Planning Commission Worksession   7/9/2026

He'll be with us for the 7 o'clock.

I'd like to call to order the July meeting, work session meeting of the Weezer County Planning Commission.

And we'll start with old business with campground.

Yes, we're gonna give me a second so I can pull this up.

So we don't have too much to go over for campground because we really didn't change any of the previous information that we had shared.

You can see Linda updated to basically have a major and a minor.

So I will prioritize going over that.

Those changes really quick.

So what we have is basically the changes since June 1st.

We differentiated between major and minor campground.

We established minimum acreage requirements, the requirement for Virginia Department of Health regulations and uniform statewide building code, clarify where campgrounds are permitted, because we changed some by right, some CUP, so just that differentiation, and then of course the recreational shelter, use on private property, and then

where they could be used for permanent residents that all stayed the same.

So what we did is we changed the campground that was provided last month just that now has become a major so campground major definition would be a campground is an area managed as a unit providing accommodations for a minimum of three campsites for recreational

John Disosway,

And then it would be two additional acres for each campsite after that.

It does not mean that those additional campsites would have to be on the two acres.

It just means that the overall property size would need to be larger.

And then the Virginia Department of Health and statewide building code compliance.

And then we had the site plan and buffering the landscape buffers that would be required.

Then what we did is we also added the minor definition.

So an area or parcel of land manages a unit providing accommodations for less than three campsites for recreational shelters.

So tents, tent trailers, travel trailers, recreational vehicles, campers, etc.

Other requirements, this would be buy right with restrictions.

We have a minimum acreage of three acres.

They would have to register with Community Development and then make sure that they are in compliance with Virginia Department of Health and the statewide building code.

And then this would be an administrative site plan.

So ultimately the difference is minor campground would be a smaller scale operation.

It would be by right with standards.

There'd be a registration with community development and subject to the standards and zoning code and minimum of three acres where the major campground would be a larger commercial operation.

A conditional use permit would be required which would include a full CUP review and then it'd be subject to the operational standards as well as the public process and the minimum acres would be 10.

Then when you look at the zoning districts where we would see at minor campgrounds would be by right, A1, A2, in and out of a growth area as well as a resort development.

The resort development would actually still go through rezoning or CUP process because we don't really have

In many of those anymore, then the major campgrounds would require conditional use permit in A1, A2, in and out of a growth area.

But then, as we mentioned last month, we expanded it to include C1 and C2 in and out of a growth area.

So this is the chart for where the different campgrounds would be allowed, minor versus major.

So what we also looked at is the fees.

So when you look at a campground major fees, what we would have to the conditional use permit process required for three or more campsites, the base fee is 750.

And then of course, how our application is now once you add employees, number of people serviced acreage, all that it could increase the fee.

So 750 would be the lowest amount that a major campground would see.

And then the site plan, the fees $300 plus 1750 for the review and 150 per acre.

Then the county electrical permits.

So the fee would be 7650.

So for each pedestal, so if they had 10, you essentially multiply that by 10.

That's how many

I'm operating

So it's basically a professional that works with septic fields, which is a little cheaper than the PE.

So the estimated cost, I think when it was all said and done through the VDH permit for a major campground, it is between like eight to $15,000 just for the septic piece.

And then for our piece, like I said, really,

It'd be $760 if it was 10 site campground, and then about $1500, $1600 for our piece of it.

Then when you get to the minor campground, if it was one to two campsites, the county fee is $150 for the administrative site plan, same $7650 per pedestal, so $150 if it was two of them.

There is a fee with,

VDH that requires the safe and adequate permit.

So basically, if you had an existing well and septic tank, they would evaluate if the well and septic could also provide for like the two campsites.

and then basically based on that evaluation either it would be a conditional approval permit to verify that it works or you may have to get a new system or expand the existing system and with those two it's I think about a thousand to four thousand dollars if it was two sites so and then really the only other one is campground major it does require a VDOT commercial entrance once it gets to vehicle 50 vehicle trips per day

So depending on how many vehicle trips a day and how many sites we may not cross that threshold for either of these provisions, I definitely don't think we would pass it for a minor campground with only two sites.

So that would be something that all in the minor campground, it would be about $300 on the county side, and it would be, like I said, between $1,000 and like $4,000 for the VDH well and septic.

service to the campsites.

And then ultimately, everything else is what we've already talked about.

So I guess, is there any questions that you all have about switching to a major versus minor flight plan?

Question was a statement.

I like the ratio in the minor.

I do.

I think that spacing.

I like

And that's to if you also check on the campground minor, of course, they would have to

Owners would have to comply with all applicable state building code and safety regulations.

That's G. H is they must register with Community Development to provide contact information for the owner and or any authorized property manager to Louisa County, along with copies of approved inspections of the Virginia Department of Health and Building Division and Community Development Department.

And then the owners must, unable to meet all of the above requirements, shall be prohibited from operating a minor campground without obtaining a conditional use permit.

from the Loyce County Board of Supervisors.

So this would be the same thing that if they violated any of the provisions above the A through H, we would give them time to correct the issue.

So for example, if they were not in compliance with VDH, we would contact VDH, have them review it.

So I just have a curious question.

Since this is by right with restrictions, I understand what you just said about if you have offenses that aren't corrected.

And I would assume that would go as well with repeat offenses that may be corrected, but maybe we keep doing the same thing over and over.

That you would say, OK, you have to get a CUP to do this.

OK, so what's the enforcement mechanism for getting a CUP?

I mean, violation violation of the zoning, so I mean, that's basically that's just enforcement of the zoning code, right?

So there's provisions in there where essentially you start at the zoning action and then once it exceeds zoning action and like corrective action, don't take it.

Then it gets to civil penalties.

And then if civil penalties get to a certain point, then it becomes criminal.

And then it's a whole different ballgame.

But I mean, honestly, once we get to civil, then we end up getting the courts involved shortly after that.

So knock on wood, we haven't had to get to the criminal as long as I've been here.

So it's one of those.

And I mean, this is also something that if they don't apply with Louisa County Community Development to say that they're even operating this,

Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I honestly don't know whose ox is being gored here, so I hope nobody takes offense.

But as long as we keep a definition for a minor campground in the ordinance, I cannot vote for it.

The occurrence of one and two campers

All over this county is the reason why we started this discussion in the first place.

And we just codified it.

And I'm not understanding that.

And the plethora of one and two all over the county is impossible, absolutely impossible for current staff to oversee.

Just too many and too strewn out.

That's just my position, and I really don't want to offend anybody because I don't know who's behind this.

I just can't get behind it.

Yeah, I mean,

The difference with this though is now there's established standards that they have to abide by.

They have to do it right safely with the electrical right and safely with the VDH.

They have to have a landscape plan.

So if you look at on the second page, section C for minor campground landscape plan containing a minimum of 100 feet

of landscaping and buffers to screen the facility from all adjacent properties and public rights of way.

That is not something we have today.

So I think the thought process behind this is.

While, yes, the one and two RVs may have started the conversation requiring that major campground, basically, which is a commercial style campground may not be the best first approach.

If we establish some standards that help protect the neighboring properties, the viewshed from the public rights of way, maybe we can start this first and see how this addresses the issue first before we go full tilt to requiring a commercial campground and site plan and everything else.

So my understanding is that we are, our enforcement is complaint based in the county.

So absent complaints about any of the existing one to campsite campgrounds that are currently in the county.

I mean, through complaints, we're going to end up notifying those individuals.

I promise you we get enough complaints to contact those individuals.

There's a lot that are already in the queue and conversations have been had.

It's just there's some that are planting their feet a little bit harder than others.

So Mr. Goodwin, just to understand, um,

Since the incidence of one or two campsites on a parcel is what kicked this off, your objection to codifying what is required for a campsite, a minor campsite,

Particularly if we have the ability to identify, we currently have enough complaints to notify and begin enforcement.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Chris.

To explain my position, I would love to know the total number of parcels in this county that we just handed a by right permission to establish one or two campsites by right.

That's the very thing we're trying to get away with.

It's one here, one here, one here.

Take it to the extreme.

How many did we just open the door to?

And George, just to respond to that, I know you're using your laptop to join the meeting, but in

The way that we have it, this is buy right with restrictions similar to what we did with the short term rentals.

So there's actually sections A through H are all provisions that they would have to abide by.

So the minimum of three acres, the main entrance signage providing dedicated phone number to a manager,

on duty, physical address of the campground, campground layout, emergency procedures, the landscape plan with the 100 foot buffer, the minor campground site and landscaping plan is basically going to be done in accordance with Article IV of the Supplementing Regulations Division I.

which would be a minor site plan.

It's an administrative site plan they'd have to put together.

The permanent campground address shall not be used to register any school-aged children in Lewis County Public Schools.

They'll have to share the chapters related to noise and solid waste as part of any rental contracts.

The campground must comply with all VDH and health regulations.

They must comply with the state building code and safety regulations and they must register with community development and provide contact information for the owners and or authorized property manager.

So

Thank you, Chris, Mr.

Chair.

And I guess all of that is based on a complaint.

Otherwise, we're just going to have a lot of one and two waiting for a complaint in order to police it up.

And that

It just doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

I'm sorry if I'm being obstinate.

I thought we wanted to get a rope around this and I'm just, I'm not convinced that we have.

And I'm just one person.

I'm not going to be hard over on anybody's position.

So I think I understand now, Mr. Goodwin, that your position is that your understanding was by initiating this effort we would be removing a lot of the single or one or two campsite per parcel around the county and

Mr.

Chair, that is correct.

And I can just tell you within a mile and a half of my house, there are two that I don't know if anybody lives in or not, but I know there's an extension court running to them.

And what I complain about

I have no idea because I don't know if anybody's living in it.

Maybe they're just charging it up for when they're going to use it.

I just know it hasn't moved in five years, which is kind of strange.

I just, I think, in my opinion, I think we're creating a big problem and it's going to be that much more difficult as they proliferate for us to go back and correct it and take something away

that we gave them in the first place.

Thank you, Mr. Goodwin.

What we would normally do then I think at this point is we would under new business at the 7 o'clock meeting we would take a vote to determine whether we wanted to move this to public hearing in August.

which we can do recognizing the concern brought forward by Commissioner Goodwin if everybody's interested in doing that.

Well, whichever month we

Very well then we'll pick that up at 7 o'clock.

Thank you.

Yes, so in your agenda packet you will see there's a couple of refinements that have been made just through some additional conversation, consideration, and review.

I think

should be in track changes to lock configuration.

The original proposal was increasing it from 20% that it is today to somewhere between 40 and 95%.

Based on the fact that the acreage and the road frontage seem to be pretty good right now, we think that we can strike the 95 and just use 40 percent.

So that would essentially double the ratio that is in the zoning code today.

The other item that we think should be struck is in setbacks.

We had originally talked about using the banded method, which is

You have a home that is set back no less than 200, no more than 300 to try and preserve that back acreage.

The issue is as we started to review that, especially with homes that are currently on the 1.5 or the smaller side of acreage, you have a lot of them where the home site is on the back of the property, so then that really starts to impede

John Disosway, James Dickerson,

The one other change that we had was for family division standards.

So originally, we had talked about doing a sliding scale where basically every year you owned it, that's one less year of retention.

But then there's some concern about the retention period.

So what we ended up coming up with is now individuals would have to own the property for five years to qualify for a family division.

And then if the ownership was from five years to nine years, the retention period would be 10 years.

If the individual has owned the property for 10 or more years, then the retention period would only be five.

So individuals that have been a part of the community and who lived here longer, that retention period would be less, but they would still have to own the property for five years before they qualify for a family division.

So that accomplishes people that are actually using it for a family division.

and have been here for quite some time.

They still have some retention period required, but it's not as much as the 10-year hold period for the five to nine years.

And then everything else that has been amended or changed will be in the PowerPoint.

All right, so what we're going to talk about today is step three, which is the long term preservation tools.

So what we'll go over is purchase the development rights, the transfer of development rights, and then very shortly is future conservation incentives.

But when we talk about that, that is a 10 to 15 year

So like I said, we're going to talk about the preservation tools, the Virginia laws that allow it, and how Louisa County's proposed preservation programs would work.

And then of course, how they would complement the subdivision and zoning recommendations.

So ultimately preservation programs, they provide landowners with voluntary alternatives that preserve ag and forestry land.

They maintain the private property ownership and then hopefully directs the future growth toward designated growth area and support the comprehensive plan.

The three initiatives, the purchase of development rights, essentially the county compensates landowners for temporarily

or Permanently Preserving Land, but our program we're looking at temporarily.

Transfer of development rights, this would be market-based.

This is where individuals in rural areas or sending areas transfer their divisions or potential development to growth areas.

And then with that transfer, that permanently preserves rural land.

And then when we get to conservation incentives, essentially that is the long-term preservation that may include conservation easements and like I said, future program consideration.

So Virginia does not give us a multitude of options to preserve land.

It is essentially transfer development rights, purchase of development rights, and conservation easements.

That's pretty much the three options that we have moving forward.

So what staff has done is effectively looked at all three options and tried to justify the best way for us to move forward with this holistic approach.

So first we'll talk about transfer of development rights.

So what are they?

It is a voluntary market-based land preservation tool that allows residential development potential

So it would be transferred from rural areas or sending areas to growth areas.

What this does is the key characteristics, instead of eliminating the development rights entirely, the program just pushes to relocate future development areas where infrastructure and public services exist.

So if you think about it this way, like if we decided we're just going to draw a line, we're not going to have more than 20,000 residential homes in Louisa County anymore.

What the TDR program allows is that when you look at the whole county, you would essentially take homes out of the rural area and put them into the growth area, but that same number stays consistent.

So you don't have ebbs and flows and unable to plan for it because it's all accounted for.

So the key characteristics is the development rights are voluntarily sold by landowners in designated sending areas.

Developers would purchase the development rights to increase the residential density within the approved receiving areas.

Based on Virginia code, those development rights are permanently retired from the sending property and cannot be recreated.

So once they leave the property, they can never come back.

with that specific mechanism is what preserves that parcel forever.

The property remains a private ownership and may continue to be farmed, managed for forest and other uses as permitted.

And like we said, the growth is designated into the growth area while permanently preserving bag and parcel land.

You do not have this.

Well, it would be helpful, I'm just trying to follow and make notes, but it's jumping around now, I'm catching up with you.

I didn't think that we had that in the packet.

Well, that's where I would have gotten it.

That's fine.

Just go ahead.

I just know that it's not.

So yes, so then what we're looking at in our proposal is the sending areas would be a one in a two zone properties outside of the growth area, and then they would need to apply to sell those TDR's with the county.

So the state code requires that

We keep a library of anybody that's interested in selling the TDRs and then basically if a developer wants to purchase them they would come and ask for the most up-to-date copy and we would give them all the information with the people that are selling them so that's why they would have to apply to the county we'd verify the divisions that were available for that TDR program ask them how many they'd be interested in selling and basically release their information to any developers that may request it.

The receiving areas in this would be inside the growth areas.

It would be A1 and A2 parcels, R1 and R2, as well as PUDs.

So the proposed receiving areas, this is where we've talked about essentially what you would have is if it was an A1 piece of property in the growth area that was interested in purchasing TDRs, they could go from three divisions up to six as long as they had the acreage and the road frontage.

Same concept for A2, they could double their divisions and go from seven to 14 as long as they had the acreage and the divisions.

The R1 and R2, there'd be a density bonus up to 100%.

And then PUD, there'd be additional density bonus through performance standards, where we touched on the benefits of the community, the affordable or workforce housing, different things like that.

So when we look at the R1 and R2 framework, without a TDR, what we're recommending is the lots would increase to 2.5 acre lot minimums.

There'd be the standard by right density, which would be

One residential unit per two and a half acres.

The preservation benefit in the conventional subdivision, there wouldn't be too many benefits.

But with the TDR program, we're suggesting the 1.5 acre lots on well and septic or 40,000 square feet on public water and sewer.

The increased density would be earned through TDRs and each additional dwelling permitted preserves one rural development right.

And then that would, like we said, up to 100% increase before transitioning to a PUD.

So for example, if there was a lot that could

handle three R1 pieces, they could get up to six.

Just this similar process is A1 and A2.

The difference between A1 and A2, the minimum lot size would stay the same.

So the 1.5 acre lots, it would be the same.

However, we would allow up to double the residential density permitted by right.

So like we said, if it was three, they could get to six as long as they had the acreage and the road frontage.

And same concept is for every TDR purchased that would move growth into the growth area and away from outside of the growth area or the rural areas.

This is one where we're still refining it.

But what we're looking at is for the plan unit development, what it would look like is the base density by right.

So in this case, it was 0.75 dwelling units per acre on 100 acre parcel, that would be 75 homes, if they purchase development rights to 1.25, they could go up to 125 homes.

So in this example, if that

PDU wanted to purchase 50 development rights that means that there'd be 50 homes removed from the rural areas of the county and put into this PUD which would be inside the growth area and then we also had in there that they'd have an additional density bonus that with additional community benefits so we would basically have to come up with scoring chart or something similar to allow that if they're donating land for municipal use if they have

John Disosway, James Dickerson, John Dickerson,

Why do TDRs work?

Today's system, there's more rural lots that are being utilized in the proposed system.

It's going to end up preserving it more frequently because instead of selling

They can sell the rights but still own the land and then that development will happen inside the growth areas.

Same thing, development spreads today where this would concentrate the growth into the growth areas.

The infrastructure extensions, we all know as people build near infrastructure hubs, slowly but surely infrastructure starts making its way to those different developments where if you concentrate it, the infrastructure can be more efficient because it's in a tighter location.

And then same thing, the rural fragmentation versus permanent preservation because

Like we said, every time a TDR is purchased from outside the growth area, moved to the growth area, that is permanent preservation that's occurring.

I'll stop here.

Is there any questions about the TDR program?

So we had something come up this month.

This came to me not in our work group, but outside of it.

So I called in with staff and wanted to run by it.

There's a reason other localities this has failed and its lack of participation in the TDR program.

It's a lot involved for a citizen to go up to the county and give plats and get qualified and fully understand how many division rights they got and how do they sell it.

So, so much thought has gone into this and we're still researching legal side.

It's looking very promising.

But one thing we wanted to add in was availability of the market.

make this more available so that it can be used in development, high density areas.

So one way I was suggesting to do this is removal of lot lines.

One thing we have an abundance of in this county is bad family plots, bad divisions or bad lots or

A lot of times, you may want to buy your neighbor's property because you want more privacy.

You have two or three adjoining lots.

If you adjoin two lots together, any adjoining lots, you can be granted a TDR because you took two house spots and made it into one.

So in essence, you're taking a home from the rural area and you're moving it into a growth area by combining lot lines.

This can happen in lots of ways.

say someone does family divisions.

Very, very common in the county.

It has been for a long time.

And maybe the kids moved to Texas.

They're cowboy fans.

I don't know.

But they decided not to live and build in Louisa when their parents or grandparents plotted this out, and that was their plan.

Well, that doesn't mean that the parents or grandparents are still alive or went down, that they want somebody else developing there.

They can put the property back.

You can rejoin a parent parcel.

You can start putting chunks of land back together and move those development rights into a growth area.

It's a way for substantially more citizens to be able to participate versus saying, who has a larger chunk of land that you don't want division rights on?

It's about saying, how many bad parcels are out there?

We can fix those.

you know, how many oddly shaped or non qualified, we can start joining parcels back together for it preserves a role character.

You know, that's that's one of our two main goals.

And what we're doing is preserving role character.

And if we're joining lots for the enormous amount of reasons that people could have joined lots for,

Like Chris said, he said it perfectly.

Each time, it's a voluntary act of a citizen to preserve land in a rural area.

And it's directing it to a growth-based center.

So we need a little bit more time, right, Chris?

Kind of looking through additional qualifying TDRs so that we can increase the volume of how many citizens and how they can participate.

One thing we talked about in this is absolutely requiring a surveyor for every transaction.

You know, no exceptions.

This is something that needs to be plotted on plat so that it's properly recorded by staff kept up over time to say, you know, this parcel on 98 dash eight, whatnot.

It has a division right stamped on the parcel and recorded at the county.

So it's a step that can greatly minimize staff time in this endeavor and staff time in the future with maintaining it

I was calling Chris on a Friday afternoon and a Saturday, saying, Chris, I think I've come up with something really awesome in the TDRs.

Half of the time I say that, they're like, no, Todd, that's illegal.

Sorry, doesn't comply with state code.

Great thought, but next try.

And this one, we were getting really excited about.

I called George.

George, he's still listening in.

Are you with us?

Yes, George and I were chatting about it, too.

He felt good.

It's just an avenue that no other locality in the state has tried.

And this has failed many times, and we're here trying to do it.

Well, how do we make it not fail like the other localities?

And we increase our product.

We have a buyer.

Every locality has a buyer.

One didn't.

One didn't have a proper growth area, right?

So nobody, one of the localities we studied.

But we have multiple growth areas in our county, you know, they line 64 to lake and so forth.

So we certainly have a market, but we don't have any product on the shelf.

It's very hard and kind of complicated to participate in a standard TDR.

But this simplifies it for so many diverse reasons.

And I don't see it being taken advantage of because there's no backdoor around this.

If you're eliminating a lot line, you're combining greater acreage voluntarily.

for whatever reason a citizen feels like they want to.

And I didn't want to limit citizens and what they could do with their land.

So being able to put it back together.

And shoot, I think of how many friends and constituents I got throughout my district in the county who

Your family land starts trickling away over generations.

I'm a fifth generation.

Ours used to be huge.

Not anymore.

It's been divided by power lines, gas lines, 64, family numbers that have moved.

It's quite cut up from what it was generations ago.

But as we put it back together, you don't put it back together with the intent of re-dividing it.

And just with that same sentiment, you also have people that either gifted land or purchased land next to them and they just, it's their land so there's no need, I've got two parcels now, there's no need to bring it into one, which you bring it into one and limit the future divisions, now you've preserved that whole chunk.

And what we're kind of doing is we're starting to capture a little bit of that affordable housing in here.

And I know some people may think, well, what in the world are you talking about, Todd?

That doesn't exist anymore.

It's a market.

Well, a great example would be in a growth area.

Average lot, help me out here, average lot, $100,000, $120,000 in a well-defined development.

And it doesn't matter if that lot is two acres, three acres, three and a half acres.

It's going to be priced what it is.

It's a buildable lot for a house.

So market is what it is.

Well, let's say that is three acres.

And we use this TDR and we want to purchase it from Sally down the street in the rural area.

She has two adjoining lots and combines them together.

Now she can sell me a TDR.

You know, if she wants to sell that TDR for 30, 40,000, you know, we think, wow, that sounds high.

But from a builder developer standpoint, it's really not because they bought that lot at 100 or 120,000.

They've bought a 30,000 TDR.

Now that total purchase was 150.

But now you've got two lots in the growth area that costs 75 apiece when you break it down.

So now we've started making lots and growth areas with the TDR more affordable by being able to purchase division rights and move it into it.

It's quite the thought behind it, but you can take $100,000, $120,000 lot, add another cost of a TDR, two lots, three lots, depending on the size of it.

However you can go with this, sky's the limit.

Yeah, that's part of a free and open market.

Now, if free and open market says, sadly, now all of a sudden wants $80,000 for that TDR, we might call the next person on the list because then the math stops working.

But that's within any home sale, real estate sale.

It's always about a negotiation.

But it's certainly a way for more people to filter into these growth areas and make it more available, more affordable, and more of a product.

What we wanted to know is, as we refine this and put this back in, do you guys feel like exploring the option of increasing the availability of TDRs and what they are is this lot line theory that we've come up with merging parcels in rural areas.

Do y'all feel like that's a good avenue y'all would like us to explore between now and the next to implement into the TDRs?

I would be in favor of it.

I can't speak for everyone else, but personally, I would be in favor of it.

I think you're heading down.

I'm not sure I think that builders would necessarily be benevolent enough to cut the sale price of the final product.

But no, regardless of that, that goes to profit.

Regardless of that, you know, the other benefits there that you're talking about, I'd be in favor of seeing more on that.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Yeah, Mr. Goodman.

Well said, Todd.

And as Todd and I were talking this afternoon, I told him there's a double benefit in here.

Not only if you abandon lines between lots owned or acquired, you have a TDR to offer to the market, but you are also making you a lot more amenable to the new lot

restrictions that we're putting in in terms of lot size, frontage, setbacks, the whole nine yards.

So the owner or the buyer of the local lots has an opportunity to benefit from this several ways.

And I think overall, what we are presenting to you

I like it on a lot of fronts.

Number one, it goes after the primary goal of the comprehensive plan, which is preserve rural character.

It also encourages growth in the growth areas, which is what we want by naming them growth areas.

And it allows us to concentrate

the service needs in those areas where we're encouraging the growth.

So the county in offering services is not so spread out.

They can concentrate in certain areas, whether it's law enforcement, fire, school, you name it.

I like the fact that it's all voluntary, that there's nothing being forced here.

I think we're doing the right thing.

The only caution that I would offer is letting the best be the enemy of good enough at this point.

We're getting out.

People are moving around a little bit, getting agitated.

And the longer we leave this on the table and not bring it up, then more people are going to scurry through the gate before we get it secured.

So that's just my thoughts.

I think we've got a good product coming forward.

And I have absolutely no delusion that we're going to get it 100% right the first time.

It doesn't matter if we spend another 12 months on it.

There will always be something.

And this, what we are looking at throughout, has enough variables in it

to allow us to respond to market activity.

I think the approach is great.

So that's my two cents.

Thanks, George.

I really like this idea.

I can think of several citizens who live on parcels that could really benefit from this that I've talked to in the past, especially if you look at abandoning that lot line

to a lot that they own that doesn't perk, that they can't do something with and they need to put back together.

I do have one question on that, out of curiosity.

This is based right now on a receiving entity paying a sending entity to purchase this and make the thing happen.

If I decide I've got a couple of lots, I'm going to abandon a lot line and wind up with one big lot.

Who's paying me to do that?

You are.

Well, I mean, yes, that's your call.

So if somebody participates in this lot line removal to receive a TDR, one fear that we had was, you know, sweet Sally down the road could be taken advantage of if she didn't know the value of her TDR.

You know, if she sold this TDR for $200 when it's valued at tens of thousands or thousands, that's not fair.

If somebody's going to abandon a lot line, the first thing they have to do is hire a surveyor.

And they have to have this replatted, and they have to pay their surveyor, and they have to have their division rights permanently stamped and recorded on these plats is kind of the route we were going with this.

If somebody's voluntarily going through this, they're not going in it blind.

They're using a surveyor, they're receiving education, there's less chance that a citizen will be taken advantage of and that they'll know the value of what they're selling.

So they have taken steps to participate in this that require education, recordation.

And if you've paid a surveyor to do this, you know what you have in it.

You know you're going to have to pay surveyor in that cost and the recordation.

Another point to that is if someone owns, let's say, some parcels outside the growth area and some parcels inside, they could combine because the one thing with TDR that is a requirement is if you sell a TDR for that parcel, you have no more divisions.

So that's going to be something that when that parcel

James Dickerson

So if I had like three parcels outside of a growth area and I wanted to combine them to get two TDRs and I sold them to myself in a growth area that could be done but they still have to go through the process of the county to be able to sell them and then they have to go through the recordation process to verify I purchased it from property A and it goes directly to property B.

There is no

No bank, you can't buy it from me and then hold on to it until someone else wants it.

It's gotta be a parcel to parcel transaction.

So that way I know there's individuals that were saying, oh, we're gonna go out and buy as many of these TDRs as you could and then sell them.

That's not an option.

So that's just something that

We're looking at, you know, you could have, there's people in this county who absolutely have parcels inside and outside of the county.

They could take advantage of it.

And those TDRs may be cheaper for them, but that's options for them.

But one of the other things I want to get back to is part of the reason why when we talk about this, the reason it's so important for us to do the zoning changes as well is because a lot of the reasons why the TDRs didn't work is number one, they didn't have growth areas or number two,

Thank you.

One point sometime ago we were talking about this and I understood that the county was not going to be

I think you just answered the question that it's going to be a sale and a transfer.

We're going to log the county log that development rights are available for purchase.

So the way the way the process would have to work, and this is, it's not exactly articulating state code this way, but essentially how it would have to happen is

If you wanted to sell any TDRs to Louisa County, you would file an application and say, I've got three lots on my A1 piece of property.

This is where it's located, whatever.

I want to sell my TDRs.

Our staff would then take it, verify you have those TDRs, and then if it, let's say you had three, they verified you had three, they'd reach back out to you and say, how many do you want to sell?

If you have three development rights, you won't sell.

You call the candidate.

The candidate's not going to file.

It's just a list.

And that is then put out that a developer who may want to purchase it, then gets your contact information and there's a purchase there.

But if you have three development rights,

And there doesn't happen to be anybody that's ready to purchase them.

And there's a misconception there because Maryland, you can do that, and I think in Pennsylvania you can do that, in Virginia.

I don't know if you can't do that, but it's not done very frequently because it's normally parcel-to-parcel transaction.

So because of that, that's just not an option that we have, but it is utilized throughout the country.

The way it started out when we started looking at this 30 years ago, all right, was there it was the tight end type where are you?

And that's different.

So we'll get there in a second.

It's because it purchases a development program, it is important to our conversation, but that program would be separate from the zoning code.

So we'll go through it.

What I was getting at, you don't vacate your parcel lines and stuff like that until you've got somebody that, in other words, you may say, if I vacate these lines, once they're vacated, they're gone.

So you may find, say, I've got three development rights that I have the potential to get rid of.

Yeah, do I have three people?

Oh, somebody wants those three.

Because if you vacate your lines, that's a fuzzy area here, because if you vacate the lines, then you'd have to recreate them.

They're gone.

Yeah, and I may have said that a little out of order.

The intent would be to qualify at the county

I have a lot of questions, would it just be easier for me to, because I don't actually expect the answers, to just email them to you?

Two more on that.

You know one thing that brought this lot line merger in was years ago I had an opportunity to buy a parcel ten minutes up the road that had existing division rights that were done back in the 90s.

And it was a number of lots and it was horribly laid out.

And the more research I dug into it and considering this purchase, the cost of the roads, the layout of the lots, the bad souls and areas of it, it was just a division that went through at that time, held onto for a number of years as an investment and then tried to sell it for a number of years with no success.

And to this day, still hasn't been successful in the sale of it because it's not economical.

It's currently used as farmland.

That land can be purchased by a farmer.

He can merge all those lots together, sell all those TDRs and during near pay for the land and preserve it.

It's almost identical in thought process to a federal easement in that sense.

But done locally and in-house and by Louisa citizens on their own.

It can be used as a farming preservation tool in many ways.

And that was a perfect example that came to my mind.

And then another great example I wanted to give everybody was the amount of AFDs that we have come through here.

Very popular.

Everybody's doing them.

Well, not every.

There's a lot of participation.

and citizens are voluntarily preserving these rural areas at our best rate ever.

And this is the same thing.

They don't have any intent of developing their land, so they're voluntarily doing this.

They can also, so many of these AFDs that we see, it's not one giant one.

We do have one big one tonight to talk about later.

But it's typically smaller parcels.

And we see a number of these different parcels in the application.

They can join them and receive those TDRs and give this program something that none of the other localities who have done this has tried.

I'm super glad you all like that.

I got really excited when we came up with that this month and we're going through it.

All right.

So the next thing what we'll talk about is this is the purchase of development rights, what it is.

So this is where, just like Supervisor Barlow was talking about, voluntary land preservation tool that compensates landowners for agreeing to limit future residential development on their property while allowing the land to remain in private ownership.

Characteristics, the property owners voluntarily enter into an agreement with the local government.

This can be permanently or temporarily.

Right now what we're looking at is temporarily.

Agricultural, forest and land uses are going to be able to continue during the agreement.

The private property remains owned by that owner.

It may continue to be bought, sold, inherited, or farmed.

So it really doesn't restrict the use or the transaction of the farm.

But in exchange for preserving the land, the participating landowner receives financial compensation.

So what we're looking at doing, the tentative plan here is propose a 10-year term PDR program.

It'd be voluntary participation for a 10-year agreement.

We're looking at utilizing the ag and forestry districts would have to be the ones that applied for it.

Private ownership would be retained and then the opportunity could be renewed.

So if they got in and did it for a 10-year period, they would always have the opportunity to re-up it.

What we're looking at is based on

payments would be based on assessed land value.

The reason why it'd be based on assessed land value is that would push, hopefully push people into land use.

Because if it's agricultural, for still use for hay, whatever it may be, the land use is substantially lower.

So if you had a vacant piece of property that the value is 100,000, but the land use is 20,000,

You essentially would get a preservation payment more than what the property cost you in taxes a year.

So you actually are being compensated more than the tax on that property would be in a given year.

So in this example, if it was a $20,000 piece of property,

The tax would be about $144 a year in land use where the preservation payment would be about $720.

So it's not substantial, but this is something that we definitely wanted to provide an alternative to.

The eligibility for this, it'd have to be A1 and A2 zoning outside of the growth area in agricultural districts.

The minimum acreage, if there was a home on it, it'd have to be more than 10 acres.

If there's no home on it, it could be less than 10.

And then at least for the initial program, conservation easements will be excluded because they are already preserved.

And of course, that's what this program is ultimately for.

The proposed property selection is something that there's been a lot of concerns and questions about and I think we've come up with probably the best one we have.

We prioritize road frontage first and essentially, well the goal would be anybody that wanted to enter in this program would apply.

If funding was available to provide funding for all the qualifying properties, there may be some that didn't qualify.

So they wouldn't get it.

But if we could, we'd love to be able to provide funding for everyone.

But if we have a thousand applications, we're not going to be able to do that.

What the intent is, is we'll do a waterfall approach.

So we'll start with road frontage.

We'll evaluate the road frontage of all those parcels.

And what we would do is essentially rank them.

The top 30 properties would go from stage one, then they would go to stage two.

The remaining we would just set aside for right now.

Then once we get to acreage, we do the same thing.

Then you calculate the acreage and the top 20% of the acreage would then go to the divisions and then we'd review the divisions.

So hopefully what we would end up doing is you would see, based on the scoring of this,

The highest scores would be the most developable pieces of property, so we want to make sure those would be the ones that would get compensation first, and then we'd move from there.

And then we would just go down until the assessed land value times the tax rate, the payment, we would get to the number that we could fully fund.

Once we could no longer fully fund it, we would have to stop at whatever number that would end up being.

Why this methodology, this selection method is designed to ensure limited preservation funding is invested where it provides the greatest long-term public benefit.

Rather than selecting properties based solely on acreage, the methodology evaluates multiple characteristics that indicate future development potential.

Just like we mentioned, we're talking about increasing the road frontage to 450 feet for A1 and A2 development.

So if someone has less than that, it's going to be less valuable or none.

It'd be less valuable than somebody that had 4,000 feet of road frontage, even if it's a smaller acreage lot.

If it's a larger acreage lot, but it has no road frontage, you'd have to evaluate all that together.

So by evaluating these factors together through a progressive waterfall process, the county can prioritize the properties most susceptible to future development while ensuring preservation funding is distributed fairly and objectively.

So ultimately, when we look at this holistic program, this is kind of how it all fits in together is so zoning and subdivision changes is what we do first.

That helps slow the residential growth and then the options that we provide to owners of

John Disosway, James Dickerson,

Once they transfer development rights, we do have it where we automatically would start having some long term rural preservation, because like we mentioned, once you sell your TDRs, you don't have additional divisions available.

So that would already happen.

However, and I mentioned we'd come back to this in the

In the future as we continue to build the preservation fund we do see a way that we could utilize some conservation easement incentives where essentially individuals that want to go enter into a conservation easement.

There's localities like Virginia Beach and Fauquier and different places like that that have different methods to

either incentivize or assist getting individuals into conservation easements and as I think our programs build and our conservation fund grows these options are something we can do but both of these can funnel into the conservation easements and we all know once property goes into conservation easement that is long-term perpetual preservation.

So ultimately, when we look at the outcomes of the holistic approach, if we're looking at agricultural and forestal, the expected outcome is that we would be able to maintain larger working lands, especially with Todd's model there.

Housing, that housing, the growth areas would absorb the developments.

We'd have less in the rural areas, which means that our infrastructure can be invested more efficiently.

And then the property rights, all of these would be voluntary participation.

The zoning and subdivision changes are the things that we would essentially have to do that they might not like, but everything else would be voluntary.

And then the rural culture, because as we gain, as these programs operate and continue to work, there's going to be more and more long term preservation.

So the next steps of this is planning commission feedback, refine presented concepts and prepare a draft ordinance.

My intent is I would like to have a draft ordinance to you all by August, I will be at the beach, but I will be able to participate virtually but at least have a draft ordinance so you all can review this document in its entirety as it would be written in the zoning code.

Right, do we have any comments so far on what's been presented tonight?

You're talking about the purchase of development rights being a 10-year period and they have to be in an ag-forestry district which is a 10-year period.

The way that Ag.

Enforcer districts are, they would more than likely have to re-up unless they entered the district right before they entered into a contract because the process that we're looking at is essentially they would apply at the beginning of the year.

Well, they would apply at the beginning of the year and then we're going to have to do title searches and title work and verify the information and make sure they qualify, make sure it's accounted for in the budget to the best of our ability.

And then when we go to take it to the board to sign the contracts, they would have to be in an ag-forestry district.

So more than likely what's going to happen is they'll have to enter it.

So hypothetically, if they entered it in 2026,

They file for the contract and the PDR payments in 2027.

At the end of their term, they'd have to re-up the Ag Force District to get that last payment.

And of course, there's a lot of districts though, it may be year four when they join.

So they would join, enter into a contract a year or two after it starts.

The re-up would happen at year four of the contract.

And that's, we don't get to pick how Ag Forest District works that way, but with the Open Space Land Act and the different provisions of the state code that allow us to do this, we're blending a lot of things together to work.

And that's why the Ag Forest District really helps us accomplish that.

So that's one of the reasons why we're really

standing strong and firm that it's got to be ag-forestry districts is what's used for the PDR payments just because the way the state code requires it be done and the payments for preservation and the way the Open Space Land Act it all it intertwines and the way the intent works but yes there will be

If they enter into the contract, they'll probably have to re-up the Ag Forrester District in the middle of that contract.

Very good.

Mr. Marlowe.

One of the things that we're looking at with the TDRs that would be a little different, and we've talked about, is so originally when we were looking at the TDRs,

So the sending areas that we're looking at is the A1 and A2 zone properties outside of the growth area.

So we've all seen that map where it's the dark green and light green across the county.

The issue that we have is with TDRs, it's got to be

And Maggie's gonna tell me what the right way to say it.

It's like a constitutionality of the TDR program has to be that the TDRs for sale and the TDRs that could be purchased are relatively equal.

So if you've got 5,000 parcels that could buy TDRs, you need to have about 5,000 that can be sold.

You can't have 10,000

TDRs that can be sold in 2000 that can be used because then that doesn't jive.

And there's all kinds of code and court cases that adjust that.

So we're looking at doing is you start with a one and a two zone properties outside of the growth area.

And then

They would have to apply through the county.

So like I said, you would apply to the county say I want to sell to we verify you've got to to sell, then get the final signature and put you in our library database, whatever you want to call it.

And then we can track how many we have.

And if for whatever reason, we got to a point where we've got 3000 parcels that can buy the TDRs and we get to 3000 that can sell them.

I'm sure that's a legal part that Maggie's got to keep up with, but it would seem to me that if you're trying to move

That's why we said we'll start with all A1 and A2 out of the growth area.

But then as they apply,

As we go through the process and that number starts ticking up close to the limit, then we would have to stop.

But anybody that would be interested would get their opportunity.

So like you said, for the TDR process right now, we're not contemplating just Ag Force or districts just because that number is the same thing.

If you're only have 100 that can sell or let's say it's 100, 200 that can sell, but 3000 they could purchase.

That's also not a balanced market.

So you're not going to have so many people buy them.

That was one thing I thought a lot line removal would really complement.

I didn't feel like we had enough.

I've been worried for a couple months we didn't have enough product on the shelf.

It would be hard, but that's exactly the point of it.

And that's part of the risk is that it is a voluntary program.

So you know, if there's people that don't think TDRs is the best option for them, and they choose not to do it, that's perfectly valid.

But you know, of course, if just like you said, if you don't have enough people to sell the TDRs, it might not be functional.

but one of the things that we are confident that will happen is as we go through this process you know we've discussed since the very beginning one of the recommendations is to increase the minimum lot size in A1 and A2 from the 1.5 to the 15 acres so with that we actually have a way to calculate essentially what their division rights would be today so that if they did let's say they lost three division rights because the increase in minimum lot size

Thank you for joining us today.

You know, whatever gets approved, that's something that we definitely want to make sure we share with those individuals so that it's accounted for.

And it's no harm to them because if they're selling a TDR that effectively planning commission in the board voted to increase minimum lot size.

So they lost it because they didn't, you know, divide the lot fast enough or however you want to describe it.

They would still have an opportunity to receive some type of compensation for those divisions.

Very good.

Ms. Michael?

Two, just two questions.

So for the growth areas where the TDRs would be the receiving areas and then we talked about more efficient

I mean, that's in our planning and everything else that, you know, whether it's waterline, whether it's schools, whether it's fire and EMS, whether it's sheriff's office, any of those.

public services that are going to be utilized.

I mean, we do it all the time.

Where's the next fire station going to go?

Do we need, you know, public safety building?

Do we need substations for the police department?

All of those factors that go into consideration.

That would be something that the county would be responsible for.

But I will tell you that if the growth really concentrates in the growth area, it makes it a whole lot easier conversation than where now it's, you know, 54 percent out of the growth area.

46% in the growth area.

It's just it's everywhere in the county.

That's correct.

But also, if it's tightened inside the growth area, instead of running pipelines 10 or 15 miles, and you can do it less, like we said, more efficient, you have less runs like that.

So you can connect more people, especially if the developments are also in the process of because they have to pay connection fees and everything else.

And if you have more people in a tighter area, what that means is as the developers

Mr. Goodwin?

The mayor's comment on transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Goodwin.

We hope that it could help with housing affordability, but I just know from other areas like Montgomery County, for example, probably one of the most famous TDR, very successful program, but you're also talking about a community with an average household income of $140,000 in the DC metro market, plus pretty significant affordable housing supplementation from the government.

So this is where like the PUDs come into play where when we talk about the additional community benefits.

So in addition to being able to have higher density in R1 and R2 or A1 and A2 districts where you can have more lots because that's ultimately the thing is when we look at this and you lay it out all out on a table.

The threshold of Louisa County, let's say it's 20,000 homes or 40,000 homes, whatever it may be.

What this program is doing is we're not passing the 40,000, but what we're doing is we're taking that 40,000 and we're pushing it into the growth area in tighter areas.

So it's dense in certain growth area pockets while the rural area maintains rural.

So

is it going to be more affordable in the areas that have 15, 20 acre parcels?

No, it's not.

I mean, it's not going to be cheap to live there, but if you go to a growth area where now there's additional units per acre and they have different apartments or townhomes or different types of facilities like that and the varying of housing options, that's where the affordability should come from and provide additional options because that's something that right now when you have the same

The residential unit per acre, whether it's in a growth area, out of a growth area, in the rural area, there's no differentiation.

So because of it, there's no reason to build in a growth area versus build in the rural area.

It's whatever you can get the cheaper land if all you're going to do is turn around and sell it.

So the benefit with this is now what we're doing is trying to push that in the growth area and hopefully with the

And with the additional rooftops in a tighter area, now everybody knows with AI and all the different computing methods, if you want, you know, any type of medical center, they need to know there's X amount of vehicles drive by here per hour.

And if you don't meet that number, they're not coming.

And that's something that because of that, if you push it all in the growth area, then you may have these different stores and offerings that are willing to come to the growth areas.

And then same thing, we maintain a real nature for the majority of the county.

I'm sorry if I interrupted someone.

I was just going to add on to the PUD discussion that Chris just brought up.

One of the things that we've looked at is what percentage of a PUD do we want to attach to that development for commercial.

What that will do is address some of the affordability by allowing local

Last question.

Do you guys have the resources?

Because it just sounds like a lot of work to put back on the staff here.

And you all are amazing.

So realistically, no.

I don't think we have the resources today to do all this, but I think I explained it to Todd today.

One of the things that you would see is that right now we average 33 homes a month, which is about 430 homes a year, that with slowing the residential growth, if that were to go from 430 to let's say 215, the amount of time

staff would save and not having to review those permits and the zoning and everything for those 215 housing permits is taken up with the TDR and PDR programs.

I think it would offset a substantial amount.

It still may be 20% more workload or something like but I still am pretty confident that if we slow the residential growth that would offset the staff time

That was two great things Ms. Michael.

We've been talking about you know this is a cost to the county because of staff time so Chris said it really well.

We've also got two employees that are coming up and were hired recently and learning and adapting in that are we feel are going to be a great asset to staff.

And on the affordable, right now I look at our market throughout Louisa, if you open up Zillow or wherever, you look at the price of lots from like a triangle mountain road area all the way to Zion's Crossroads to the lake, it's universally expensive to buy a lot.

What this TDR is doing is it's giving us two categories.

You mentioned rural area being like Keswick.

Expensive, yes.

And we have not been shy to say at any of these meetings, preservation comes at a cost.

It's expensive.

When we first started this many, many months ago, we looked at Lancaster.

Well, first question we had in a group was, what was the last sale price of the farm there?

I don't remember, but it was millions.

It was extremely high.

Well, this is putting two different categories.

As people voluntarily preserve their land on their own and participate in this program, they're going to increase their value because they're taking product off the market so it's less available.

The chain reaction is greater value.

But they didn't just delete it.

They moved that value, and they increased the availability and growth area.

So growth area is where you need to focus on your affordability.

And rural area, unfortunately, that does increase in value.

And that is something that citizens voluntarily preserve.

And we filled out these surveys.

They're participating in the AFDs if they're going to participate in this too.

And that's part of, you know, as we get into the PDR and the term PDRs and the importance of land use taxation, because we have it every year when people are concerned about their property taxes or, you know, how much the land is worth.

The first thing we do is look and see if it's in land use and nine out of 10 times it's not.

And they didn't know what it was.

And once we tell them and give them an example, I mean, the, uh,

It's a substantial savings.

So that's something that, you know, as we go through these preservation efforts, as well as the educational pieces, we want to make sure that all these people that are either utilizing the PDRs or the TDR methods are also signed up for land use.

One thing that can help with that tool, Ms. Michael, is people combining lots.

You have smaller lots, so they can't always necessarily take a use of a land use tax.

If they're combining parcels and they're making parcels bigger, they now qualify for land use tax and they can get a tremendous reduction in property tax value.

So if we get into this, I know we're going to get a lot of public attention, and rightfully should.

But these are such great examples to say, and be able to say in a normal way, and how they happen in real life.

I like the boundary idea.

We've been talking about affordable housing for a long time, many people before me.

Not a great conversation.

It doesn't exist very fluently, but it's a way to start establishing one.

And like Chris said, it's great.

It's going to take time for participation, but it's a step towards it.

And land use tax for joining, that's a helpful tool.

I should have said that earlier.

All right, very good.

Then, Mr. Coon, I think what we're looking for from you is a refined,

The only one thing I did want to mention that we're in the process of doing

is the math for

to this number, it's just right now today, if you actually look at our stats, if we have 30% open space, you can get 10 dwelling units per acre.

If you go to 50, it's 13 units per acre.

And if you go to 70, it's 15 units per acre.

So where the discrepancy comes in for me is having something, if it's 100 acre parcel today, it could be 1000 homes and now going to 75.

So I do think we're evaluating that and I think more realistically if we were to actually change these numbers to three dwelling units an acre and then they could get up to six just with TDRs and then the top one would be eight so still we would overall reduce the PUD density but what it would mean is that with the TDRs they could get closer to that number which would be more reasonable

So in this example, it was 100 acres.

If we had the three to six, it would either be 300 TDRs or what you can do is you have to allow one TDR must be at least one additional dwelling unit, but you can have it more.

So in a PUD like this, I was actually looking at having a tiered system.

So if it was going from three to six,

It would be one TDR equals two dwelling units.

It seems like they're getting a deal on that, which they are.

But at the same time, that means if they increased it 300 homes on 100 acre parcel, they would have to buy 150 TDRs with, let's say the minimum lot size ends up being 10 acres.

That means they would preserve 1,500 acres of land to build 300 homes.

So just when we look at the PDR thing as we're working through this and the economics of it to see if it's viable, I do think instead of the 0.75, 1.25 and

7, I think the 3, 6 and 8 may be more realistic, especially with the fact that we added the pretty substantial commercial requirements, the square footage.

So just with all that together, that is something that we've also been evaluating that didn't make it into the PowerPoint.

But I have been running those numbers and figured that, you know, we still want that preservation and it would still be beneficial to the community.

But

you know this might be a little tight for someone that actually wants to do a PUD for affordable housing you know as if they're doing 175 homes that's not it's gonna be a whole lot more expensive than if they could be doing 600 homes sure so or 800 if it was 100 acres so that's just one thing I want to make sure you all are aware of that as we work through this I think the numbers for the PUD is going to be the one thing that

Thank you very much.

I think we're good to go.

Very good.

There's not too much that really needs to be changed, to be honest.

Fair enough.

In reviewing the surveys, it's still, you know, preservation of the rural nature of the county, maintaining the hometown feel, limiting transportation.

There's a couple things with like PUD or CUP rezonings, different evaluations that people would like to be considered.

But if you look at like an overall approach of what people want different from the 2040 plan,

There's basically additions to a couple things, more stringent review on certain types of uses and things like that.

But yeah, it's not to the main goal is still maintain the real nature of the county.

And like I said, I think that's something that

with the surveys and all that, that's really springboarded us into this action.

But yeah, I would say as a comprehensive plan, there's not too much that needs to be edited.

There's a couple things that we're still working on.

And we're supposed to have housing sections, transportation sections, pieces like that, that you know, we need help from VDOT and some regional housing places that

We're getting information from outside entities, so as that information comes in, we can add addendums like we did with the electric transmission lines.

So be on the lookout.

They should be here shortly.

I think the housing one should be here very shortly, and then we can try and write that in the V.1.

All right, there's no other new business from anyone.

Then we'll close the work session and we'll reconvene at seven o'clock.