[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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],{"_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",6123170,"mediaKeyId","2691387-eb52ee8e994409eb9bba22bca8c4a23f","parentId",2691387,"title","Planning commissioners review focus-area plans for growth corridors and ask staff for residential-growth analysis","audioSeconds",4290,"startMs",2111000,"endMs",6401000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2691387-eb52ee8e994409eb9bba22bca8c4a23f&start=2111&end=6401","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2691387-eb52ee8e994409eb9bba22bca8c4a23f/thumbnail_2111000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6123170/Louisa-County/Virginia/Planning-commissioners-review-focus-area-plans-for-growth-corridors-and-ask-staff-for-residential-growth-analysis","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6123170-2ef7c8b96f0828d7a52fa7d6b1f3f448/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021489&Signature=b1pyu7uIcWKRM9a~aJoTl0kLlTYTRsvTTuC6YJrTQJhkQfHHY0CJxwyZVH8GW64Ak~MUpGKzJQV6RpKozXYkV7R9jhL-Wd5fDjTCsmEcn6pyQzjUd4vu6nMo2-CbJI4SPYGfD-sy-7A7l8LictULTWfXRJF2ItQ7S8E9EkTp9u7XiOtePkBC87yXHd3quVsD7PCTQwlG-yifQ1tbqjzlnNfzrHE9tqq4HQJm7iJ44M0MPCSEa~awGMiXMOK1XKhd3lt~b1tjP7Lm4JuW1yjyUpK8OjVpXUi7mUUEL7QsFRtm21d0sJUC44ncT-gLW9piPkAVUwlvjGiog4ujQFv5KA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-03-14T11:58:56Z","article","Louisa County planning staff presented draft focus-area plans derived from the county's 2040 comprehensive plan and walked commissioners through character themes and recommended policy language for multiple growth areas, including Gum Springs, Shannon Hill, Ferncliff, Gordonsville, Lake Anna, Zion Crossroads and Mineral.

Staff said the focus areas function as a 'scalpel' to the comprehensive plan's broader guidance: they give site-level expectations for developers in targeted growth areas. Presenters reviewed future land use designations (mixed use, low-density residential, industrial and rural) and recommended tools such as interparcel connectivity, shared commercial driveways (for commercial/industrial uses only), and limiting large regional commercial development where central water and sewer are not available.

Commissioners pressed staff on transportation and service impacts. Multiple members emphasized coordinating access alignment to limit curb cuts on key roadways, expecting developers to participate in transportation solutions (for example, Smart Scale projects and roundabouts near I-64 exits). Commissioner comments also focused on whether low-density residential areas near towns (notably Mineral and Louisa) should be re-examined to avoid concentrating large populations without sufficient services; commissioners requested an analysis of the potential residential buildout under current land-use designations and minimum lot sizes.

Staff said the growth-area language can be edited now (character elements such as 'promote shared driveways and interparcel connectivity for commercial/industrial uses' were added mid-meeting at a commissioner's request) and offered to provide GIS maps and buildout estimates. The commission asked staff to return the focus-area package to the next work session and requested specific GIS statistics on potential residential growth countywide and around the towns before any motion to move the plans to public hearing.

The commission agreed to continue the item as a work-session topic next month to give absent commissioners a chance to comment and to allow staff time to produce the requested buildout analysis and any map updates.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Worksession, March 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Louisa County planning staff walked commissioners through draft focus-area plans tied to the 2040 comprehensive plan covering multiple growth corridors and asked for direction on transportation and residential-density questions.","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},6123166,"Commission reviews Phase 3 ordinance amendments covering subdivisions, private lanes, shoreline rules, signs and telecom; asks staff for refinements",2663,6431000,9094000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2691387-eb52ee8e994409eb9bba22bca8c4a23f&start=6431&end=9094","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2691387-eb52ee8e994409eb9bba22bca8c4a23f/thumbnail_6431000.jpg","/articles/6123166/Louisa-County/Virginia/Commission-reviews-Phase-3-ordinance-amendments-covering-subdivisions-private-lanes-shoreline-rules-signs-and-telecom-asks-staff-for-refinements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6123166-49ca7ad526e0dd054eee78fb6081ec9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021489&Signature=ArwtT~mgGjjIlEQvgM02hKUOJHb7kPawRpn0L6VqyNK6gTgzTg2TVr7by9ZLDEWj8F1VwMRoEbzVA7hc9O05dzgpiSddMqkcVrLghQJECTPpkR73n-9j6C1runUnBd6QUfFp1PR1YKSaMPp5RxWanPp1Jq-cwi0qeT26Ng~2CIbvGAIAp27BQu5HJ2ecIcq87J3OMUL2Aw2d3rf22t-QhcFosphZGm2fV1qlWoUfudsSblvN0582VAv6gWEsyP7JDjSSid73l6sl6ohRnoAffwknYbSgDrSLSJ3NAn-iWJgFKYJLsCtA8ND5F4ctUc1IWrj23MSmjvm1LZuo17ddfg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff presented a draft Phase 3 package of ordinance amendments including multiple changes to definitions, subdivision plat requirements, private lane language, density-bonus language for affordable housing, shoreline use provisions, sign/illumination language and proposed telecommunication tower inspection requirements.

Staff explained the most substantive draft changes: removal or clarification of some definitions (for example, vegetated buffers and private-lane phrasing), replacing a prior density-bonus enforcement assumption (the county currently has no mechanism to enforce affordable-housing density bonuses), requiring subdivision performance agreements with time limits for completion of improvements, periodic review of posted security (every 24 months), and a clarification that the county has no obligation to install or maintain subdivision roads unless accepted by the state. Staff also proposed that generators at telecom facilities be allowed on-site but only operated during outages or testing to reflect common practice.

A significant procedural issue emerged regarding VDOT's role in plat review and entrance approvals. Commissioners and staff reported that VDOT has shifted practice: instead of signing plats, VDOT has provided concurrence letters and is not consistently conducting field reviews during the plat review timeframe, which has created delays and uncertainty (examples of driveways being moved without a field inspection were discussed). Staff and commissioners agreed to pursue drafting ordinance language that removes the requirement to show entrance locations on preliminary plats and instead adds a notation that entrances must be approved at the time an entrance permit is sought from VDOT. Staff said they met with VDOT and will continue to coordinate and bring proposed ordinance wording back for legal review.

Telecommunications: the county's new consultant asked for code language requiring applicants to provide a five-year tower inspection report (reference to industry standard TIA-222 was discussed) so the county is not reliant on structural analyses that contain unverified assumptions when carriers swap equipment on existing towers.

Commissioners flagged specific drafting issues and requested follow-up: clean up the private-lane definition (remove or clarify the clause restricting hours of access), confirm residue-parcel frontage rules (the draft replaces a prior 400-foot-and-5-acre requirement with 5 acres OR a minimum of 300 feet of frontage), and review the subdivision performance agreement template for legal sufficiency. The commission asked staff to incorporate feedback, coordinate with VDOT and legal counsel, and return the package at a future work session (April) for further discussion; staff also said they would prepare any materials needed for public hearing later in the process.","Louisa County staff presented a draft Phase 3 ordinance amendment package covering definitions, subdivision requirements, private lanes, shoreline rules, sign illumination and telecommunications.",{"_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},6123175,"Louisa County planning commission moves proposed rules on retail sales of controlled substances to public hearing",899,788000,1687000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2691387-eb52ee8e994409eb9bba22bca8c4a23f&start=788&end=1687","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2691387-eb52ee8e994409eb9bba22bca8c4a23f/thumbnail_788000.jpg","/articles/6123175/Louisa-County/Virginia/Louisa-County-planning-commission-moves-proposed-rules-on-retail-sales-of-controlled-substances-to-public-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6123175-4028cf7718767434be24ddc5d8cc2bc7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021489&Signature=G3GjMlPQIGaD7IgHJeul0qax53Jkhf9T9QAoWj1HJAqfDhboYGqowWp4gcqqinPWpxzE-9Hx3wb44dSfvor8fZ3ZMhOQZp65gDs4OghhsQQZw0QgRdoKAJ2TtkXmwBuLW1GJqAkHGQtmxeY5es6hSDcKLEFGTEzqWIkZ~PQvG3khyjzTq8SjFIZ474YR3VgMR9-7lxDhI6kG4YilMJ3mCQz0sbCohOIocUJ7Ln3OWRo95Tu7-RKrgLt0CaCnGA4NUFQdJQtmRABDl746vlgT-BY6D7K4J2T1EJJvig7XnrSbv5dTTokQ9qkRgARWbGNtcEigU9-tgq67MW7DuYf3Gw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Louisa County Planning Commission on a voice vote agreed to advance proposed zoning language that would regulate retail sales of controlled substances and send the revisions to a public hearing in April.

Commission staff presented a draft definition and a chart showing which zoning districts would allow retail sales by right or require a CUP, and commissioners discussed zoning categories such as A1, A2, C1, C2, RD and PUD and how existing pharmacies would be treated. The presentation recommended treating the use as a higher-intensity retail use and noted C2 in growth areas as the likely zone for by-right allowance if any.

The item drew repeated questions about how the proposal would affect pharmacies, farm stands and agricultural operations. Staff clarified that existing pharmacies in towns would not need to obtain a CUP if already operating in the same location; new entrants would be subject to the updated rules. Commissioners asked whether agricultural uses, roadside farm stands and tobacco or alcohol sales should be explicitly excluded; staff said they would review and tighten the draft definition—specifically the “agricultural activity passive” language—and report back before formal advertisement.

Planning commissioners discussed enforcement and process: a CUP was described as a tool that allows conditions of approval tied directly to neighborhood impacts (for example, entrance alignment), whereas rezoning proffers are voluntary commitments tied to rezoning. Commissioners reiterated that conditions attached to a CUP can be made enforceable and would remain on the approved CUP unless amended.

The chair called for a motion to move the draft language to public hearing. A motion was made and seconded; the commission recorded voice votes in which several members voted yes. The chair declared the motion passed and said the item would be advertised for the April meeting.

Staff next steps include clarifying the agricultural-related language in the definition, confirming the exact zoning chart to be advertised, and preparing materials for the public hearing where the public will be able to comment. The commission indicated the public hearing on the draft retail-sales language will be on the April agenda.","The Louisa County Planning Commission voted to move proposed zoning language regulating retail sales of controlled substances to a public hearing in April after staff presented draft definitions and a zoning chart that would generally require conditional use permits (CUPs) in most districts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commissioners review focus-area plans for growth corridors and ask staff for residential-growth analysis

Commission reviews Phase 3 ordinance amendments covering subdivisions, private lanes, shoreline rules, signs and telecom; asks staff for refinements

Louisa County planning commission moves proposed rules on retail sales of controlled substances to public hearing