Planning Commission Worksession   9/10/2026

Mr. Coon.

So for example, we would have campground as we've got it today, and then there'd be a workforce, major or minor campground, or just one campground.

Any thoughts?

I can see some of the things applying to both, but I can't see writing one for both and cover all the bases.

So you're thinking of having two separate ordinances?

I think I'll stand corrected when I can see one that'll cover both.

Any other comments?

I think that the name Campground just gets in my way.

Sounds good.

I think we have, if we can, I think we have to have the word transient in there somewhere.

How about workforce temporary lodging?

So I think you need the word transient or something in there to differentiate it.

Should there be a major and a minor and I'll just say category so that way do we want to have one campground category and then we could have a minor and a major temporary workforce lodging or do we want minor major for both the campgrounds as well as the workforce lodging?

Campground is a campground and my vision of campground is what the two we already have in the county.

One for each.

So those are some of the options that we've got, but no.

Surrey has it where they apply and then they just come back for staff review.

There's a special exception permit in Surrey and then yes there is some rules and regulations that you have to abide by but ultimately it doesn't go through Planning Commission and their special exception actually goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals so it doesn't ours would go to the Board of Supervisors just how we've done in the past but yes so theirs is actually a special exception for the workforce.

Commissioner Barlow?

I've downloaded the work session and the planning commission meeting, but I do not have that.

I made this about 20 minutes before our meeting.

It would be more helpful if we could follow along with what you got if we had.

It's just literally in the G-Drive, board presentations.

So, same.

Or every five years or something.

And it may depend on the length of employment of the people that are there.

Or the size of the campground.

It's different when you deal with a transient, in my mind.

CUP for our campground and then we'll do CUP with the later administrative renewals.

Sounds good.

So there will be no by right.

Do we apply the same process regardless of the number of sites?

So is this basically for the workforce or the campground or for both?

Should we use the number of campsites as a threshold or no?

Department of Health and Paul kind of takes over that.

These are just the regulations, regardless of how many you have.

Thanks, sir.

I didn't think we had a choice.

The list of anything, any conditions that we want to put on them.

We can't touch the VDH thing, but if we said... That's where I was going, I'm sorry.

Do we want to have a throttle on there for the number of campsites or just treat everybody equally regardless of the number of campsites?

I mean, in terms of complaints and what we need to do?

So those were done many, many years ago and

Less than that is what we need to look at.

So do we think that the number of campsites should be the barometer that we use to increase or decrease requirements?

Everybody for now feel that way?

Treat them the same.

So that's number four.

That's number four.

Now that we got paper copies, what was the answer to, number one I got was two and three.

Should we should the maximum number of workforce campsites be so do we want to cap the top?

That's a whole, you're starting now to get into a true commercial activity.

If it's three or more, we treat it as a full-fledged campground, and if it's one or two, it'd be treated as the temporary workforce lodging.

I'd like to see that number higher than two.

So for five, what number?

sites are out there in the county and how many individual sites each of those have.

So right now the only ones that are legal of course would be small country or Christopher run so no we don't have any data on the other yeah we don't have any legitimate workforce housing right now.

How much workforce is being utilized at the campgrounds that exist at small country or up at

I was going to say without a small country or Christopher on telling us how many of them are working out.

That's just my opinion.

We have reached out to them and discussed it with them and no specific numbers were provided to my knowledge.

So we're talking about like a

That's why I brought it up at the beginning.

lack of better words, I don't think they track it.

If we don't set a max for workforce campsites, or workforce inside application, are we open ourselves up to a large application?

Mr. Dickerson had said he wanted a little bit higher than that.

For Department of Health, you should be...

The pedestal and that would still be the same.

If you want to put a couple of RVs on your property and rent them out to, the lots out to people with RVs, then okay, now you're not a campground.

Is that a possibility?

then it's just you know that's where it's going to be up to y'all okay well do we have different requirements for campground and the temporary workforce lodging because that's the other one if we have no differentiation between the two then we go back to question one do we need two separate ones if they're going to be the same across the board and surrey uses a max of 10 sorry don't there's i like the idea of a max but i think we need a number

We can put a number out today and then next month we can hone in on that number more.

Again, the amenities that you have for a campground are not in place in a workforce, temporary workforce housing, whatever you land if a fat sounded good.

If we go, let's say we go to 10, doesn't it have to be tied to the acres somehow?

Is that further down in your list?

We're getting there, we're just chipping away.

There's a density thing here that I need to understand before I can agree to, yeah, go ahead and throw 10 on there.

Or like I said, do we just want to say the setbacks, buffers, utilities, all that other requirements, if you can meet those requirements, there's no fixed acreage.

What does the health department say if you get over three in terms of health of packing them together?

So it's not...

So they don't have a density or

anything I mean you can pack them in the stack them too high well they're they don't care as long as you got septic system as long as you have the capacity to provide the water and sewer or septic and that's whole thing is the septic over three does push it into that extra permit or I don't know what you want to call it an extra permit but

I don't believe you are.

Just to help if that answers anybody else's questions on that.

ideas?

So if you guys have thoughts on one or the other or both.

So I can see the fixed acreage, no fixed acreage as long as all standards are met with proper buffers.

And the more units that have, the more acreage you're going to need to meet those standards.

And that'll be, that'll be pendant on, you know, VDH requirements, size of it, size of the system per gallons.

Now all of a sudden you are truly competing with small country, but you're not calling yourself a campground because each parcel is treated separately.

Each one would have to go through an individual CEP application.

Absolutely, but there's no reason why I can't, with the 10 that we decided on, I can't have 40 all in one place for all intents and purposes because they're adjacent lots.

If we went that route, I could see the opposition there.

But I come in separately on each one and I can beat your system.

Or an alternative?

I want to see minimum acreage for a campsite.

Per campsite.

It's the folks that are going to take the path of leaf resistance.

So what are you proposing for a minimum acreage?

And then we'd go into eight, which is the setback in buffer standards.

But I can't go on with that.

I'll go with Matt Hicks to move forward.

So is that

I like an acreage on the campground because that is R&R where workforce is sleeping arrangements primarily.

So then for six for campground, do we want it to be fixed minimum acreage or minimum acreage per campsite?

Opened a conversation on that.

You're asking for campgrounds, is that what you're saying?

We could probably do it a fixed minimum acreage or the minimum acreage per campsite to be able to count for also the community space.

You know what I'm saying?

You can see it both ways because you can compact the sites together and then have R&R set as open space and acreage above, but even if it's just a total acreage formula where each, maybe each site doesn't need acre and a half or two, but as a culminated whole, like 10 campsites equals 20.

And that's where that, you know, acres per campsite just helps with that visualization and setbacks, buffers, everything else.

So do we have a proposal for acres per campsite and a campground?

Half acre, full acre, more, less.

Let's move on.

And this would only be for the campgrounds because the temporary workforce lodging wouldn't have a minimum, so they don't have the density.

Green space and those kind of things.

So all of that is included in that per campsite area.

Is that per site?

It wouldn't have to be one campsite per two acres.

Just out of curiosity, what are the current densities for the two campgrounds we have in the county?

I don't think there was a density per campsite.

I know when they applied there wasn't, but I'm just saying now, with the number of sites they have, what are the densities?

I mean, we can try and track that down, just the number of sites.

It'd be good information to have.

I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth.

I was just trying to get information.

So do we want to look at trying to find out what that ratio is and making this comparable to it so that it doesn't hinder from the ones we already have?

I'm certainly sorry I wasn't a party to more of the conversation, but we are where we are.

I don't know how to deal with this.

Yes, sir.

Very good.

So what you guys think about that if we just, you know, vegetated buffers are fine or if we want to do like a landscaping plan and then we review that at the CUP process, but it would be helpful to at least have a minimum and then go from there.

So we get back to this, you know, one of them is more commercial than the other.

So it's not, if they just wanted to do it as a buy-write zoning.

for the neighbors.

I mean if they wanted to do it just buy right with no CUP we've got those standards so you just want to use the same standards that we allow for a buy right use?

Why would it not be good for this?

So then when it's a CUP, that's why we always bring up the vegetative buffers and screenings to mitigate the impacts.

gave a few good notes in here about this.

Landscaping and buff.

other than that residence of the owner of the campground.

But because we could have a situation where home is built after the campsites are put in place, just to reduce the burden and the conflict, do it from the property line, and it shouldn't be a problem in the future.

How do y'all feel about 150 feet?

I thought that was going to go with 100, so 150 is a pretty nice suggestion.

Any other thoughts on 150 feet?

Because I'm about three questions back mentally.

I'm with Mr. Goodwin, just trying to digest what's coming out.

But we seem to have a lot of trouble with getting the details because there are a lot of details between these two.

And other than having to catch them when they leave, you don't even see them.

And we're putting basically a commercial operation next door to a residence.

You know, something to consider.

If everybody else is happy and the citizens love it, embrace it.

And that's what you write ordinances for everybody.

So I guess people have been, what has brought this up in the first place is people are creating problems in the neighborhood and now we're trying to regulate that.

But yes, there are individuals that would like to do the smaller campground without the full requirements because it's not as intensive of a use as a campground.

Path of Leash Resistance, and I'd have to mess with VDH.

Question four.

then we can evaluate it on a because you know if it's at the bottom of a hill and there's a bunch of land and trees on the side it's not going to be as impactful if they're the ones on top the hill and then you know so there will be some site-specific considerations that we want to be able to account for.

So let's go with 150 feet for now.

We want to include a landscaping plan for the CUPs or maybe for the campgrounds, but not the temporary workforce lodging.

Let's go ahead and do it for both.

Treat them the same.

The only other question is to the setback, the 200 feet, would that be for adjacent residences as well as public rights-of-way?

200 feet is from the property line, right?

So of course, if it was 10 campsites, you'd probably be pretty close to it.

You know, if they look at a single family dwelling home, VDOT figures, is this correct, Mr. Barlow, 10 trips per residence?

That's the international trip generator.

I know with the gallons on the VDH requirements versus bedrooms comparison, is this same as a single family dwelling with VDOT as it is?

Tom, can you see if you can find that trip generation for campgrounds or campsite?

But if you have more than two houses...

Tom can look up the international it's a trip generation calculator that VDOT would use so that may actually be another one that if it ends up being four or five campsites and there's a house on it or something like that it may end up kicking it to a commercial entrance which is a pretty substantial

Is that the same on a campsite versus a house because they may be at state road standards pretty quickly after five sites.

This goes back into level playing field.

So 49 or 50 campsites.

You have one trip.

How are you going to get back in?

Thank you, thank you for that.

I want to know what we intend to require of what I'll call the commercial competitors as opposed to the private.

The campground versus the workforce?

Yes.

And also, if we don't have any response to that right now, we can also just skip it, go to the next one.

All this goes into, I mean, you wrap a big ball around it, it all goes into competition.

So should they both have direct access to public roads and not be off of private roads?

I would say yes.

Anyone else?

Correct.

And so what is that width?

But this is quite different.

And then the trucks all get in there and get backed up and can't get out.

What would you think from a fire DMS standpoint on that?

So for the CUP, the fire and EMS is going to have to review the plan and sign off on that, number one, right?

and we should be able to get any apparatus through there.

We should have a minimum width though to get the firing EMS in.

So right now the direct access to a public road and then adequate fire and EMS access which we'll get specifications on.

Then that will lead to the minimum internal road width once we get that information.

So bringing up a good point of x amount of these are going to require it to go up to state standard.

If the ordinance goes through as presented, would that eliminate private lanes altogether?

that served the complex, the project.

So, if you did that, that's going to push the public ground right up on the road.

Into the parcel that has the campsite on it.

No, no, no, into the campground.

So it's just where you're turning in from would be the VDOT road.

If it's a 100 acre parcel and you want to put it at the back, you're saying you can't do that.

Unless it has a separate road.

You wouldn't turn onto a private road and then go down a private road and then access the property from that private road because then that's going to cause problems for other people that use that private road.

You can't go off the state road onto a private road that goes through another parcel to get to the parcel that has the campground on it.

We just need to make that crystal clear.

But the access to the parcel has to be from a state road.

So that makes a world of difference.

I've got to clarify that.

And what kind of surface, what's the minimum surface required by fire and EMS to get to the site?

But everything else, just, you know, just anything we didn't think of.

Any thoughts?

I didn't have any that weren't covered right here.

What are the thoughts on trash collection?

All right.

I'm not as concerned about trash, just services.

But just when we're talking about the emergency access and safety, something like that.

You're back into small country.

See, that's grounds and the other one.

I don't know what we don't know when we're talking about one versus the other.

Do you think it should be a requirement for either one?

I cannot see a hydrant in the back of someone's property, but I can daggone sure see one in small country.

So then for campground, it's something that we would want to account for.

It's clean.

I think they have a dra-hydron.

In subdivisions and things.

On these, I would say my answer would be yes to all of them.

Two weeks sounds good.

If they did not collect that information, they would be in violation of the code.

Again, we've got to make sure we don't run afoul of the ordinance that's already on the books that says you cannot live in an RV in this county.

and then for the timing, the two weeks before to two weeks after the employment dates, is that okay?

I'll do okay on that with the chairs.

But do we want to cap it at six months or just the duration tied to employment?

I mean, there's no reason to make an employee move from one campground to the other just because it's no longer than a six week, six month job.

So I think for how long, just tying it to employment is okay.

This is how many you got in the county that are staying here illegally at this point.

So then the only question is if it ends up being like a three year contract, would they be able to live there for the full three years?

Because they have to put a max on it.

Max.

A lot of us will go to church on Sunday and the minister will tell you that life here on this earth is temporary.

So act with commissioner Goodwin at six months.

So we've got, so for how long for workforce occupancy it would be tied to employment but not to exceed six months.

Correct, that's what I was suggesting.

So do we want it to be basically provided inside the county, your neighbor, relative, or does it have to be whoever's renting the campsite has to bring the RV?

I would feel like the

When he's gone, it's gone.

for six months and both have to leave after six months.

Or reapply, re-up.

Move to a different campsite, restart the new contract, something like that.

No, what I meant on the six months is that at six months you have to come back and go through the administrative action to renew your permit to be there so that we've got some check that we don't have people

So then if I'm reading that right.

But what you're saying is you think that every time a tenant comes to stay, that owner should let us know this individual is staying on site and they're going to be here till next day.

At six months, you come back in and reapply.

This person is going to stay for another.

But at least we've got a chance to look at this thing and evaluate, how long are people living in this county?

So do we want the employee verification and that timing done annually or upon basically the start of a tenant staying there?

Yeah.

For the start of each.

It's length of service not to exceed six months.

I mean, do we have a third agreement for?

Right.

Just throw it out there.

If the contract for that campsite is for the five-and-a-half, six months, does it need to go to and from the site?

As long as he's still employed, he's just leaving for the weekend, I wouldn't think that the RV's got to go.

As long as it meets the employment in the two weeks before and the two weeks after, it should be fine.

That was specifically for the workforce, but I guess it would be the same way for the campground.

Some campgrounds offer year-round terms where people build porches and do little landscaping and so forth, so I could see it applying both ways.

Well, they have storage lots.

No storage.

Like what what level we talking?

I don't agree with tents or tent trailers for a safety factor, but I can't disagree.

I can go with the first three.

But we need to define what they are.

Yeah.

I mean, at least for the general, right now, the, what is it, Class A, B, it's like the ones you can drive and stay in or the ones you can tow behind your vehicle, like the Airstreams or whatever that you can tow behind.

That to me is a camper.

Do they have to be licensed and inspected?

The ones that go in the bed of your truck, I don't think they have to, but the others do.

So the standard should be whatever they stay in should be something that has a like safety approval from some type of federal or state.

Right, right.

I don't think that has any kind of inspection on it.

I don't know if it's stamped by somebody before it leaves the factory floor.

It's not going to be once a year.

Like we said, at the start of each lease or annually, just verifying, they're going to continue doing this operation and how many have they previously done?

You were number 17, right?

Yes, sir.

If you have just two sites, does any or all of this apply?

No, the rules would apply for everybody across the board, whether it was one, two, 10, or 100.

So they would have to do a site plan and all of these type of things if you just have two.

So, they should have to do that today already.

But that's not correct.

I don't know how we could get around it with you guys have enough information to make that planning commission or the board.

Is that letter O in his note?

So that kind of wraps up.

We do have the opportunity to review the registration or administrative requirements, those conditions during the CUP process.

Renewal and periodic certification, are we already doing that by saying what we did earlier with the 12-month staff review?

And this is the up to date information for you know, contact information or property manager, whoever if anything changed.

A rolling all the time.

You guys had already talked about that.

The only one that's not covered in that is administrative site plan.

which you know if someone's coming to get a CUP though they're gonna have to map it out whether how many campsites where it's gonna be what the internal roads are gonna look like all the questions you guys would have before you approve something that's all you know that's pretty much what they're gonna have to do I mean Tom right an administrative site plan would essentially be an overview plan of what you guys would need to make a determination for or against a different project and so what the board need major site plan would be substantially different

I guess the answer to that throughout what we've culminated prior to 1 through 16 makes that an all for 17, pretty much.

This is just one.

Is that per lot, per application?

They don't, there's no business license, there's no additional fee.

There's no registration or administrative fee, no per site, none of that.

But no, they don't come back with any additional requirements.

Again, I think they ought to be treated the same.

So then it would just be the transit occupancy tax when legally applicable.

Unless, like any other service that's provided, staff always comes to us on occasion and say, you know, we recommend that we institute or increase the fee for so and so because of the workload and that we're always open to that.

So is it an annual fee that just covers everything?

This is what we require What we would ask for not require But that's the way we treat every other fee when when it gets the number gets so high or whatever and what they come back in and say, you know Help us

This is how many parcels campsites and come up with a reasonable number.

And we tried to help.

I have been dying to ask a question, Mr. Weiss, of Mrs. Smith.

Please.

Can we tell them that their children cannot go to school here without violating federal and state law which requires us to provide an education to a child?

One of the provisions of the campgrounds was that if they were going to get a CUP for the campground that no student could use that address to go to Louisa County Public Schools.

So if they have kids with them, they can't go to school at all?

It's the requirement.

You can't tell them they can't go to school.

So I mean whatever mechanism is used but that was the intent is that if somebody's got 10 campgrounds and every single one of them has two kids and now you've got 20 kids at $18,000.

I wouldn't want to be in Ms. Smith's place trying to defend that.

I would work with that.

I think she's going to come up with some better language.

I'm sorry you were speaking.

I'm sorry, I was just telling Chris I would work with him on that.

I've been dying to ask you that question because I don't think we can swim in that water.

Is there any outstanding questions or if not, staff will work on the new campground language and the temporary workforce lodging language.

We'll wait till next month.

Speak now.

I just I really am keen on keeping this clean and keeping the competition fair.

We should be able to get this squared away and then hopefully next month we can be ready to determine public hearing.

So we'll have another work session on it at five o'clock next month.

We can do work session at five o'clock.

We've got issues still defined.

We need to have an extra room.

We want to talk about the numbers.

Yeah, we want to try to get this out of the way so we can get back on the slow and growth business.

Thank you.

Work session closed.