|
In 1990, the Board of
Supervisors adopted a policy that states that no parcel less
than 25 acres in size will be permitted within an
agricultural and forestal district unless:
·
The subject
property is under an open space easement; and/or
·
The subject
property is part of a working farm and under the same
ownership, or family ownership, of other lands which are
currently a working farm and are in or being added to an
agricultural and forestal district.
In conjunction with this
policy, “Working Farm” has been defined to mean any
operation actively devoted to the bona fide production of
crops, or animals, or fowl, including but not limited to the
production of fruits and vegetables of all kinds; meat,
dairy, and poultry products; nuts, tobacco, nursery and
floral products; and the production and harvest of products
from silvicultural activity.
The Board policy places a
more stringent requirement on smaller parcels than do the
broader standards for Agricultural and Forestal Districts
established by the Code of Virginia.
The Code of Virginia standards include:
-
The agricultural and
forestal significance of the land and adjacent land;
-
The presence of any
significant agricultural or forestal lands within the
district or adjacent areas that are not now in active
agricultural or forestal production;
-
The nature and extent of
land uses other than active farming or forestry within
the district and in adjacent areas;
-
Local development
patterns and needs;
-
The comprehensive plan
and, if applicable, the zoning regulations;
-
The environmental
benefits of retaining the lands in agricultural and
forestal uses; and
-
Any other relevant
matters.
The Code further states that
“in judging the agricultural and forestal significance of
land . . . soil, climate, topography, other natural factors,
markets for agricultural and forestal products, the extent
and nature of farm structures, the present status of
agriculture and forestry, anticipated trends in agricultural
economic conditions and such other factors as may be
relevant” may be considered.
Because of the Board Policy,
any parcel less than 25 acres in size is automatically
removed from a district being renewed, unless a landowner
specifically requests in writing that the parcel remain in
the district and demonstrates compliance with the Board of
Supervisors’ Policy for parcels less than 25 acres. Requests
for additions to Agricultural and Forestal Districts are
also evaluated under the policy.
Impacts of the Policy on
This Year’s Agricultural and Forestal Process
This year, there are 51
parcels in the three Agricultural and Forestal Districts
being renewed. Of these 51 parcels, 12 are smaller than 25
acres. The owners of half of these smaller parcels have
requested that the parcels remain in the Districts and have
demonstrated compliance with the existing Board policy. No
request has been received on 5 of the smaller parcels, so
they will automatically be removed from the District. For
one parcel, the owners did request that the parcels remain
in the District but staff, the Agricultural and Forestal
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have
concluded the parcel does not meet the Board policy and that
it should be removed from the District. Attached are the
charts listing the parcels by category in each of the three
Districts.
One application for addition
to a district is also being recommended for denial because
of the Board policy. John and Hillary Davidson have
requested that two parcels they own
off Summerfield Hills Drive
in Warrenton be added to the district: PIN
#6966-74-9935-000 containing 5.33 acres and PIN
#6966-84-1552-000 containing 10.00 acres. These two
properties are adjacent to a third 25.819-acre parcel owned
by the Davidsons (6966-85-6353-000) which is within the
Marshall/Warrenton District. The larger parcel is not a
working farm, but as it is larger than 25 acres it is not
subject to the more stringent Board policy. Staff would
note that in this case, the owner could place all of their
land in the District by consolidating their three parcels
into one. This is the approach recommended by the
Agricultural and Forestal Committee and Planning
Commission. While historically, such a consolidation would
have had significant impacts on future density, a recent
text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allows lots in the RA
zoning district to be consolidated without losing density.
If consolidated, the smaller pieces could not be developed
as homesites without approval of a division by the County.
Otherwise such small parcels could be so developed at any
time, without penalty, even though they are in the District.
|