By Tammy Purcell/Engage Louisa
In an effort to simplify the permitting process for residential docks and boathouses, the Louisa County Supervisors have voted unanimously to revise the Lake Anna Shoreline Ordinance.
Adopted in 2005, the ordinance lays out design and development guidelines for overwater and shoreline structures, overlapping with Dominion Energy’s rules. Dominion owns the lake and its shoreline but allows adjoining property owners and developers to build docks, boathouses, boardwalks, boat slips and similar structures via individual use agreements.
The tweaks adopted aim to streamline the construction of individual boathouses and docks serving residential and agriculturally zoned parcels by removing Louisa County planning staff’s duplicative review of Dominion’s approval process.
The proposal axes some provisions already governed by Dominion’s regulations related to the size and orientation of residential overwater structures but retains provisions that cap their height.
“We won’t have our staff go through the requirements that Dominion already has in place. If they have the approval from Dominion, we will take that as approval from Dominion to build there. Our staff would just look [to ensure] that the agreement is for the individual parcel, the roof height is correct whether it’s a pitched or flat roof and construction plans match the Dominion approval notification,” Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said, adding that staff would continue to carry out duties connected to the issuance of building permits and inspections.
The approved revisions also tweak the county’s guidelines for lighting on newly-constructed overwater structures, requiring the use of dark-sky compliant lighting instead of recommending it.
A proposed provision that would’ve required property owners to submit as-built drawings of their boathouses and docks to the county post-construction was removed from the ordinance prior to adoption.
Beyond residential boathouses, the ordinance retains the county’s rules for commercial areas and subdivision common areas. It also leaves intact sections of the ordinance relating to erosion and sediment control and dredging.
A previous proposal developed by the county’s planning staff had sought to repeal large swaths of the ordinance. Staff had argued that Dominion’s and the county’s overlapping rules cause confusion and eat up staff time even though the company, not the county, ultimately controls what’s built on the lake.
But that version sparked concern from Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter who argued that the county shouldn’t gut its role in regulating what’s built over the water, particularly in commercial and common areas. During a brief discussion of the reworked proposal at the board’s April 29 meeting, McCotter called it a “good compromise.”
“I looked into this and followed the process from the beginning, worked with staff. This is a very good document,” McCotter said. “I think that it keeps Louisa involved in the process. It also eases the burden on staff.”
Though the board voted 7-0 to approve the revised ordinance, the impact of the changes stirred some concern from Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow. Throughout the county’s months-long debate over what to do with the ordinance, Barlow has insisted that it was initially implemented because of concerns that a group of developers planned to build a floating townhome community on the lake.
He claimed on Monday that, when the proposal was initially presented, Dominion didn’t seem too concerned about residential development over the water and that the county’s ordinance acted as a safeguard against the use.
Barlow said that he wanted assurances that the county wasn’t stripping parts of the ordinance that protect it from unwanted overwater development.
“I want to make sure that someone can’t come along…and build 15 acres of floating condominiums out there on the lake and us have no purview over it,” Barlow said. “Is that clear in this ordinance that if something like this comes up, it comes to this board, the planning commission and everybody else?”
Interim County Attorney Dale Mullen suggested that he isn’t certain existing county code offers that protection, but he said the revisions under consideration Monday night didn’t relate to the issue.
“To the extent it existed before, it still exists in there today. But I will say that an argument could be made, and the code could be strengthened to indicate that that would not be permitted,” Mullen said.
County Administrator Christian Goodwin suggested that the board hear directly from Dominion about Barlow’s concerns. Supervisors and staff could then determine if changes to the code are necessary, he said. The board agreed to move forward with the revised ordinance and talk with Dominion representatives at a future meeting.
