Planning Commission Worksession   10/8/2026

I call this October meeting of Louisa County Planning Commission work session to order and we'll go right to our business at hand which is draft campground and temporary workforce lodging ordinances.

So the draft that we have before you is what we worked at the last meeting through and the only two points of clarification that I think we would need to make is on under campground item

H, where it talks about shall not be used to establish permanent residential occupancy, basically for the Louisa County students.

So there are provisions in the state code that would really dictate that.

However, just so everyone is aware and abundantly clear, this would be that if a student

was utilizing it and utilizing the Lewis County Public Schools as allowed through the state code.

They would not be the ones penalized.

It would be the operator who obtained a CUP and basically they're using that CUP incorrectly.

So I just want to make sure that that is abundantly clear.

There are provisions that if individuals are homeless in accordance with the Virginia state code, they would not be the ones penalized.

They

The schools would still be required to provide aid or education where this would be and it is actually illegal and the state code would be hypothetically if there was someone in a surrounding locality that wanted to attend Lewis County Public Schools for a sport or otherwise and ended up getting an RV and then your junior or seniors living in the RV while your permanent residence is in.

The only other item that we had is under the temporary workforce lodging.

One point of clarification to make is that as we mentioned, the CUP would be obtained and then there would be annual and ongoing reports that would be coming forward.

Just want to make sure everybody is abundantly clear that once a CUP is given, the annual and reoccurring information is provided to the county is actually a condition of the CUP.

That CUP is still valid, so if they were to violate either the annual report or the updated information, that would violate the CUP and could be cause for revocation.

So even if it was 10 years down the line, just like the triathlon that comes in front of the board, they have a CUP, but part of the condition is that they come back and present how many people came and all their messaging and all that, so it would be very similar.

There would be an administrative process, but that CUP would still be valid.

It would just be one of the conditions.

So it is something that the conditions of the CUP would still be important for that temporary workforce lodging.

All right.

Well, I was not at the last meeting where this was robustly discussed, I understand.

Mr.

Chair.

Mr. Goodwin.

I spoke with Chris this afternoon and proposed a, this will be on page three, overnight RV parking.

I proposed a number four that this would only be allowed with the owner's permission.

And just point of clarification on the overnight RV parking.

This is the one if you remember.

We haven't talked about it in several months, but this is if someone's driving down 64 and they decide to pull off and park in a parking lot and just sleep, stay the night, Walmart, Food Lion, any other facility.

But it is valid that if they were to stay longer than 12 hours or something happens, the business is closed and they end up staying there for the whole weekend.

They didn't have the owner's consent.

There's no reason why we should go after the owner for somebody using utilizing their property without the permission.

It's just, you know, if somebody used somebody's commercial office, it was closed for the weekend.

Just understand that just as a question, if somebody is driving down 95 need to pull off need to sleep.

Here's a Lowe's it's one in the morning, they're closed.

I don't know, it may be hard at that time of night to get the owner's permission.

I think where it is is because the people that would be enforced or assessed the zoning code issue would be Lowe's in that situation.

So if they hadn't provided any approval for them to do it and they extended past the point that was deemed, I mean,

Mr.

Chair, it's a liability issue.

If they use it for some nefarious purpose, drug dealing, whatever, the owner did not provide permission so that

Primarily to protect the owners.

Absolutely.

Mr. Dickerson, point of clarification, that's the property owners permission, not the RV owners.

and then that would probably just it would look different for different facilities like well, you know, Walmart is always very accepting of RVs and campers come stay in the back parking lot and stuff like that.

Mr.

Chair, there's just one, this also is on page three, bottom of the page, paragraph A. I cannot agree with allowing up to ten units.

And I don't think, honestly, that the numbers even support

going that high when we've discussed this before, we haven't been talking about enough demand in this county to be allowing 10, that we need 10 per acre to, excuse me, not 10, 10 per site to meet the demand.

And I really am concerned that somebody,

has adjoining parcels and they start jacking that up at a factor of 10.

And if you really wanted to get serious about growing your campground, all you gotta do is go to community development and say, what is my maximum number of divisions?

I divide my own lot, whether it's family divisions or whatever, and multiply it by a factor of 10, that's way too much.

opening the doors to commercial activities in a residential area.

If we can keep this down to three, as I suggested before, which is a cut off of Department of Health, then yeah, I'll bite in.

All right.

Any other opinions on the thoughts on that?

I agree with Commissioner Goodwin, I think ten is too many.

What is the magic number?

I could live with three, maybe four, but the health department also

They kicked in a three.

And it kind of keeps everything on a level ground.

It changes when you hit three and above.

So to me, it's clearer.

But again, the numbers that have been floated about the existing RV sites, we don't have that kind of demand in the county.

So, Mr. Coon, again, forgive me if I ask you an odd question, but I wasn't here at the last meeting.

That was a conversation based on last meetings work group.

I said we went through and we said no more than 10.

So just as a reminder for the temporary workforce lodging, it'd be a CUP so then they would have to come

and show how many campsites they wanted.

They would file it.

And as it's got in here, there'd be no minimum acreage or acreage per campsite.

That was something that was discussed, not deemed necessary.

But it should be located 200 feet from any property line or public right of way.

A landscape plan should be provided as well, basically to show that if it is, you know,

If you've got the campsites down here, how much vegetative buffer do you need if the public right of way is up here and can't see down into it?

But there's also the 150 feet of vegetative buffer, landscape buffer between the applicable property line.

We made sure that they had all the requirements for the water, sewer, and electrical.

Made sure it was to VDH standard as well as getting the permit through the community development.

And one thing I did forget to mention is talked with Fire and EMS and a lot of the provisions that we were looking for with road width

the turning radius and all those things.

On page four, item C is where it's referenced, the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code.

They've got all the features, the width of the road, those dimensions that were originally contemplated is all in there, so that would be the standard that would be used for those internal roads.

So I had them listed out but then even Fire and EMS suggested we use this code because that way in the future it changes from time to time so this way that is kind of the guiding document so if it were to change

I think, Mr.

Chair, that's a perfect way to address one thing.

And I will say this, and Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Coon.

Some of these figures, setbacks, maximum numbers, we took the approach of put something down so we can keep moving forward.

It was a limited, of course you weren't here, Mr. Quarles was not able to make the work session as well, so it was, you know, not a full quorum, so there were a couple things that, that was the,

three individuals agreed on to keep moving forward.

I don't know exactly how the state fire code addresses campsites.

I do know that we have stayed away from the state fire code for anything other than the building department for the simple reason that

They exceed for subdivisions and things of that nature, the state fire code exceeds the road width requirements that the VDOT has for the secondary roads.

So I think we need to know exactly what it is the state fire code is requiring.

When you look at this, I know VDOT's

requirement for up to 250 trips.

Average daily trips is 18 feet of travel service.

State Fire Coast 22, which exceeds most of the secondary roads we've got in the county.

So before we go, just arbitrarily adopting something that

The State Fire Code is saying, we need to know what the State Fire Code is saying as it pertains to what it is you're looking at.

They're thinking about fire trucks going in and out and stuff like that and are looking at their codes exceed what you have to do for VDOT stage back roads.

So to just adopt that

Just out of curiosity, Mr. Barlow, just listening to what you're saying, are you saying that the board has decided to not look at the, I don't want this to sound bad, it's not what I mean, it's just what I'm hearing, not look at the fire protection code and their requirements

move on with subdivisions or whatever, and we may not be able to get fire equipment in and out because of that.

No, it's not.

What we looked at was the several, I mean a good while, a long time ago, when Goodson, when they first adopted the state fire code, they had a fire marshal.

Our father wanted to adopt the state fire code.

We looked at it and that time was a good while ago.

And what they didn't realize was when they adopted the state fire code, it pertains to virtually everything.

and there were the aspects of it that will dictate your road widths and all that type of stuff which exceed VDOTs.

So the board at that time, and this is years ago, chose

to adopt the building code portion of it, because that's what we were looking at, is how it applies to building codes and stuff like that.

And we did not so just, in other words, if you're going to adopt it, then know what it is you adopted, is what I'm saying.

And we chose not to adopt it.

It has nothing to do with this.

This was long before any campsites were talked about.

Shoot at me, I'm not even sure when it was, but I do know that right now our building code is the building code section of the state fire code we adopted, but not anything else.

And that's what I'm saying.

We just, this, this is

The way I just read this thing, this doesn't say a specific aspect.

So I've got the list right here that we were originally discussing where they suggested I include this.

Minimum 20 feet, unobscured internal road width, exclusive shoulders, 13 feet, six inch of vertical clearance, internal roads constructed and maintained with an all weather surface capable of supporting fire and EMS apparatus.

The curve and intersections designed with a turning radius sufficient for, and I'd put the county's largest responding vehicle asking them a question, and that the longest wheelbase is 278 inches.

It's got any dead-end internal road longer than 150 feet to include an approved turnaround suitable for emergency apparatus.

Mr.

Chair, I guess it's a question for Patricia.

How binding are state codes?

You're asking kind of a very general question.

Well, Mr. Barlow was saying the board decided not to adopt the state code, the state fire code.

You had the latitude to adopt a portion of it.

You did not have to adopt the whole thing.

Well, I'm just asking because I thought

I don't know why you even have one if you can just say, well, we're not going to do it.

This was my confusion.

Yes, sir, I get that.

I'm not trying to be adversarial.

It's a legitimate question.

You had a similar situation with the Chesapeake Bay.

You had the ability to adopt it.

Those that were east of 95, it was automatic.

It was mandatory on the other side of 95 except for portions of Fairfax and Hanover.

But anybody else who wanted to voluntarily you could opt in.

I get that, but I never thought state codes were opt in or opt out.

They were just there, like the building code, and that was it.

There are some provisions that allow that.

Same thing like the Virginia property maintenance code.

that's something that localities have the opportunity if we opt in and then that has to do with you know the condition of the homes and all this that you know in certain localities want to do the property maintenance code and go after everybody for all the different violations that is not something Louisa has done so there are sections that are created and they provide options to adopt either fully in part or certain things and like the property maintenance code it's an all-or-nothing and

The benefits do not outweigh the negatives in the board's mind, and I would tend to agree with them, especially for us.

That's one reason why we don't have that property maintenance code adopted.

But it is.

It's called, you know, the Virginia property maintenance code, and it's approved in the Virginia state code and everything else.

OK. Like I said, I'm not trying to be adversarial.

I have a legitimate question on my part.

So I guess where we are in this question is we would like to make sure there's a method to provide fire protection from EMS services to people who may live on such a campsite.

How do we do that?

The Fire Chief ought to look at the code and say, yeah, this works for Louisa or it doesn't.

Well, let me ask you this.

And that avoids us having to specify a lot of different things but allows them to say yes for what's there.

I'm good with that.

Yeah.

So when you're saying alternative you mean take out the section shall comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code as amended and just require the fire chief to sign site plans regarding However it would be properly phrased that the fire chief would review the site plan and

Well, I think if we're not enforcing it for, we're not applying it to buildings here because these are not, I mean these are manufactured buildings that are under their own codes.

And if we don't apply it to the roadway going to the site, I don't know about applying it to the roadway in the site.

If the fire chief looks at it, because you know, when you read this, the code probably is going to allow you to bring any piece of equipment that the that a fire company or an EMS company could have and drive through a site.

But we probably don't need every piece of equipment made through there, we probably need some smaller pieces of equipment.

The questions we had asked were based on what would actually respond to a camp site or a campground.

So it wasn't, that's not a, you know, four story, 10 story ladder truck is not what's being considered in here.

It's specifically equipment that would be responded.

That's what the question was.

Yeah.

So, but even like a tanker, I mean, you got to think,

It is.

But yeah, I get it.

So I'll have to look at changing this and reconfiguring it.

The top part will probably stay the same.

The approach departure, other emergency access, all that is important.

And then we'll have to change basically the last little bit of it.

And then we'll do the same thing for item D. Because we've got the emergency access demonstrating compliance with the fire apparatus access requirements.

Yes.

I would make a point of clarification too.

We have a firing EMS chief, which has always been a stickler for me because 90% of our calls are EMS.

So we don't have a fire chief.

It's fire, EMS.

I think that's a good fix.

That was all I had, Mr.

Any other comments?

Mr. Pynchon, you did not miss much.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

Please excuse my tardiness.

Not a problem.

Just what I'm hearing here.

Why would we not just take care of this?

Why would you not just do the same statistics that are on a private lane, which is a 14-foot road?

Two-foot shoulders and a 60-foot cul-de-sac, wouldn't it?

The commercial aspect of it.

I mean, we could do either if that's... Well, just when I'm hearing.

It almost feels like there's two different standards there.

I mean that's based on last month we talked about the internal road standards.

The request was that I go talk to Fire and EMS regarding what those internal standards should be.

I talked to them about it and they had suggested we utilize this provision.

So that was the direction if we want something different we can absolutely do it.

That's just

based on last month.

That was the direction, go talk to them and get those provisions.

But very good.

Mr.

I apologize for getting plumbed in here late, but we had some technical difficulties.

But we're happy to have you.

Glad to be here.

So it sounds like we're talking about this particular issue, the standard for the road going in.

OK, so I think that we should follow the fire department's recommendations on that.

I think however they feel comfortable with it, then I think that's what we should probably direct ourselves in that direction, simply because they would know what kind of access they need to service that facility.

You know, we come up with a different wording or a different specification than, you know, it kind of takes your work last month out of the picture.

I think that's what the recommendation is that we're making to make the change for them to have approval at the CUP stage so that whatever they feel like they need to get the job done within the campsite is put in the site plan.

This is for whatever.

Well, exactly.

But what I'm saying is

That would be up, Mr.

Chair, that'd be up to the reviewing body or the planning commission or the board to question her, her judgment.

But she's already reviewing the plans anyway as part of the regular process on every CUP.

So we're really not putting anything new in.

I just think we should leave it in their hands whether it's one unit or whether it's all units.

I don't think we should put a number on it whether or not they get involved.

And we're in concurrence with you on that.

And based on this conversation what I went ahead and did as well under campground for items C and items D. I've also taken out the SFPC and addressed it with the chief or designee.

And the only other item that was discussed that I'm not sure how you all feel about it, but it wasn't brought up until after agendas went out.

Under temporary workforce lodging on page three, if you read that definition, it does not specifically verify that the work is being done inside Louisa County.

And if we wanted to address that, it does talk about accommodations for persons employed in a verified temporary work assignment using approved temporary workforce shelters.

Something else that Christian talked about this afternoon.

I think it's a good clarification.

Mr.

How do we enforce that?

I mean, I think that's a great idea.

But how do we enforce that?

And with our staff, are we going to send somebody out to check these things?

Or again, is it something that we're going to fall back on until somebody has a problem?

I'm looking for it right now.

I'm looking for it too.

If you all would look on page five, item I, the first sentence isn't

Pertinent here, but the second one, the owner operator shall regularly report information sufficient to verify the number of occupants, employer information, employment dates, and arrival departure information and shall provide an annual operational report and updated contact information.

So if they're keeping tabs of who's in their

Campsite and where those individuals are working it would be on them to have that information and it would be necessary upon request for them to provide it and when they're providing that annual update or the regular update and

The employment contract is in Fluvanna County at their gas plant or something like that, then we would just kindly remind them that this is for Louisa.

I'm not as familiar.

So what they'll have to do is they'll have to do that when they do the initial CUP.

And then the way this is written is once every six months, come back in and resubmit all the

Oh, yeah.

So we had put in here shall regularly report information sufficient because we had talked anywhere from doing it every year, doing it every time a new camper came on site.

We talked about so in talking internally, you know, is it monthly?

Like, let's be serious.

If you've got somebody showing up every other day and somebody leaving every other day because it's a outage or something like that,

Mr.

Chair, and I think what that does is give the owner the responsibility.

He knows he's going to have to make these reports.

He knows his conditional use permit is contingent on him following the rules.

Somebody comes to him, he gathers the information, they're not working in Louisa, they're working in a neighboring county.

He's not going to take that person on.

and jeopardize his whole operation.

So it puts out, I think, the responsibility where it ought to be.

Mr.

I don't see a problem with the concept, but I do see where

Knowing the frequency of fire and fire, if you will, at these facilities, I wonder about that turnover, if you were talking about

Multilevel, can the owner keep up with that?

And how often he's going to have to make a report more often than six months?

Because as you well know, Mr.

Chair, that sometimes these occupancies or these contracts are 45 days.

And I concur with you on the variable nature of these kind of things, Mr. Quarles.

I think the idea is that the onus now is on the person who's running the campground to keep up with that.

and the idea is that there will be a periodic report required and the report simply has to say what happened within the previous time period.

It doesn't require the owner operator to come to the board constantly when there's changes.

It just allows the owner operator to document

Excuse me, E. It's my old eyes.

Look like a C. Mr.

No, it's I.

So it's on page 5.

And it does say, the second sentence, the owner slash operator shall regularly report information sufficient to verify the number of occupants, employer information, employment dates, and the arrival or departure information.

So they're going to gather all that information when they're receiving income from those individuals.

So they should be able to track that as well.

And then once we get down to the CUP, if we decide it's going to be every quarter, every six months, every month, every year, whatever it ends up being, we would end up creating probably a fillable PDF, honestly, that someone can just fill it out, similar to the transient occupancy tax or meals tax.

They fill out a fillable PDF and then they email it to and we probably create a specific mailbox that goes to people required.

That's all that would end up being so they wouldn't need to come back to the Border Planning Commission at those times.

Honestly, I don't think they'd even have to come to the county office building.

Well, I kind of equate this as driving out of the rear window, because this is reporting the events that have happened, not that's currently going on.

That's where I have the problem, because what do we do when a person says, well, you know what?

There was a couple, two months ago, that they weren't exactly workforce housing.

Is that an admonishment at that point?

The people are gone.

The money is collected.

I mean to answer that, if they are not submitting the documentation as they should be, then they always run the risk of having the CUP revoked if it's found out.

I'm sure there's people that may do that.

But also if they're tracking all the information and somebody doesn't provide the employer information or the employment dates, staff would let them know, hey, this one user here, you don't have the employer information or the employment dates.

And basically let them know you're not allowed to do this.

And essentially, if it happens a second time, then we're going to go through enforcement action.

maybe it probably will happen to be honest with you and there may be bad actors that are doing it on purpose there may be some people just in the whirlwind of getting this up and running forget to you know keep that or ask for it but

The hope is we'll provide basically a template that would be an application template to gather all the information that we need and provide that to anybody that wants to do this use so that they know as soon as they start this is the information we need and everything that is required for them to keep when they fill out that report.

But if you're asking, are there going to be bad actors, I absolutely think there will be.

And they just run the risk of doing something that's not in conformance with their CUP.

I think so.

I mean if the owner's the one who has the onus to collect all the information and then they provide it to us and then our staff has the opportunity to review the reports and then if there's any missing documentation that's the only time they touch base with the owner operator and ask where the outstanding information is and if they can't provide it there's your first warning and I think hopefully anybody that's operating it will

Ellis, this is George.

You are touching on something that has bothered me for over 10 years, and that is passing ordinances that we cannot enforce.

and I finally just got to a point where I had to make peace with myself, embrace the whole

Point of clarification though just remember this is a CUP so this is not just the zoning ordinance like the short-term rental of a dwelling where they have to abide by the rules and if they don't

and we get complaints and we go forward.

This is a CUP.

These are conditions that they're going to be required to provide from day one.

And that's where item K comes in.

Failure to provide the required reporting, maintain required approvals, remove the shelters as required.

You know, we've got the two weeks before, two weeks after or otherwise comply with applicable standards or the condition of use permit conditions may result in zoning enforcement and loss of eligibility for the administrative continuance or renewal.

So that is one thing that is different than if it's the CUP process, that a CUP condition, it is you're going to do this in whatever term is set, six months, year, whatever, and they've got to do that every time, just like the triathlon.

If the triathlon decided to skip coming to the board and giving them their annual informational meeting, which we need to schedule, I just thought,

that they run the risk of having that CUP withdrawn and then they can't operate those two events that happen.

So that's the same premise here.

So it's just, it is different than just the general zoning code that these are, you know, buy right with restrictions or something like that.

Mr. Dickerson.

Thank you.

So the term period will be set at the CUP?

or are we gonna set a term period in the ordinance?

The regular reporting?

Right.

So that's up to you guys.

We could either require it, but some of the thought process that we were talking is if it's one or two campsites, does it need to be every month?

If it's 10, would we want it every month?

It just depends on what you all feel.

If it's monthly, quarterly, six months, but you talk about it, if it's 10 sites,

Probably be most folks coming in within a 30 to 45 day period and going out and it wouldn't be changing up people constantly.

But I don't know about Amazon.

I don't know how they work.

So that's the, yeah.

Like I said, it very well could be.

We can just set something for everybody across the board.

Six months and keep everybody on the same plane.

Right.

Right.

And then you're treating two different applicants differently.

I agree with you totally.

And nothing here

cannot be changed based on experience.

We look at it and say, you know, we don't need it this often or we need it more often.

We can go back and revisit it.

It's not like recreating the whole thing.

And just respectfully, I didn't agree.

I thought differently on Louisa just for Louisa work.

We do border so many other counties.

And I mean, just earlier this week, I was looking for temporary housing for work, my workers 10 to 12 at a time.

And the last thing I do when I search, you know, I create a 30 minute bubble from where they're working at.

is check which side of the county line they're on when I'm booking that.

And I think we're thinking of this straight from one view.

But 10 years from now, 20 years from now, if this is still in place, what growth is going in around us in other counties?

If somebody is coming in to stay at this campground, they're supporting a Louisa business.

They're generating income into the county, and they're going to grow or infrastructure work elsewhere.

That's okay with me.

You're still, if you limit the type of business that that business can bring in, I don't think that's a recipe for a successful campground.

I think it's putting restrictions on a business that we don't need to do in that way.

I think they should have the freedom to work in Louisa or Fluvanna or Goochland or Albemarle or Henrico or Spotsylvania, you know, anywhere within a bubble that's convenient to their

It's not a deal breaker for me.

I just feel differently about it for a little bit different reason because I do think we're looking at it just from one perspective and not future perspectives in that way of workforce housing.

I like the thought behind it.

I appreciate that from my personal perspective is to not import people who may be working all over and these days an hour and a half, two hour commute may be attractive if somebody can find a cheap place to live here in Louisa.

By the time they get to Louisa after doing that, they're probably just sleeping here and not spending their money necessarily.

I mean, they may or they may not.

It just cuts out all of it when it cuts it out.

It feels rough to me to put that limitation on is all.

I can see both sides of that.

What I wonder is there anything we're trying to do here that's not respected or done differently in another locality that will be exported or would

Go against what we're trying to do here.

I can't come up with anything right now, but we don't control what the ordinance are in other counties.

If you're here for over 29 days, you don't do the transient occupancy tax.

I don't know what other counties are, so we're creating kind of a false demand in the county by offering something that other people are not.

I said just not a deal for sure.

I can understand Mr. Hicks' concerns.

And like George, I'm in the middle when it comes to that.

But you don't want to spill the whole pot not looking at the item either.

It's difficult.

I don't know what the answer for that is.

Maybe we kind of turn things around, Mr.

Chair, and make it complaint based.

It may be.

That's what I'm saying.

If we could start with Louisa and then change it if we find there is a great demand for the out-of-county housing.

I'd say get started because we'll probably refine it over time.

I expect.

Yup.

If the business owner is saying there's a need and I need to comply in order to make my business healthy and sustain in the county, then yeah, that's a good median right there, I believe.

Well, I had one that I just need to verify something.

And Ms. Marshall, I think it's good that we have you in the audience tonight because I just want to clarify one thing.

It's been too long, too long since I was a part of the fun of outages at the power station.

But knowing particularly that we begin bringing contractors in to get them badged and credentialed

Before the outage, we currently have a 14-day period prior to work beginning.

I cannot recall how early they used to set up in order to bring workers in.

Can you shed any light on how early?

If you can come up to the microphone or you just got a strong voice, I know we can probably hear you from there.

I'll ask one clarifying question on that.

What I'm saying is prior to the beginning of the outages we would bring contractors in to begin training and credentialing them so they would be

And maybe I read this wrong, but if that is considered verified employment beginning, when they're doing their credentialing, then we're good.

So just out of curiosity, I mean, and we can we can fix that here.

Yeah, so generally speaking, when we bring in contractors, whether it's from another nuclear station or through a third party, the day they reside on site or come on site is when the station starts essentially putting them on their payroll.

So that's when

I would say for the purposes of this would be considered their first day regardless of whether they're in processing or training.

That does get a little flexible when it's you know a Dominion person from Surrey Power Station versus a third party who may have to pass

You know, background checks, that sort of thing.

But if you're looking at the outage start date particular, we do a lot of times bring in some people for pre outage work that could start a month or even six weeks before.

So I think, you know, for the purposes of North Anna, I would say looking at the date the person is coming to the station versus an outage start date, you also run into issues

Security issues.

I just wanted to clarify it now.

You're on the payroll.

Often people fall off prior to the end of the outage as well, but some continue on.

So I just wanted to clarify.

Thank you, Ms. Marshall.

You're welcome.

I was just going to say it depends on the work group and the scope of the work.

I have seen people come in months ahead of time as far as

Like it was mentioned, pre-outage work, I think it shouldn't be based on the outage dates because, again, preparation is part of it.

So the outage dates are kind of irrelevant at that point.

Yeah, exactly.

And I just wanted to clarify that so we're all thinking the same thing because I know

Mr. Quarles, you and I have, and as Ms. Marshall does, we have an insight into what goes on, and that's not necessarily true of everybody's, particularly when we just talk about outages.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

For example, with this, if a subcontractor or someone had to email a letter from Dominion or their boss or whatever saying they're to report to the power station on the 14th, if they showed up on the first of that month in Lewis County having the verified employment of the 14th, that would be fine.

So it's what they're doing, the official start date of outages and all that.

Mr. Chairman, I just have one question.

With the consideration of these reports that are being submitted, is there additional staff time required and are we billing for that?

I would have to check, but

utilizing the basically it'd be like enforcement of a CUP condition.

I don't know if we can bill for that.

I'd have to check like on an ongoing basis.

We may be able to build it into the specific

Mr.

Chair, I think we already have a process in place and that is periodically staff comes to us with a new proposed fee schedule based on workload and we review it and approve it or make changes so I would expect the same thing to happen here that if we find that it's causing work at the next time you all propose a fee schedule then the

We look at it then.

I appreciate that.

I think the only thing that's not been resolved at this point is the question of the number of sites in the campground that we're going to recommend.

As mentioned last month though we'll indicate this is for CUP so there may be situations where an individual has the acreage and has the plan and the vision to easily be able to accommodate the ten and you all would agree a hundred out of a hundred votes and if it is not a situation where it seems safe or you know against the

Health, Safety, and General Welfare of the public.

You all would ultimately be the ones that get to evaluate that based on the site and the conditions of the site.

But you also can set the maximum cap so that before anybody fills out a CUP that there'd be a cap on there.

So however you want to proceed, happy to change it.

change parameters.

I know, Mr.

Chair, that I would prefer we set a cap and that people know what they're asking for when they go in and have to pay their fees to submit to CUP rather than rolling the dice.

I think it's wise to have a cap.

Even with two campsites, there's VDH provisions.

They will evaluate it and do that.

But then once you get to three, there's actually specific campground infrastructure requirements for the drain fields and wells.

So it's that three number just changes the

It's a new provision but substantially it's not by so much changes from two to three it's just now you trigger a specific process through them but the same information they're evaluating the drain fields and the wells and everything else it's just a little more formalized but even at two if they don't have the adequate system or anything else they may actually have to do the system that's required for three or more so it's not

That's one thing we did clarify.

Just because you have two doesn't mean they can get away with a lesser version because if VDH comes out and is like, well, you don't have soils, you don't have any of this stuff, they may actually have to increase it to the same level as what would be required for three or more.

If we lower it to three, are we limiting the amount of people that are going to be interested in potentially doing this anyways?

Because the value of a growth area property that they would go for for this to be limited to three is not the greatest business plan for them in the first place.

My concern with that is, I've been a proponent of it being all the way across the board, because I know that septic systems can fail if they're not adequate.

And electric cook-ups, if they're not adequate, can burn structures down and harm people.

So I know that the, I guess George said it was VDH, he said there's a three, but why wouldn't we make the whole standard from the beginning, whether you hook up one or whether you hook up two?

Page four, item H. Operation shall comply with all applicable Virginia Department of Health regulations.

So that would

If they have 1, 2, 3, 5, or 10, they would all have to go through the VDH process and make sure that it's all valid and up to standard.

Correct.

The building code opens up to everything.

I tend to agree with Commissioner Goodwin not to exceed three.

Have the public hearing and see what the public wants to say and see where we want to go.

You know, if there's a huge chewing cry for 10 or 8 or something that makes better sense, we may learn during that public hearing.

Point of clarification there that if we did have an applicant come in and have the public hearing and we realize it needs to be eight, we'd have to have a whole new public hearing for Planning Commission and a whole new board.

The public hearing for this document.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

As long as we, Mr.

Chair, as long as we realize that if we pack this room to the gills, you're talking about a fraction, a very small fraction of 1% of this county.

We often lose that perspective of what we're hearing in a public hearing.

So, but I agree.

Is anybody adverse to moving this to three and seeing what the public hearing produces?

Mr.

Chair.

Have we done any research as to what other counties or other places have looked at as far as a number?

Well, our neighbors don't have temporary workforce lodging.

We did look at what Surry County is doing.

The requirements are basically the buffers and everything else.

So that's, they didn't have a cap on the number of campsites.

Mr. Quarles, I think the message is that we have looked at what other counties are doing but they don't really have a similar thing that we can match up with.

We had research information on the surrounding localities for campgrounds as a whole very early in this process many months ago and they all had varying acreage requirements, density requirements and that sort of thing so there was nothing that really was

Yes, so Surrey is the only one that would fit here and their density permitted is one campsite per half acre and the maximum number of campsites is 10 sites and no campsite should be 200 feet from a single-family dwelling.

Maximum length of stay for the campsite shall be no more than 120 days.

They've got the same thing, health department approval shall be obtained for the campground sewage disposal system.

Access to campsites should be, and they've actually got it in there where it's a 10-foot all-weather road.

So my guess is if we go to three campsites here, we will probably draw more commentary to help us determine what the feeling of the populace is than if we leave it at 10.

That would be my guess.

There would be more people willing to come out and comment on whether or not they thought three was sufficient.

And that's the way it works.

I understand.

I understand.

I'm willing to listen to that myself.

So I guess I would recommend that unless anybody feels differently that we go ahead with the three and take that, make that change and we'll take that to public hearings.

And we'll have to

The only question I do have so under campground we have addressed the statewide fire prevention code items but is there anything else that needs to be discussed regarding campground some maximum density we use the two campsites per acre

or one campsite per half acre and then no campsite should be very similar provisions to what Suri had 200 feet from any property lawn, vegetative buffer.

Is there anything in there that you all disagreed with?

We did have the request go back and look at small country as well as Christopher Run.

Christopher Run is a

So it was actually operating prior to the zoning code so there was no need for it to obtain a CUP.

They have gotten like CUP amendments because I guess that was the cleanest way for them to get some additional options that they wanted since

the 60s just throughout the years but they have they don't have a CUP with set conditions and same thing small country doesn't have any like conditions that we were looking at for the campground because it was also approved in the 80s so it may have been seven but we look we went back and look at both those campgrounds to look at what their conditions were and honestly it was just that they could have the campground and

No conditions.

It was just that was a use that they could do at that site.

And like I said, Christopher run.

There is none for the campground, but it's one for one of the buildings.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kersey.

I just want to express my appreciation to staff because I had raised that issue for comparison.

I was aware of their status, but I think it's important we take a look at those things before we apply rules.

Mr.

Chair, just to follow up on that, I too appreciate it.

Did we find out what

level they're currently occupying in terms of being full up or available sites because I think the discussion was about are we creating competition for what we consider to be a true campground.

I don't know what their occupancy or vacancy is.

I know small country operates throughout the year.

Christopher Run does not.

Christopher Run closes right around now.

It might be there last weekend.

So October to April, they are closed.

So they don't open until the second or third, yeah, springtime.

And small country is, we talk to them.

Very well.

Can I just real quick make sure I got my directive before.

So we're going to withdraw the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention from campgrounds item C and D for campground for overnight RV parking.

We're going to add a number four and whatever the county attorney's office agrees but essentially number four with or without the owner's permission based on that section.

Under temporary workforce lodging, we will restrict it to work in Louisa only.

And then for item A, under that we will change it no more than 10, will be replaced to no more than 3.

Items C and D under the temporary workforce lodging, we will address the Virginia statewide fire prevention code, and it would end up saying that the fire EMSG for their designee would have to review and sign off on the plan.

And then for item I, where it says the owner operator shall, instead of regularly, it'll be provide the report information every six months.

And then...

I think that was it.

The only other item, item six, I want to make sure everybody was agreed on because that was one we did discuss a little bit, but the zoning matrix, we allowed campgrounds, we increased the options to where you could get a CUP for C1 and C2 in or out of a growth area as well to follow where the temporary workforce housing or temporary workforce lodging, I'm sorry.

would could be located.

And then the reason why we had buy right in the resort development is, of course, that is a rezoning and it's processed by itself.

So it would just be included in like a Shenandoah Crossing.

It would have to be included in that whole thing.

So it would be allowed by right.

Yeah.

But I mean, Shenandoah Crossing is the perfect example of if something wanted to come like that and have

So other than that, I think that addresses everything you wanted.

And then the only other point of clarification that I did, this is actually something we talked about a little bit this week, but page eight.

Item 8, we have in here that for short-term rental of a dwelling that tents, tent trailers, travel trailers, recreational vehicles, campers, motorhome, fifth wheels, all of that shall not be used for short-term rental occupancy.

So proof campgrounds and temporary workforce lodging are regulated separately under this.

So this is if someone has a camper, campsite, whatever at their house, they cannot rent it as a short-term rental.

regardless of what zone they're in, if there are one or two anywhere, can't do it.

You know that's an incorrect position on that.

What?

Yes, I spoke to him about it and he said that's not a correct position.

This was given to us by a previous county attorney who he said was incorrect please have her give me a call if she does this again.

It states specifically what can be regulated in agriculture and you can the fact that it sits in agriculture where you can look out and see some agricultural thing out there

That's not agritourism, and that was the problem at the time.

That opinion still stands.

Agreed.

They've not been using it right.

I mean, I specifically asked him.

They do not.

But the reason why we did that is specific for the reason that even if

Mr.

Certainly.

Just a point of clarification.

I've sort of lost where we are in this site, but if you have a camper on site, you've got two, three campsites.

That's what's being proposed, because right now we do not specifically say, the building code says you're not supposed to use it like that, but this, in this provision on page eight, the short-term rental of a dwelling, we basically define tents and campers and trailers you cannot use as a dwelling for short-term rental.

So if you wanted to, you're more than welcome to get a CUP to allow somebody to bring their camper or trailer on and stay the night.

Correct.

That's what we're doing here.

We're closing the loophole of someone trying to use a short-term rental of a dwelling and say, oh, this camper, we're just doing an STR rental in the camper because you're not supposed to do that.

That's something that, and we just, there are people that are doing it and it's not against

Correct.

Got what I need.

Very good.