APB agenda 081501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

MOTION: Kleese motioned to table the recommendation pending the updated conservation plan and actual participation in the use value taxation program. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Seven yeas, one abstained. Other discussion included districts descriptions, new legislation interpretations, overlay maps, and a possible Lands legacy farm idea. b. Revised Voluntary Agricultural District application The APB reviewed the revised application and voiced concerns regarding the wording in the following passages of the Conservation Agreement section: "If certified by the Agricultural Preservation Board and approved by the Board of Commissioners, I agree to sustain, promote and encourage agriculture in the district, support protection against nuisance suits, undesired non -farm development and other negative impacts on participating farms." "I agree to voluntarily preserve and protect the conservation values of the Property by prohibiting non -farm residential use of the Property for a period of 10 years from the date of signing of this Agreement, except for the creation of not more than three (3) lots that meet applicable zoning and or subdivision regulations." Kleese suggested "I agree to support protection against nuisance suits ". Walters noted that the legislation says that being in an Ag District gives the owner some support or protection against nuisance suits. Stancil clarified that it meant the VAD owner would be supportive of the concept of protection from nuisance suits. Kleese suggested "I agree to sustain, promote, and encourage agriculture in the district and to abide by the requirements of the agricultural district." Members agreed that the specificity is too difficult and signature would be unadvisable with current language interpretations. The APB discussed the potential for different interpretations of the existing language as well as the lengthy verbiage of certain sections. The Broad felt that non -farm uses that are beneficial to farmers should not be excluded, and should perhaps be encouraged. Kleese suggested something like, "I agree to voluntary preserve and protect the beneficial value of the property being residential and other non -farm development or development that would have negative impact on participating farms." Morrow suggested the following "If certified by the Agricultural Preservation Board and approved by the Board of County Commissioners, I agree to sustain, promote and encourage agriculture in the district. The purpose of creation of a district is to support protection against nuisance suits, undesired non -farm development and other negative impacts on participating farms." Ranells suggested "I agree by participating in the VAD, I understand that there will be public hearings on condemnation of farmland, record notice of proximity of farmland." Ranells also suggested itemizing in a couple bullets what the benefits of the rule are to get away from defining non -farm and making it cumbersome. Draft May 16, 2001 2