April 9, Planning Commission. David J. McGettigan, AICP Planning Office

Transcription

1 COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM 5 County Complex Court, Suite 210, Prince William, Virginia PLANNING (703) FAX (703) OFFICE Rebecca Horner, AICP, CZA Director of Planning April 9, 2018 TO: FROM: RE: Planning Commission David J. McGettigan, AICP Planning Office Agricultural and Forestal District #AFD , 2017 Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD) Brentsville Magisterial District I. Background is as follows: A. Agricultural and Forestal Districts Established The Board of County Supervisors approved and established, pursuant to the provisions of the Virginia Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act ( the Act ), three (3) Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD) currently constituting approximately 2459 acres in the Brentsville Magisterial District and referenced as AFD79-1, AFD80-1 and AFD91-1. The County established its first district in The existing three AFD are generally located east of the Fauquier County Line, north of the Marine Corp Base and south of Route 28 in the Rural Area of the County. (See Attachment A) B. Agricultural and Forestal District Purpose The purpose of the AFD is to provide a means for a mutual undertaking by landowners and localities to protect and enhance agricultural and forestal land as a viable segment of the Commonwealth of Virginia's (Commonwealth) economy and as an economic and environmental resource of major importance. This furthers the Commonwealth s policies to conserve and protect, and to encourage the development and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural and forestal products. In addition, it furthers the Commonwealth s policy to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources, which provide essential open spaces for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes. C. AFD Area Requirements The Act authorizes localities to establish one or more districts. Each district shall have a core of no less than 200 acres in one parcel or in contiguous parcels. A parcel not part of the core may be included in a district (i) if the nearest boundary of the parcel is within one mile of the boundary of the core, (ii) if it is contiguous to a parcel in the district the nearest boundary of which is within one mile of the boundary of the core, or (iii) if the local governing body finds, in consultation with the advisory committee or planning commission, that

2 #AFD , 2017 AFD Review April 6, 2018 Page 2 the parcel not part of the core or within one mile of the boundary of the core contains agriculturally and forestally significant land. D. Benefits: 1. Use-Value Assessment Properties included in the AFD may qualify for an agricultural or forestal use-value assessment as long as the requirements for the Use Value Assessment Program are satisfied. 2. Unreasonable Restrictions The County cannot enact local laws or ordinances within a district that would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or farming and forestry practices, (e.g., a noise ordinance that would prevent harvesting). 3. Land Uses The Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other policies regulating land and land use decisions regarding parcels adjacent to an AFD shall not conflict with the purposes of the AFD regulations. 4. Commonwealth Encouragement Commonwealth agencies shall encourage the maintenance of farming and forestry in AFD in their administrative regulations and procedures including provisions applicable to obtaining federal grants, loans or other funding. 5. Tax District Limitations Special tax districts for sewer, water or electricity are limited in the AFD. 6. Routes for New Infrastructure (e.g., roads, transmission lines) Commonwealth or County proposals for land acquisition or construction within an AFD must consider alternatives that avoid the AFD, and the proposals are subject to review by the Planning Commission and Board of County Supervisors at a public hearing. E. Use Value Assessment The Use Value Assessment Program was established under Section of the Code of Virginia to preserve real estate for agricultural, horticultural, forest and open space use. Under the program, properties are assessed based on the value for only their agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space use, allowing qualifying land to be taxed according to its use value, rather than its market value. This results in a lower assessment and therefore, lower property tax for participants in the program. The program is a County-wide program; qualifying properties do not need to be in an AFD to participate. F. Voluntary Program Property owners must request to be included in a district and have the right to remain or withdraw from a district during its periodic review. When each district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner s discretion by filing a written notice with the local governing body at any time before it acts to continue, modify, or terminate the

3 #AFD , 2017 AFD Review April 6, 2018 Page 3 district. At any other time, a property owner can make a written request for removal from a district for a good and reasonable cause. G. Periodic Review Section of the Code of Virginia authorizes the Board of County Supervisors to complete a review of districts created under the Act, if deemed necessary, no less than four years but no more than ten years after the date of creation and every four to ten years thereafter, to determine whether the districts should be continued, modified or terminated. As part of the review process, the local governing body may stipulate conditions for continuation of the district, establish a periodic review before the next review of the district, modify the district, terminate the district, or allow the district to continue as originally constituted with the same condition and the period before the next review was established when the district was created. H. Last Review Prince William County last reviewed the existing AFD on March 20, On December 7, 2010, Res. No , the Board of County Supervisors determined a review of the AFD was not necessary. The resolution stated that the next review shall be initiated no later than December 7, 2020, and shall be completed on or before March 20, I. Initiation The Board of County Supervisors initiated this review through Res. No dated April 4, (See Attachment B) II. Current Situation is as follows: A. Action of the Planning Office The Planning Office has taken the following actions: 1. Provided Citizen Notification All owners of land within the current districts received written notification of the upcoming review of the district, including information concerning how owners could withdraw their land from inclusion if the districts were readopted. 2. Held Public Meetings with the AFD Advisory Committee The Planning Office held two public meetings with the AFD Advisory Committee. The first was held on November 16, 2017, and the second was held on February 8, 2018, to provide for citizen participation and to solicit a recommendation from the AFD Advisory Committee. Due to additional requests to be removed from property owners, following the last AFD Advisory Committee Meeting, an additional meeting has been scheduled for April 11, 2018, to provide an update to the Advisory Committee and the community. The requested withdrawals have impacted the ability of the Districts to maintain the required core, of 200 acres (minimum) in one parcel or in contiguous parcels, thereby impacting the viability of all of the AFDs. 3. Analysis Provided The Planning Office provided the AFD Advisory Committee with comprehensive analysis of each AFD. This analysis

4 #AFD , 2017 AFD Review April 6, 2018 Page 4 included both maps and spreadsheets identifying all property owners in the AFD, identifying of all requests to be removed, a report of all responses received (if any) indicating the owner s desire to remain in the district or be removed, and a list of all properties currently participating in the Use Value Assessment Program or having a Farm Conservation Plan. 4. Requested the Reduction of AFD Application Fees The Board of County Supervisors approved a reduction of the fee for the formation and extension of an AFD from $500 to $50 through Ord. No , dated January 23, The fee to withdraw from an AFD has been removed. This request was made to the Board based on a recommendation from the AFD Advisory Committee and based on the analysis conducted regarding the fee schedules of surrounding jurisdictions. B. Recommendation of the AFD Advisory Committee The AFD Advisory Committee recommended that all parcels, except those specifically requesting to be removed, remain in the AFD. At the time that this recommendation was made, AFD91-1, was a viable district with a 200-acre core. (Since this meeting, staff received a request from the 331-acre core parcel to withdraw.) The AFD Advisory Committee voted to allow the remaining interested parcels to remain in the AFD utilizing the section of the state code that states, (iii) if the local governing body finds, in consultation with the advisory committee or planning commission, that the parcel not part of the core or within one mile of the boundary of the core contains agriculturally and forestally significant land. C. Additional Requests Received for Removal Following the AFD Advisory Committee meeting on February 8, 2018, the Planning Office has received 12 additional requests from property owners to withdraw from the AFD. As a result, of these written requests for removal, there is no longer a required core, of 200 acres in one parcel or in contiguous parcels, in any of the three districts. D. April 11, 2018 Meeting Scheduled with AFD Advisory Committee Due to the additional requests from property owners wishing to withdraw from the AFD, an additional meeting has been scheduled for April 11, 2018, to provide an update to the AFD Advisory Committee and to the community regarding the lack of core areas. If the Advisory Committee chooses to change their recommendation at the April 11 th meeting the new recommendation will be provided to the Planning Commission during the PC Public Hearing presentation on April 18, E. Comprehensive Analysis of the Three Existing AFD A parcel by parcel analysis of the properties, located in each AFD, has been maintained and updated through this review process. The spreadsheet identifies the parcel, parcel address, acreage, response provided (if any), whether the property is in Use Value Assessment or has a Farm Conservation Plan. This information, current at the time of their meeting, was provided to the AFD Advisory Committee, to aid in making their recommendation. The attached analysis has been updated to reflect the most accurate information, available to staff, at the time of this report. (See Attachment C)

5 #AFD , 2017 AFD Review April 6, 2018 Page 5 F. The Comprehensive Plan All parcels included in the proposed districts are designated AE, Agricultural or Estate (one dwelling per 10 acres) ER, Environmental Resource and two parcels are designated as County Registered Historic Sites. (See Attachment A) G. Zoning All parcels included in the three existing AFD districts are zoned A-1, Agricultural. In addition to agricultural uses, this district allows for the creation of 10-acre residential lots. (See Attachment A) H. Increased Subdivision Activity There has been an increase in both family subdivisions and regular subdivision activity in the general area and specifically in the existing AFD, resulting in an increase in the number of parcels that are 15 acres or less. This subdivision activity does not generally support the goals of the Agricultural and Forestal legislation and accounts for many of the requests by property owners to be removed from the AFD. The map in Attachment D reflects the current subdivision activity. (See attachment D) I. Planning Office Recommendation Staff recommends, as part of the Agricultural and Forestal District, #AFD , 2017 Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD), terminating AFD79-1, AFD80-1, and AFD91-1 for the following reasons: 1. Written Requests to Withdraw Twenty-one (21) property owners have requested that their property be removed from the AFD. These requests for removal represent 49.5% of the total acreage of the AFD as reflected in the chart below. 2. Required 200-Acre Core Due to the requested removals, the existing districts no longer meet the minimum requirements for a District. The map in Attachment E depicts all of the parcels requesting to be removed and the consequent impact on AFD79-1, AFD80-1, and AFD91-1. The State requirement to form and maintain a District requires that there be core of at least 200 acres in one parcel or in contiguous parcels. The residual parcels remaining in the respective AFD do not contain the necessary acreage to establish a viable core, as required by state law. It should be noted that, by definition, parcels divided by public streets are not considered contiguous. (See Attachment E) AFD79-1 Current Existing Acres Acres Request to Remove Remaining AFD Acres % Remaining Total Acres % Core Acres % *The previous withdrawal (2005) of Merrimac Farms eliminated a core for this district.

6 #AFD , 2017 AFD Review April 6, 2018 Page 6 AFD80-1 Current Existing Acres Acres Request to Remove Remaining AFD Acres % Remaining Total Acres % Core Acres % AFD91-1 Current Existing Acres Acres Request to Remove Remaining AFD Acres % Remaining Total Acres % Core Acres % J. Planning Commission Public Hearing A public hearing before the Planning Commission has been properly advertised for April 18, III. Issues in order of importance are: A. Policy What policy issues should be considered by the Board of County Supervisors in reviewing the Agricultural and Forestal Districts? B. Community Input Have members of the community raised any issues? C. Legal Are there any legal implications associated with the periodic review of the Agricultural and Forestal Districts? D. Timing When must the Planning Commission take action on this periodic review of the Agricultural and Forestal Districts? IV. Alternatives beginning with staff recommendation are: A. Recommend, as part of the Agricultural and Forestal District #AFD , 2017 Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD), the termination of AFD79-1. AFD80-1, and AFD Policy The impact on the following policies, with respect to the termination of the existing Agricultural and Forestal Districts, AFD79-1, AFD80-1, and AFD91-1 have been reviewed. The policy options reviewed include the AFD legislation together with the tools that support both the AFD as well as the goals of the Rural Area. a) Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD) Section of the Code of Virginia grants localities the power to establish AFD. Prince William County began utilizing this tool to protect the Rural Area and support agricultural and forestal production when they chose in 1979 to establish AFD79-1. The County later established two more districts, AFD80-1 and AFD91-1. The termination of the three existing AFD will result in the loss of this tool. The Code

7 #AFD , 2017 AFD Review April 6, 2018 Page 7 of Virginia through Virginia Law Section , allows for the creation of Local Agricultural and Forestal Districts which does not require a 200-acre core to establish a district. This is an alternative option for the County to pursue at a later date. b) Comprehensive Plan The parcels will continue to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The properties are designated AE, Agricultural or Estate (one dwelling per ten acres); ER, Environmental Resource; and two parcels are designated as CHRS, County Registered Historic Site. c) Zoning Ordinance The parcels will remain zoned A-1, Agricultural. The property owners will be permitted to develop their property in accordance with the zoning district regulations which supports agricultural uses and permits for the subdivision of properties at a density of one lot per ten acres. d) Use Value Assessment Program There is no impact on the Use Value Assessment Program. This program is a completely separate program from the AFD. Property owners wishing to continue in the Program or wishing to join the Program may continue to do so. e) Preservation and Conservation Easements There are no implications for existing or proposed preservation or conservation easements. Property owners could continue to use this tool to protect, preserve, and/or conserve their property if they wish to pursue this avenue and are able to meet the respective requirements for establishing such easements. 2. Community Input Community input and comments were received at two public meetings with the AFD Advisory Committee, through s and telephone calls to the Planning Office, and through the submittal of the 2017 Review of Agricultural & Forestal Districts (AFD) forms signed by the property owners to indicate their desire to remain in the AFD or withdraw from the AFD. Out of the 91 parcels, 21 requested to be removed. Overall staff had a 65% written response rate from the property owners. 3. Legal Section of the Code of Virginia authorizes the Board of County Supervisors to complete a review of districts created under the Act, if deemed necessary, no less than four years but no more than ten years after the date of creation and every four to ten years thereafter, to determine whether the districts should be continued, modified or terminated. a) Required 200-Acre Core Each district shall have a core of no less than 200 acres in one parcel or in contiguous parcels.

8 #AFD , 2017 AFD Review April 6, 2018 Page 8 b) Special Protection No Longer Applicable The properties would remain zoned A-1, Agricultural and can be developed with uses allowed in A-1. These areas would no longer receive the special protections currently provided by state law for agricultural/forestal districts noted in I.D. of this report. Parcels could be subdivided into 10-acre parcels for single family residential uses and/or agricultural uses. c) Use Value Assessment Program Property owners are eligible to continue to participate in the County s Use Value Assessment program if property owners meet program requirements. d) Other Legal Issues Legal issues are appropriately addressed by the County Attorney s Office. 4. Timing Action by the Board of County Supervisors must be taken no later than March 20, 2021 B. Do Not Recommend, as part of the Agricultural and Forestal District #AFD , 2017 Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD), the termination of AFD79-1. AFD80-1, and AFD Policy If action is not taken to terminate the AFD, the Districts would not meet the requirements of Section of the Code of Virginia, known as the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act, which requires for both a periodic review and requires that each district shall have a core of no less than 200 acres in one parcel or in contiguous parcels in order to both create and maintain an AFD. 2. Community Input Community input and comments were received at two public meetings with the AFD Advisory Committee, through s and telephone calls to the Planning Office, and through the submittal of the 2017 Review of Agricultural & Forestal Districts (AFD) forms signed by the property owners to indicate their desire to remain in the AFD or withdraw from the AFD. Out of the 91 parcels, 21 requested to be removed. Overall staff had a 65% written response rate from the property owners. 3. Legal Legal issues related to not terminating the AFD are appropriately addressed by the County Attorney s Office. 4. Timing Action by the Board of County Supervisors must be taken no later than March 20, V. Recommendation is that the Planning Commission concur with Alternative A and recommend, as part of the periodic review, adoption of Agricultural and Forestal District #AFD , 2017 Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD) resulting in the termination of all three existing Agricultural and Forestal Districts, AFD79-1, AFD80-1, and AFD91-1 within the County.

9 #AFD , 2017 AFD Review April 6, 2018 Page 9 Staff: Connie Dalton, AICP, Attachments: A. Area Maps B. BOCS Initiating Resolution C. Comprehensive Analysis for the AFD Review D. Map Subdivisions and Parcels < 15 AC E. Map Impact On AFD after Removal Requests

10 Attachment A Maps VICINITY MAP Page A-1

11 Attachment A Maps AERIAL MAP Page A-2

12 Attachment A Maps ZONING MAP Page A-3

13 Attachment A Maps LONG-RANGE LAND USE MAP Page A-4

14 Attachment B Initiating Resolution Page C-1

15 Attachment C Comprehensive Analysis AFD79-1 REQUEST TO REMOVE GPIN District St_No St_Name Acreage Response Use Value AFD Meadow Green Remove No AFD Deepwood Remove No REQUEST TO REMAIN or NO REPLY GPIN District St_No St_Name Acreage Response Use Value AFD Fleetwood Remain Yes AFD Fleetwood 10 None Yes AFD Fleetwood None Yes AFD Deepwood Remain Yes AFD Fleetwood 5.00 Remain Yes AFD Fleetwood Remain Yes AFD Deepwood Remain Yes AFD Fleetwood None No* AFD Meadow Green None Yes AFD Fleetwood None No AFD Deepwood Remain Yes AFD Deepwood None No AFD Deepwood 3.07 Remain No AFD Deepwood None No AFD Deepwood None No AFD Deepwood None No AFD Deepwood Remain Yes AFD Meadow Green Remain No AFD Meadow Green None No AFD Meadow Green None No AFD Aden Remain Yes AFD Aden 2.19 None No AFD Aden Remain Yes AFD Aden Remain No AFD Fleetwood Remain No AFD Fleetwood 2.19 None No AFD Fleetwood None No *Farm Conservation Plan on File Page C-1

16 Attachment C Comprehensive Analysis AFD80-1 REQUEST TO REMOVE GPIN District St_No St_Name Acreage Response Use Value AFD Aden Remove Yes AFD Aden Remove Yes AFD Aden 1.01 Remove No AFD Brookfield Remove No AFD Aden Remove Yes AFD Hershey Remove Yes AFD Hershey Remove Yes AFD Brookfield Remove Yes AFD Parkgate Remove Yes AFD Brookfield 1.00 Remove No AFD Brookfield 1.10 Remove No AFD Parkgate Remove Yes AFD Colvin Remove No AFD Colvin Remove No AFD Parkgate Remove Yes AFD Parkgate Remove Yes AFD Parkgate Remove Yes AFD Parkgate Remove No REQUEST TO REMAIN or NO REPLY GPIN District St_No St_Name Acreage Response Use Value AFD Aden Remain No* AFD Aden Remain No AFD Aden Remain No AFD Aden Remain No AFD Aden Remain No AFD Aden Remain No AFD Aden No Reply No AFD Aden Remain No AFD Aden No Reply No AFD Aden Remain No AFD Aden No Reply No AFD Aden No Reply No* AFD Aden Remain Yes AFD Brookfield No Reply No AFD Brookfield No Reply No AFD Aden Remain Yes AFD Aden 8.00 Remain Yes Page C-2

17 Attachment C Comprehensive Analysis AFD80-1 REQUEST TO REMAIN or NO REPLY GPIN District St_No St_Name Acreage Response Use Value AFD Aden Remain Yes AFD Aden No Reply No AFD Aden No Reply No AFD Aden No Reply No AFD Aden No Reply No AFD Aden No Reply No AFD Aden No Reply No AFD Fleetwood Remain No AFD Fleetwood Remain No AFD Parkgate 4.00 No Reply No AFD Brookfield 3.25 Remain No AFD Parkgate 1.03 Remain No AFD Parkgate 2.71 No Reply No AFD Colvin No Reply No AFD Colvin Remain No AFD Colvin Remain No AFD Parkgate No Reply Yes AFD Parkgate No Reply Yes AFD Parkgate Remain No* AFD Fleetwood Remain No AFD Parkgate Remain No AFD Fleetwood Remain No AFD Parkgate 1.00 No Reply No *Farm Conservation Plan on File Page C-3

18 REQUEST TO REMOVE Attachment C Comprehensive Analysis AFD91-1 GPIN District St_No St_Name Acreage Response Use Value AFD Warrenton Remove Yes REQUEST TO REMAIN GPIN District St_No St_Name Acreage Response Use Value AFD Carriage Ford Remain Yes AFD Carriage Ford Remain Yes AFD Warrenton Remain Yes Page C-4

19 Attachment D Map SUBDIVISIONS AND PARCELS < 15 AC Page D-1

20 Attachment E Map IMPACT ON AFD AFTER REMOVAL REQUESTS Page E-1