Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
35 <br />Renewal of Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural Districts (EVAD) was also discussed. Staff <br />believes it is most likely necessary for owners to renew that designation but will confirm <br />this. Staff will follow up to check our ordinance and the state statute to confirm the <br />renewal process for both types. <br />Hughes presented each VAD application as per the agenda, then opened the floor for <br />discussion and approval: <br />a. Billy and Sonya Rogers VAD Application – Motion to approve application <br />made by Woods, second by Elizabeth Walters. Motion passed 6 -0 <br />b. Larry and Yvonne Rogers VAD Application – Motion to approve application <br />made by Woods, second by Green. Motion passed 6 -0 <br />c. L.J. and Nancy Rogers VAD Application – Motion to approve application <br />made by Joe Thompson, second by Woods. Motion passed 6 -0 <br />d. Morris Shambley VAD Application – Motion to approve application made by <br />Green, second by Thompson. Motion passed 6 -0 <br />e. Beaver Creek Farm (Lackey) VAD application – Motion to approve by <br />Thompson, second Woods. Motion passed 6 -0 <br />f. Berry / Smith VAD – <br />Hughes explained that this this farm was now owned by new owners, and <br />that it met all the criteria except for present use —the property is not <br />currently part of the present use tax valuation program. It appears that they <br />will have to reapply for present use and go through that process. <br />Discussion followed about the VAD program's stipulation that requires <br />participation in present use. The state loosened the requirements and <br />present use is no longer a state requirement for VAD provided the subject <br />farm is a bona fide farm. Stancil noted that as it is now worded, if you file <br />schedule F you can usually claim to be a bona fide farm. <br />Members generally agreed that we may need to do an educational effort to <br />let folks know when they are buying a farm to check on present use issues <br />and take steps to avoid having it lapse so that they will continue to be <br />eligible for the present use program and potentially for VAD. <br />Hughes clarified that according to Teresa Moore the previous owner did <br />not participate in present use value program, so that explains why the new <br />owners were not already in present use. Hughes added that the <br />Berry /Smiths meet qualifications in all other respects and asked if the <br />board wanted to table this at this time or discuss if they want to continue <br />or change "present -use" policy. <br />