APB Meeting Summary 05152024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 Myers; motion carried. Members asked staff to reach out to contact Mr. Meisner to get a better sense of his background and interests. 6. Discussion Items: a) Farmland Protection Subcommittee: Saiers reported that the subcommittee provided Planning staff with initial criteria for evaluating and identifying land for protection/ prioritization, as part of our input for the land use plan update. There are two general approaches that other areas have used: resource-based which is focused on protecting the prime soil, and farm-based, which looks at protecting the entire farm or parcel. A lot of counties have taken a hybrid approach that combines some aspects of both, as we do for our Lands Legacy program, which looks at soil significance, but also farm size, proximity to other farms, wildlife habitat/corridors, water quality protection etc. We want a process that is clear and objective, which led us to look at prime farmland as the best overall measure, along with a slope of less than 8% (and the land can't be developed). This gives Planning a tool to create maps showing the prime farmland. This is an approach with a lot of precedent. One challenge will be developing a method for updating the somewhat inaccurate old soil survey maps created before GIS. There might have to be an on-the- ground delineation process, similar to what is done for wetlands. In this scenario, a developer would include prime farmland mapping as part of their planning and permitting process, similar to wetlands. Discussion followed. 7. Informational Items/Future Agenda Items: a. Extension and Ag Economic Development Activities: Ortosky provided a PowerPoint update. Since 2016, the Ag Grant program has awarded 118 grants totaling $945,000; they are currently funded at a level of$150,000 per year, through a quarter cent slice of the retail sales tax. They will adjust to meeting three times per year. New infrastructure at the Breeze Farm includes a new power drop, a pole barn, new fencing for a corral for cattle and planning for a future agro-voltaic project with raised panels on about 2 acres. He's doing research for his doctorate program at NC State, looking at policy methodologies for preserving farmland a little more aggressively. All studies have consistently shown that Ag and Commercial land uses pay more in taxes than they cost the taxpayers. We're second behind Texas with total acres of farmland lost, but first in farmland lost as a percentage of total acres in the state. This is driven by a rapidly growing population. The current policies now in place are not effective in reducing farmland loss. The VAD program is a great success but this is a voluntary program so not binding if a farmer decides to sell to a developer. Current policy strategies being explored for farmland protection include: easements; federal farmland protection policies; agricultural zoning (for example: Montgomery Co. MD where there is zoning that's exclusively agricultural); purchase or transfer of development rights with sending/receiving areas—for example a farmer in Cedar Grove could sell development rights to a developer in Chapel Hill; and in-lieu fees as has been done with wetland impacts; and compensatory mitigation, again like the wetland programs. Any viable