[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6200063,"mediaKeyId","3819614-1e5292bc681c9d616c162c524758d1bc","parentId",3819614,"title","Supervisors consider personal-property tax relief to recruit volunteer firefighters and EMS","audioSeconds",2929,"startMs",2111000,"endMs",5040000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3819614-1e5292bc681c9d616c162c524758d1bc&start=2111&end=5040","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3819614-1e5292bc681c9d616c162c524758d1bc/thumbnail_2111000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6200063/Nottoway-County/Virginia/Supervisors-consider-personal-property-tax-relief-to-recruit-volunteer-firefighters-and-EMS","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200063-d27d920046da89cfd30b3a95846e44ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1770927152&Signature=eLl0xdO4MFUlxBklKG2j4YMmIaCm2b997Gyip3u5~1qvfnzFmtLwef8SJq~NnObhLFkkJ5IxeqZlGznB3eouQJkVyg~-KqEQcGpd1infMncFJ~wZmwYNRjvu-NCPa3-w38uZkJ4EIgh92mHMGUOpLlmn-33PBqW5aB6X545qCLoty-Npb3ngurvtZ5b5w5M3Wd2rLUYL78u-hwMCYFDKAsWnOzMpSXad7LnrRfarem-L2to9VjIY0B9wt80sknK454WrtU74RANj3~I74ntFwsPeITr6JG8yfHIBFVj1-f3M~x7hVUr0ATYShxYF7PVTCoV~3rJ702RWgtJw3eqpFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nottoway County, VA","date","2025-06-14T08:31:00.703Z","article","Nottoway County supervisors spent the bulk of their June 12 work session discussing incentives for volunteer firefighters and EMS members, focusing on personal-property and limited real-estate tax relief to aid recruitment and retention.

Staff presented multiple options and associated county revenue impacts: exempting one primary vehicle owned by volunteers would reduce county receipts by about $22,009.94 across all eligible volunteers; exempting volunteers’ other personal property (trailers, additional vehicles) would cost about $45,002.46; combined options or all-personal-property exemptions were estimated at roughly $68,000 total. Staff also presented an option that would combine a one-vehicle exemption with a modest real-estate credit; that option’s total impact was estimated at about $77,000.

Supervisors and volunteer chiefs described operational reliance on volunteers and the high value volunteers provide; supervisors emphasized recruitment concerns and discussed practical eligibility rules (probation periods, active-roster verification). Chiefs explained that departments submit annual rosters and that probation periods typically last six months; staff said roster-based verification is the current method to determine eligibility.

Board members expressed support for starting with a near-term, lower-cost step — exempting one vehicle used for volunteer response and setting that vehicle’s tax to $0 — while acknowledging that real-estate exemptions are more complicated because volunteers vary in ownership and property values. Several supervisors and volunteer leaders argued a one-vehicle exemption would be a clearer, administrable incentive and could be funded without a large reallocation.

Staff noted no budget appropriation currently exists for a county-wide exemption; supervisors discussed reappropriating reserves or finding funds within the current budget to implement a one-vehicle exemption in the current fiscal year and to revisit broader incentives during next year’s budget process. Supervisors asked staff to prepare ordinance language, revenue reallocation options and implementation details for a future meeting.

No formal ordinance was adopted at the work session. Supervisors asked staff to return with a recommendation and draft language for board consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","June 12, 2025 Board of Supervisors Worksession","oneSentenceSummary","Nottoway supervisors reviewed options to reduce or waive personal-property taxes for volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel — including exempting one vehicle, all personal property, or pairing one vehicle exemption with a real-estate credit — and signaled preliminary support to pursue a one-vehicle exemption to zero as a near-term step.","taxTitle","Nottoway County, Virginia","taxId",37849,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6200067,"County staff propose changes to building-permit fees to recover inspection costs",945,1020000,1965000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3819614-1e5292bc681c9d616c162c524758d1bc&start=1020&end=1965","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3819614-1e5292bc681c9d616c162c524758d1bc/thumbnail_1020000.jpg","/articles/6200067/Nottoway-County/Virginia/County-staff-propose-changes-to-building-permit-fees-to-recover-inspection-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200067-5a87e88d94c090f607f48193b6a3235d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770927152&Signature=mkpIrCvlDayjvKjYQHXtnPJgiT3O-2rugCc8izad9ealjldO6i4u~Ms2wjBN9YHeUjKiqWK2Wnl-DfPsXzBs1A-prMmNcepw4sT5TChdjkp3RCb52WOaFsGlbVle7sohajECQEOnvyStsHpBFMTDaOt1npmkdRx4i2WTLyrdXSOIOiy~BYhJpDIwseaAh2ph7YDnDD-Sb6cxAa-mJAEdVmLn8cWAhckMUG~O8zrOeuj17Q3B-osrppiat~IyoJQfCQsdopeZHSvDzyHc0B54U3SBN2wWMEXoPH-DdeFSWw6yICrVPRyGML81uCOxTMuba1MBxdy6LrxBZxyO4YhX1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Nottoway County’s building official proposed fee-structure changes at the June 12 work session intended to shift part of permitting costs from the general fund to permit users and to make enforcement of licensing requirements easier.

The building official said he had proposed moving his permit technician from the administrative/general-fund line to a fee-funded line so permit fees would cover that staff cost. He described a broader change from the county’s current universal-permit model to individual trade permits (electrical, plumbing, mechanical) to make it easier to verify contractor licensure. Under the existing universal permit, the county finds it harder to confirm whether licensed contractors are performing the work, the official said.

Staff reviewed several fee approaches observed in neighboring localities. The presentation summarized current trade-permit practice as a roughly $60 base fee plus a charge per $1,000 of contract value; staff proposed either a flat $100 trade-permit fee or moving to a 1%-of-contract model (equivalent to $10 per $1,000). The building official noted the county’s current renovation fee is $1.80 (per something in the existing schedule) with $6 per $1,000; he proposed lowering the small base component while increasing the percentage to 1% to better match costs and neighboring localities’ practices. He said a new residential-start fee is currently $150.

Supervisors asked for examples and impact estimates. Staff said three trades on a new home would generate three trade fees, and estimated 30 new single-family dwellings would yield about $9,000 under certain scenarios. Supervisors discussed the revenue trade-offs of per-thousand vs. square-foot models; staff said square-foot pricing typically favors very large commercial projects and might not be fair for standard residential renovations.

Board members generally signaled support for shifting the technician to the fee-funded line, moving toward individual trade permits, and exploring raising per-contract fees to 1% while lowering the small base fee (one supervisor suggested lowering the base from $1.80 to $1.50 or a similar reduction). Staff said it would prepare a formal package and could invite contractors for input.

No fee change was adopted at the work session; staff will return with a formal proposal for a future agenda and said they would consult local contractors about impacts.","Nottoway County building official outlined a plan to move permit costs toward users by shifting a technician to fee-funded operations, switching from a universal permit to individual trade permits, and raising base and per-contract fees; supervisors supported further discussion and asked staff to refine numbers.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6200073,"County staff say solar project must seek rezoning and historic review",407,601000,1008000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3819614-1e5292bc681c9d616c162c524758d1bc&start=601&end=1008","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3819614-1e5292bc681c9d616c162c524758d1bc/thumbnail_601000.jpg","/articles/6200073/Nottoway-County/Virginia/County-staff-say-solar-project-must-seek-rezoning-and-historic-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200073-7be964df0b55b7a506471d7d883eac99/orig.mp4?Expires=1770927152&Signature=aUlSRB~H5T87nH9zFszeJKkq-lFt7JQAxxROY2IEohvAPwxUEy6tmlSZvbCPYXktYhGOQZUO43TmioksEcnUWVYbcdfmA9m6i~dZ4VyDVHoqixCZfLE6zxafnhijaVs9SarSXh4VkJwqZWxpOCTANK31SXHO35fKPSnfI1wX3D3tKwwoUyj3c2-dYbcSgDTFCqreUl~hPbHhgbyM9FGIy~QqzVYpj-XxoiWeKYtQgGbL9N8o3i4vHMuk3FOeG8~Hfpt6ZTfdbmCk6vbEinjg9aECbX0oOCj~QWQlFNG5ghfY7E-Gv9Sib1Np984j--Iu8yB2lttvAHAYl7E5pmxDWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff told supervisors on June 12 that an applicant seeking to build a solar array on land on Bruce Road cannot proceed under the parcel’s current rural-residential zoning and must pursue rezoning or a special exception.

The staff member said the applicant proposed two potential solar sites: one about 30 acres under panels (estimated to generate about 3 megawatts) and another about 40 acres under panels (estimated close to 5 megawatts). The parcel is part of a larger tract with historic easements (variously described in county records as about 314–316 acres). The applicant had told staff he had contacted the National Trust for Historic Preservation, but the planning office had not seen written evidence of that contact.

Staff said the county’s zoning map showed the parcel as rural residential and that zoning “does not allow for solar” under current rules. The planner advised that the applicant needs the correct zoning before the county can consider a special exception for a solar operation. The planner also reported that the planning commission recently denied other development proposals where the commission wanted development concentrated closer to towns with infrastructure.

Supervisors and staff discussed visibility from nearby roads, buffering and the parcel’s long history of agricultural use. A staff member said there is a local easement referenced as Agnew Farm and that the county’s records show a continuous historic agricultural use, which can complicate zoning grandfathering rules: staff noted that continuity of the historic use affects whether the county can claim a nonconforming use exception.

No formal application was approved; supervisors were informed of the procedural steps the applicant must take to move forward: (1) obtain rezoning to a district that allows utility-scale solar or apply for a special exception where allowed, (2) provide documentation of consultations with historic-preservation entities (the applicant said he had contacted the National Trust), and (3) provide site plans and buffers for review by staff and the planning commission.

The planning staff said it would follow established public-notice procedures for any rezoning or exception request and that the applicant remains responsible for fulfilling any easement or historic-preservation requirements.

Supervisors did not take formal action; staff recommended the applicant be told to pursue the rezoning/process required by the county.","A developer seeking to place solar panels on a large historic farm parcel was told the property’s current rural-residential zoning does not allow utility-scale solar; staff said the applicant must pursue rezoning or a special exception and clear any historic-easement reviews.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6200077,"Supervisors discuss airport overlay zoning to attract aviation businesses",2226,3512000,5738000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3819614-1e5292bc681c9d616c162c524758d1bc&start=3512&end=5738","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3819614-1e5292bc681c9d616c162c524758d1bc/thumbnail_3512000.jpg","/articles/6200077/Nottoway-County/Virginia/Supervisors-discuss-airport-overlay-zoning-to-attract-aviation-businesses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200077-00c09d6b77d32ce09b07603a9907e43e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770927152&Signature=UF44o4ktoroeN0p5nZyG8yAXZ4AfOBa~hlgTezQaXY63neWKPbDh6tdELfD6ltjYRkc0RGgAJo6sxH~41trctkiYPAO95raDQO4RIkpl97lfsZyehKQkySSk0YLS3isA7omznZpe4pI4-INFozNdZboXzZSbR25mMjkr7TMXnXWuOURnx7-LuRd7FeOCqH2M~1PuogquJNh2xwlAANb0DveVo8-3bLeMuMvCjThmF9WZ26DOR0uneTqUCuJDAqOYu5RvWmMwIb1orSZYvby6b1x6yHba-ekAqQy-69SpKDEKScIq7D6hrxR~hZ2LGyoEO6Wm63Oxf9wq4BRo~DNPkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Nottoway County Board of Supervisors members discussed zoning changes on June 12 to create an aviation-focused overlay for roughly 83–84 acres of county-owned land adjacent to Blackstone Municipal Airport.

The proposal would add an airport/aviation district or overlay to guide uses on the timbered parcel the county recently cleared, allowing aviation research and development, manufacturing and assembly, manned and unmanned flight training, fuel facilities, terminals, aircraft charter services, police/fire/spot rescue stations, motor vehicle parking and accessory uses. The draft also lists businesses compatible with an airport environment such as vehicle rental, travel accommodation and retail, though supervisors said they may narrow hospitality and lodging to direct visitor stays to nearby towns.

A county staff member described the intent as an economic-development tool. “We want to dedicate that to aviation businesses,” the staff member said during the discussion. The staff member and other supervisors said the overlay would permit many aviation uses “by right,” so businesses that meet the standards could locate there without a separate special-use permit process.

The county will coordinate with the Town of Blackstone and the Department of Aviation. Town officials would remain the airport owner and would be eligible for Department of Aviation grants for airport improvements; supervisors said Blackstone could apply for certain grants that the county itself cannot. Supervisors and staff discussed using an airport safety/compatibility plan (described in the draft as an Air Force safety plan adaptation) and amending the county code to add the new definitions and district language.

Supervisors asked staff to bring a formal draft to the planning commission for review before any ordinance is advertised. A supervisor said the initial overlay would cover the 83–84 acre parcel adjacent to the airport fence, with the possibility of expanding across the highway later if demand supports it.

Board members and staff also noted intergovernmental and grant-related constraints: Blackstone owns the airport and therefore is the eligible applicant for many aviation grants; the town and county plan to partner so the town can apply and the county can provide the land or zoning changes needed to attract businesses.

Supervisors did not take a formal vote on an ordinance during the work session; they asked staff to prepare a draft for the planning commission and return with options.

The county intends to keep the overlay focused on aviation uses and accessory businesses and to refine the language before formal adoption.

The supervisors said they expect to return to the issue in upcoming meetings after the planning commission reviews the draft.","Nottoway County supervisors reviewed a draft airport overlay intended to steer aviation-related businesses to roughly 83–84 acres near Blackstone Municipal Airport, and agreed to send a draft to the planning commission for comment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Supervisors consider personal-property tax relief to recruit volunteer firefighters and EMS

County staff propose changes to building-permit fees to recover inspection costs

County staff say solar project must seek rezoning and historic review

Supervisors discuss airport overlay zoning to attract aviation businesses