a proper campground by this definition, I pull in, I'm paying my campground rent.

And I'm living.

And there's no I mean, I could live there for 10 years.

And the people renting and owning the campground and running.

They're getting paid every month.

I think it would be very difficult to enforce because if they were to move one campsite over between our notification, because we normally give at least 10 days to rectify the issue.

So if let's say we started going out and check in who is at the different campsites, and between day one and day 10, they go from one campsite to another campsite and stay for a couple days and then come back.

We would have to basically check it every day so I think enforcement would be very difficult to go through that process or at least do it to a point that would make it reasonable for us to really enforce it to that level.

I think if we establish safe campgrounds that protect the health, safety, and general welfare of all the users and the neighbors to the best of our ability,

You know, then it would kind of be up to the owner and operators of how long is too long.

And I'm sure there's other implications that go into that.

But I think we've done our best to achieve what we can reasonably.

I'm not a big fan.

You all are aware.

I'm not a big fan of putting things in that enforcement is almost going to be impossible for us to do.

And I think that's one that would be very difficult.

But I also think, like I said, having a camper on a vacant piece of property by itself

using as a permanent residence or staying at a campsite for an extended period.

I just wanted to understand staff position.

Mr. Cooney, looking at the draft here and how it's laid out and some of the requirements on it, I certainly agree with him and I'm picturing a large

I don't know, 50, 100 campsite campground.

And I think this would, without a doubt, be the best starting point for it.

And I would consider that like a major site, a major development site.

So we do have one of the ones we have minor, major and minor.

We use that with site plans is one thing.

We also use it for utility scale generation, right, Tom?

Yeah, so we do have a

Major versus minor in a couple different areas.

So if we wanted to look at maybe lowering some of the regulations, we could try and do like a minor, have smaller acreage requirements, have smaller campsite requirements.

And that was part of the conversation was if we had three units, there are three campsites that would push it to the VDH campsite requirement, which there's an application and processes that need to go through.

but really if you're providing water and sewer you're gonna have to go through VDH whether it's one or two or you know so even if they get someone were to come in for a small campsite that is something that they still have to go through VDH for as well as permit for the electrical pedestals so there is an avenue that we could have like a major which would be the larger you know 40, 50, 100

campsite, you know, pretty expensive driveways, commercial entrances and all that.

And then another version that's less, you know, two to three sites in a lower level.

But I think we would still have to look at what state requirements would be, you know, DEQ, VDOT, VDH, based on those requirements that may also help make the decision.

Well, it certainly would, can I continue?

Please.

Thank you, Mr. Coon, for your answer.

Still taking into consideration, as we do with everything, the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.

I'd really like to explore some avenues that would be possible for a workforce-structured environment for living conditions.

And I do certainly

had the same thoughts and logical concerns that the chairman has with how does this not become a permanent residence.

Actually, Mr. Coon, if I could back up a little bit.

Somewhere in the draft there's something about the school system and I guess this point of interest.

I think the documentation that you have to provide to the school system

is pretty extensive when you move into a community.

So you'd have to have your permanent residence, I mean, documentation and light bills, those type of things.

Not that I would take that out, I would certainly leave that in there, but it's quite a bit of effort to be accepted to a school system.

I think it also helps telegraph that individuals that would like to have a CUP, that it's expressly shared that

having individuals that are staying on the campground that end up, are doing it for the purposes of registering kids with Lewis County Public Schools, that that's not what this is for or what it should be.

So I think it's, while I agree, I think it would be rather difficult for it to happen.

There are always people that are gonna want to skirt the rules to try and get better opportunities or whatever it may be.

So I think this is a way that any owner or person that wants to apply for CUP for a campground,

I'm recalling, I think, Henrico, who ran into a problem with a child that wanted to go to another school to play a sport.

I can't remember whether it was football or basketball.

They ended up going to court.

I don't know how that case came out.

That may be a good case study to look in while we're looking at this if that becomes an issue to make sure that we, if the court has ruled on it, we're going to have to

That's why I think if we were to put this in the CUP application without amount to is even if

based on the rules and everything else they could utilize this to go to schools, that CUP is something that could be revoked by the Board of Supervisors.

So it's the even if there's a way to do it, I know the schools have a set standard and way that it can be done and processes that are, you know,

Well, beyond my knowledge base of how that is dealt with, especially when we have, you know, the property lines between Goochland and Fluvanna change every so often.

There's kids that are impacted by that as well.

I'm just going to back up for a moment and just

recognize one thing with my previous concern since we're now proposing A1 and A2 and the overlay districts for A1 and A2 in this and it is a CUP that's good but what I want to be careful about is we're working hard on one hand here to come up with new requirements to

to shift development out of the agricultural areas and move it into growth areas and I don't want to create an opportunity here to shift or to create new permanent residents

opportunities on a large scale in the agricultural areas that we've just started preserving.

I know there are things in here that will prevent that.

I get that.

One of the benefits of the CUP process is that the individual merits of the application and the project and the parcel and where it is located are all factors that the Planning Commission and the board can take into consideration.

So I think it's a valid point.

But I do think the conditional use permit gives more credence to that same process that, you know, if it's smack dab in the middle of the county around farms and farmland, it might not be the best opportunity.

But if it's right on the outskirts of a growth area,

Mr. Quarles.

Chair, previously I worked on this with Mr. Painting.

I want to thank Mr. Painting for his input and help on this and also staff.

I had mentioned once about the possibility

reflecting what your concerns were.

That we take the onus of the efforts by staff, the burden that staff would have to have in these additional things as far as going out and looking and this kind of thing to putting the onus on the owner operator to come and give the report

of whatever time frame it is about the renters, the inhabitants, the things that we want to look at to avoid a long-term stay.

If they bring that to us and we review it and say, okay, well, Mr. Disosway has been here, you know,

I think that that takes less burden on staff because they're not having to go out, facilitate, and so forth.

The owner comes in, he's got his paperwork, this is what I have, this is what's been going on, whatever those requirements that satisfy the commission as far as stay.

that are met, and other requirements as well.

Just my point, maybe.

I have a question, John.

Ms. Barter.

Through artist, has there been any discussion with the minions?

about outage workers.

I'm sure that they're the biggest company that I know of that has people come in and work outages and stuff.

And I don't know personally, but I would think that if they are having people come in, they may very well have somebody that directs them to where they may be able to find housing and stuff like that.

So I guess

What my question would be or has there been any discussion with Dominion to see how this would impact their workforce trying to find temporary housing doing outages and stuff and that was discussed a little bit previously but I haven't heard anything that said you know that Dominion had been talked to or

has had any input into this.

So I have talked with some representatives from Dominion.

They have already started the process for the next outage that's coming in fall.

They do have a couple of contacts, contractors, I forget the names of them, but there's it's like two or three contractors that help individuals that are coming

from other, you know, was it Connecticut and Surrey that are coming up this way and they help them find housing.

We talked to them about, you know, we have a lot more hotels than we had last major outage.

And we also have a significant amount of Airbnbs.

That's something that I know Chamber of Commerce is also trying to facilitate and assist with as well.

I know we had some experience from outage workers in the room when we were talking about it.

but regarding asking Dominion what zoning changes we should make to benefit the outages.

I'm just suggesting that not that they dictate

What you bring forward as zoning requirements and stuff like that, but you simply see if there are things that they may have input on that maybe will change the direction or maybe better implement what it is you're trying to do.

Mr.

I may be the only one that's having these thoughts, and that's okay.

But where is the county's responsibility, both government and its citizens, and where does

Dominion Energy's responsibility pick up when it comes to their, I'll call it a transient workforce, that they switch from one site to another to another.

Instead of having full time on one place, they're using them on several places as a transient workforce.

And whose problem does that really fall to?

I'm thinking, I've got some thoughts.

It may not be right.

But they have some responsibility in this.

They're using this as a mechanism to cut costs on full-time employees on any one site.

Where does that money go?

Well, we're supposed to pick it up and be concerned about it.

I don't know.

I'm not looking for an answer.

I may be the only one that has these thoughts, but my mind is there.

I'm not suggesting at all that we do that.

I know Mr. Quarles can agree since both of us have inside experience on this that is that's likely not going to happen given the climate we're in security wise but

Mr. Goodwin, I agree and I would say just my opinion on it to begin with.

I mean Dominion has an interesting business because they have a certain need

full-time and then once every 18 months there's a tremendous need that couldn't be justified other than temporary and there are people who are happy that make their living traveling from place to place servicing all of these power stations.

I think Dominion's responsibility in it is to

is to vet the proper people, let them know when they need them, and tell them they have a responsibility to find a place to live.

It's the county's responsibility to make sure that the impact on the county

from an ordinance and regulation standpoint is covered so that we have normal business and we're not surprised about what's happening, where it's been happening.

And maybe we've been deficient in that area and this is an effort to clean that up.

But I mean,

That's just the way it appears to me.

I agree with you.

There are different requirements.

Dominion has requirements to bring people in that are properly vetted, tell them when they're coming, how long they're staying, and to the extent possible, here are places you can find to live.

But if you can't find a place to live, then

I don't know what they're going to do for them, but I think Louisa has a responsibility to make sure that the citizens aren't negatively impacted.

and that we have proper regulation to handle an influx like that.

So I mean, there's a middle ground people coming into work have a responsibility as well.

I mean, when when Dominion hired me, I was living in North Carolina, it was my responsibility to find a place to live.

And that's what I did.

And if I was coming temporarily, it'd be my responsibility to find a place to live.

And that's just the nature of the agreements that are made when you hire people permanently or temporarily.

So I think that's kind of where it falls out.

And maybe what's happened is that Louisa has not ever looked thoroughly at what we should have done to address this.

So we're looking at it now.

I think a lot of what's in here covers what we need and does not create undue burden on citizens or on the county government.

I think it's driving towards middle ground that works and that codifies what it is we should be doing so everybody knows what the rules are.

That's my two cents.

In order to address some of Mr. Parlow's concerns as far as that goes, when we're looking at this that we're talking about as far as the

campgrounds and that kind of thing, the people that pull their travel trailers and so forth.

The expectation of a large outage, I think that we've never run into a problem where they didn't have a place to put their campers.

And I think with several large campgrounds, small country and some of the others,

and certainly the accommodations there.

The burden is on the worker, like John says.

And their accommodations are made months in advance.

When it comes to the transient people that work under the Dominion logo, not the subcontractor,

Dominion has a policy that facilitates them to be able to go and facilitate housing.

They changed it a couple years ago where they're not paying them directly.

What they're doing is they're saying, okay, tell me where you wanna stay, and we will facilitate whatever the cost is.

And it's,

as opposed to giving them a stipend and saying work within.

So the Dominion worker that travels from Millstone, Connecticut, or the Surrey plant, or the VC Summer plant, they don't have an issue.

They can rent a lake house.

$5,000 a week or whatever doesn't matter.

They don't have a requirement there.

The outage worker that is a subcontractor, their onus is on them to facilitate to find a place and a lot of times what you'll find is they'll stay in one of our hotels.

We have some at Zion Crossroads.

We have some

Smaller ones, I guess you'd call that mineral near, it's a smaller hotel but it's there.

And then there's some on the way to Fredericksburg and Massaponics area and also Thornburg.

So those kind of things are generally what you find.

There is a limited degree of people in the mineral Louisa area that will sublet their house to the outage worker.

But for the most part, in Louisa, that's what happens in Louisa County.

Because we don't have a whole lot of hotels and Airbnbs, bed breakfasts, whatever.

But, so no, I don't think, and I don't think Dominion's position would be that they would, they're not gonna contribute anything, and certainly there will be no accommodations for people to stay on site, so.

That doesn't work, but yeah.

So, getting back to that, I really don't think Dominion is gonna be your,

And then you have to consider also, you know, Dominion has been the principal over the years, but Clark Construction has a lot of people that are in here now.

And that's a big concern.

But yeah, so Dominion's not the only one.

Anyway, maybe I covered some of it.

Anybody have any other questions?

The other campgrounds that exist in the county already have a CUP.

So these would be

So these would not impact existing campgrounds, any of these changes that we would address regarding the campground.

No other questions I do have on here that if we want to call what's presented today the campground major or major campground, I guess campground major probably better

with the work group, if we want to reconvene and do like a campground minor for a smaller scale, lower level version and come back to Planning Commission in the near future.

I had a couple things before we wrap up this segment.

All right.

One of the things I thought about, we had discussed, Chris, Mr. Co.

In the process of putting together the application, there was a concern that a lot of times we're getting a sketch drawn in, and it puts a burden on staff to decipher penmanship, napkin drawing, if you will.

So we talked about adding the, I guess, yeah, the language there.

And what I'd like to consider is because drastic change has never been a great thing because it cuts out different people.

But one of the things I thought about was if we use a computer generated

If we change that language to computer-generated instead of the cost of a surveyor or an engineer, I think we alleviate some of the middle ground because, especially with AI and some of the things, I think you could probably do computer-generated and that doesn't

The only concern I would have with that would be the scale.

So then if we're getting a concept plan that is

is grossly misrepresented because somebody typed it into the AI generation and it comes out.

Some people try, which when we say them submitting it without it being a licensed survey or engineer or something like that, they're using a ruler instead of an actual scale, which

it changes some of the dimensions and things like that so I think you'd run into this similar problem if it's just a concept for like a CUP or something like that to show like in lieu of a architectural rendering you know when we see what the finished product is quote unquote going to look like at the end I think that'd be fine instead of having an architect do it if they can say this is pretty much what it's going to be like but I think if we're actually going to use it for like a plan review or site plan it probably needs to be

Is that a surveyor or is that an engineer?

Or both?

Both.

Surveyors are licensed by the state.

Engineers are licensed by the state.

In some cases, architects, depending on what it is, they have a license with the state.

So I can understand this and we're clear.

So we didn't have anything in this provision, but what it is is it's dictated based on a minor or major site plan.

It dictates when it becomes a professional licensed individual.

So for example, if we wanted to take this section out, we could.

And then if the project was big enough that required a major site plan, these provisions come into play.

So all we did is said from jump,

And as it sits with this, I'm sorry Mr.

So if we were to use this as major,

campsite major, then the campsite major would be what size?

It would be this one.

So I can clarify.

It would be reduced requirements in smaller scale across the board.

We haven't discussed it more than, you know, and we talked about it not that long ago.

I'm sure you had thoughts afterwards.

Staff has thoughts.

Mr. Painting had thoughts.

And I think that's just, you know, Mr. Painting shared that this seems a bit much for everything.

There's smaller outfits that this would probably price them out of the market.

So

If we could come up with something like a minor version that allows people to do it on a smaller scale.

With respect to the minor campground,

Less than three to qualify, since we're saying that three is major.

I mean, that's part of the conversation.

I mean, if it's somebody wanted to do it for a temporary basis, specific months out of the year, specifically for outages, and you put parameters over it, I think you would get away from the onesies and twosies all year long.

But it would be something that if you account for screening, buffering, making sure well and septic and electrodes done the right way, put parameters on how long the operation is going to occur,

It's a more catered approach than what we've got right now.

Just seems to me if we go less than three, that's exactly why we started this whole effort.

I'd have to see it before I could say I'd be in favor of it, but just for the first time tonight hearing it, that's why we met.

That's why we started this whole thing, one and two.

I think three is, to call it major is stretch.

But I get the connection to VDOT, I mean to Department of Health.

Anyway, my two cents.

In the larger side like this, the density of something like this, if someone with a larger scale campground, you know, not talking about the ones or twos, or maybe we are somewhere in the middle.

We're getting ready to come around the corner with this TDR program.

Is that something that could be possibly implemented into this in order to, again, help preserve role character, take division rights can?

or something that we should be thinking about does it cross the boundary in a campground density format, possibly, based on initial conversations, anything that would be involved in the TDR or PDR process uses outside or on parcels that were involved in the program would have to be like specifically agricultural in nature.

So because of that,

The only reason I ask is, as Chair brought this up earlier, we have our growth overlay districts in here.

I mean, that may be one of the uses that we would be willing to allow for

CUPs that are requesting additional density.

And under under the CUP process, so we can assess it and engage it for growth.

I looked at that as another opportunity of

Citizens being able to get value for their division right, sell them, and preserve role as well.

I was very curious how a lot of this was going to be worded or put together last month, this month.

And I think staff and commissioners involved did a fantastic job trying to get this to this point.

I might add that a lot of the commentary that I pushed forward here this evening, we've already gone through, but I wanted to bring it to the Commission.

because if we don't bring it to you all, you don't know what the process is going through.

One of the things, Chris, that I had a comment on previous and maybe we'll go over it, is when you talk about this temporary stay of family with the camper outside the house,

Your number was a third of the time, if I looked at the math for me, right?

Not to exceed 10 days in a 30-day period.

Right.

Where is that number?

And then is that too much time, too little time?

I'd like to hear from the commission to see whether that makes sense.

Because that's basically a third of the time that you would allow.

your family to stay there according to what we have there, if everybody does, operates under the rightful term.

I forget when Mr. Painting said the unlawful side of things.

But no, if they fall within that constraint, that's a third of the time.

To me it seems reasonable to provide some guidance and I don't think that's unreasonable guidance.

If I had relatives that wanted to

I lived in a travel trailer next to my house for 10 days every 30 days and it went on year after year I'd find a way to end it.

So I just let it go with that.

So that's Mr. Disosway, but some of our some of our other people that don't fall within that are just glad to get those kids outside the house.

Mr. Goodwin.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

First flash, I didn't have any problem with that at all, 10 out of 30.

But then something struck me, short-term rentals.

Next slide.

Next slide.

Been from short-term rental use or compensation at all.

This is specifically if you've got family from far away that, like I said, is coming for a wedding or coming to enjoy the lake or something like that.

But, you know, our house is twelve hundred square feet.

I'm sure if we had campers in the family that I would much prefer to have people stay in the camper next to the house for a couple of days, then, you know, jack up for and in a small bedroom.

It looks like we're trying to accommodate family on major holidays.

One, they come and do whatever.

Sure.

Mr. Kuhn, are you ready to bring this forward?

I think if we want to evaluate the minor campground I think what will probably end up happening is there's going to be some things maybe shift out of the major to the minor and there may be some changes in there so unless the work group wants to move forward with this one I think it's okay for us to table it for now.

We have some additional time to add that secondary

Mr. Chairman, the thought process was that we this is the rough draft and there was some other work in other areas to do and I don't think it was staff's intention to bring this forward.

I don't see any other items right now, so I'm going to close the work session.