Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADAC 02-19-15 Meeting Minutes MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Held in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia on February 19, 2015. PRESENT: Carl Ay, Stonewall District; John Stelzl, Opequon District; John Cline, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Gainesboro District; Harman Brumback, Back Creek District; Jason McDonald, Shawnee District; Gary Lofton, BOS Liaison; Gary Oates, PC Liaison; John M arker, Back Creek District Alternate; Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of Revenue; and Seth Thatcher, Field Appraiser. ABSENT: Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Mark Sutphin, Extension Agent. STAFF PRESENT: Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning and Development; Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Pam Deeter, Secretary. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mr. Cheran at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Cheran gave a briefing that there are currently eight (8) Agricultural and Forestal Districts and the five (5) year expiration will be up in May. There will be a meeting held in April to renew the Agricultural and Forestal Districts until 2020. Currently Frederick County evaluates properties for inclusion in an Agricultural and Forestal District using the Virginia Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) System as required in the Code of Virginia. There are seven (7) factors involved with an evaluation of a property(s) f or inclusion into a district. Mr. Cheran said in reviewing the Districts, there are currently 46 properties that have less than five (5) acres. This could present a problem to the adjoining property owner if the property owner wants to develop the property. The property owner would have to meet the 200 foot setback buffer. Tonight we are here to discuss and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as to what the minimum acreage size to be included in the Agricultural and Forestal District should be. Mr. Cheran opened the floor to discussion. Mr. Lawrence was approached by a property owner that had four (4) acres and the adjacent properties were two two (2) acre tracts in the Agricultural District with houses on them. The two (2) tracts are completely developed because the two properties are in the Ag District and don’t have a building foot print because of the 200 ft. buffer. Mr. Lawrence stated that the buffer makes it difficult for the adjacent property owner to develop the land. The adjacent property owner can go to the Board Zoning Appeals but there is a fee of $500.00. The Agricultural District is to protect the farmer and not to impact the adjoining property owners. Should a lot be less than five (5) acres with or without a house be included in the Agricultural District because this will affect the adjacent property building right s. Mr. Lawrence stated that being in the Agricultural District doesn’t mean the property is automatically in land use. There is a criteria for the land use program. If a property owner puts five (5) acres or less into a n Agricultural District that doesn’t give the property owner a tax benefit. This would impact the adjoining properties. Ms. Murphy agreed that because property is in the Agricultural District doesn’t mean the property is in land use. The property owner has to meet the criteria for land use. Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Cheran tried to find benefits of having a five (5) acre tract in the Agricultural District. Staff concluded there is no tax benefit. The County has a TDR program. Ms. Murphy stated there are small businesses not in Frederick County which are on less than two (2) acres of land. Example greenhouse Mr. Cheran relayed that if the plat has the setback on them the County will go by that setback and the property owner will be vested. If the plat is not showing a setback , then the property owner will need to go by today’s setback. Mr. Lofton asked why a 200 foot buffer was placed on the agricultural lots. Mr. Cheran replied the spraying of the orchards and run off of water. Mr. Oates spoke and said because of planting, if a farmer pulls up trees and doesn’t plant for another year or so, when he comes back to plant the adjacent property has built to close to the orchard. Ms. Murphy confirmed that less than five (5) doesn’t qualify for land use unless their properties are contiguous or adjoining. Ms. Murphy understood that landowners put their property into Agricultural District because they didn’t want the land around them to develop. That was when the Agricultural District was just starting. Mr. Lawrence said we had one property owner go to the BZA for a variance this year because they were adjacent to an orchard. Mr. Oates replied this particular orchard is not in the Agricultural District and the property owner wanted to go closer than 200 foot. Mr. Lofton asked how close did the property owner want to build. Mr. Oates replied he thinks 80 ft. The farmer didn’t voice his opinion and the variance was granted. Mr. Lofton raised the question could the fee be waived if the property is less than five (5) acres. Mr. Oates replied that couldn’t be done because the BZA is under the Court system. Mr. Watt asked if we remove the two (2) acre properties how this would affect the individual Forestal District. Would that District meet the acreage requirement? Mr. Cheran replied he didn’t think that would affect any of the districts. Each district needs to have at least 200 acres. Mr. Brumback posed a question where do you measure from to get the 200 foot. buffer. Mr. Cheran replied that the measurement is taken from the new structure to the property line. Mr. Cheran stated that staff is looking at the list and any two (2) acres lots or less that are in the Agricultural District now will not be included in the renewal process. Mr. Oates replied that some farmers are farming on two (2) acres lots. Mr. Lawrence asked Ms. Murphy if the department gives her a list of two (2) acres or less that she would verify that they are in land use. Ms. Murphy replied, yes. Mr. Cheran posed a question do we want to set a minimum lot size to be in the Agricultural District and what is the acreage? The committee agreed if the property is less than 4.99 acres and not in land use the property will not qualify for Agricultural District. The next meeting will be April 20, 2015. The meeting concluded at 6:40 p.m.