Shenandoah County
Office of Community Development
600 North Main Street, Suite 107
Woodstock, VA 22664
www.shenandoahcountyva.us/planningzoning
Phone
540.459.6190
Fax
540.459.6193
Shenandoah County
Agricultural and Forestal District Committee
Board of Supervisor’s Conference Room
Shenandoah County Government Center
Woodstock, Virginia
Monday, November 7th 2016, 5:00 – 6:30 PM
Agenda
1. Introduction of County Planner
2. Approve October 2015 Committee Minutes
3. Update on the Ridgeley Renewal Process
a. Letters Sent and Status
b. Follow Up calls
4. Lebanon Church District Proposed Amendment
5. Discussion on Schedule and Next Steps
6. Vote to Approve Renewals, Withdrawals, and Additions to Send to PC
7. Committee Members
8. Timing of Future Meetings
9. Other
1
Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2
Shenandoah County
Office of Community Development
600 North Main Street, Suite 107
Woodstock, VA 22664
www.shenandoahcountyva.us/planningzoning
Phone
540.459.6190
Fax
540.459.6193
Shenandoah County
Agricultural and Forestral District Committee
Community Development Board Room
Shenandoah County Government Center
Woodstock, Virginia
Monday, October 19th 2015, 6:00 – 7:15 PM
Minutes
Members Present: Philip Bowman, David Zirkle, Joan Comanor, Kathy Black, Joyce Hall, Steve
Baker, and Peter Greef
Members Absent: Bobby Clark
Staff Present: Garrett Morgan
Meeting Begins: 6:00 pm
Garrett Morgan introduced himself to the committee and provided a brief background of his
qualifications and professional experiences.
Renewal Process to Date
Garrett Morgan presented a summary and update of the district renewal process currently
underway. In total, 12 Districts are up for renewal, comprising 707 parcels with a total of 19,250
acres. In August, letters and renewal forms were sent to all landowners. Three informational
sessions were held in September 2015. In order to take action on the renewal/addition/removal
of parcels, all landowners were required to return signed forms to Mr. Morgan.
In total, 248 landowners responded to the letters. Of these responses:
 452 parcels were renewed comprising 12,667.824 acres.
 32 parcels were added totaling 839.979 acres.
 69 parcels totaling 2,283.635 acres were removed. The combined acreage
renewed/added/removed is currently 11,224.168 acres.
As it currently stands, the renewal of the districts would include 8,0325.832 less acres; a drop
of 41.6%.
3
There are 115 landowners who have yet to respond to their letters. Their parcels comprise a
total of 3,087.57 acres.
Mr. Morgan began placing follow up phone calls to those landowners for whom he has located
phone numbers. Members of the AFD Committee were provided with a list of the nonresponders and voiced confidence that they would be able to reduce the list by reaching out to
the landowners that they knew.
Renewal Results
The renewal process resulted in significant reduction of acreage. The Tumbling Run district has
been eliminated as all parcels have been removed. The Glaize district will not be renewed in
2025 as the current renewal period saw the removal of the district’s core 200 acre parcel. The
remaining 18 acres are not sufficient to support an AFD beyond one renewal period.
Morgan reported a summary of the reasons that landowners gave either in person or over the
phone for removing their parcels from districts. The five most common reasons are:
1) Landowners are older and are worried about maximizing the value of their estate
if/when they sell or pass their land on to new owners who are interested in developing
the property.
2) Landowners are concerned that the housing market will rebound and they will not be
able to take full advantage of the boom due to perceived decreases in land value that
being in AFD may cause.
3) Landowners are seriously considering placing their land in conservation easements and
want to maximize their land value and avoid the steps involved in withdrawal vote from
AFD Committee, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors.
4) Land owners are uncertain about the feasibility of future farm or forestall operation of
the land due to the health issues, lack of interested in young generations of farmers.
5) Landowners don’t see any benefit of being in the district because they feel that the
“land use [program] is never going away” so there is no need to renew their parcels.
Discussion of 10-year Renewal Limit
Building on the rational that many landowners gave that they could not commit to a 10 year
term period for the district, Peter Greef recommend the Committee come up with a system
that allows landowners to register for a shorter 5 –year term if they were over a certain age.
Philip Bowman described that they consolidated the districts to a uniform 10 years. Instead of
District’s 2, 5, or 10 year periods, Bowman said the AFD Committee knew that moving to a 10
year district would result in situations like the current one; with large renewals resulting in
significant fluctuation of total acreage. Joan Comanor suggested a way of forming districts
specifically by age in certain areas. Bowman said that this was not possible as AFDs require a
core parcel of at least 200 acres.
4
Possible changes to 1-mile distance from District Core
Garrett Morgan said that it was his understanding that there were recent changes to the AFD
Code that allowed parcels to be within 1 mile of parcels within 1 mile of the district’s core
parcels. Phillip Bowman disagreed and said that parcels that are within 1 mile of the core must
be contiguous. In other words, that it is not possible to assemble districts by “leap frogging”
from the district core 1 mile by 1 mile. If that were the case, Mr. Bowman argued the number of
parcels eligible for AFD membership would increase dramatically. Garrett Morgan said he
would confirm the matter and report back to the Committee.
Approval of District
Kathy Black made a motion to send to the Planning Commission a recommendation of approval
of the 2015 AFDs as present by staff, with the inclusion of any new requests for additions or
withdrawals that may be received before final Board of Supervisors Action, as allowed by law.
The motion was seconded by Peter Greef. The Committee approved the motion 6-0. Garrett
Morgan will draft a recommendation of approval for the Planning Commission.
Reaching out to Adjacent Landowners
Garrett Morgan reported that the renewal process has also yielded a database of adjacent
parcels, totally 6,000, to parcels in the 12 Districts. This number includes duplicates, residential
units, and other properties that would not be eligibility for AFD membership. Kathy Black
recommended that Garrett clean up the database, as there were only 4,000 total parcels in
Land-Use throughout the County. Joan Comanor recommended that we take advantage of this
database to reach out to new landowners given our acreage reduction. Bowman asked Morgan
why he did not send letters out to adjacent landowners. Morgan said the number was too high
and there were not sufficient funds for the renewal process to cover the mailing. It was also
unclear whether this type of outreach would be effective.
Bowman recommended that we reach out to adjacent landowners in for this year’s renewal
next year during the Ridgeley’s renewal consisting of 583 acres. At this time, the Committee will
have more financial resources for mailing materials, an up to date inventory of AFD parcels, and
a clearer understanding of the nature of adjacent landowners that are eligible for AFD
membership.
Partnerships with Valley Conservation Council on Farm Conservation Program
Garrett Morgan reported that Sara Hollberg at the Valley Conservation Council had reached out
to collaborate on a series of workshops designed to help farmers have difficult conservations on
farm transitions, estate planning, and make other changes to long held family land. She would
like to target a specific AFD that we have just contacted as a part of the program. I
recommended the Wakeman’s Grove District. The AFD Committee agreed that it would be a
good idea to partner with the VCC.
Conservation Easements & AFDs
Garrett Morgan reported that many landowners removed their land from districts in order to
streamline the process of securing conservation easements. There is the impression that they
5
would receive greater value, in the form of tax breaks or purchase of development rights, if the
AFD restrictions were not on their parcels. Further, several land owners knew that it was easy
to put their parcels back in the AFD if they changed their mind. Morgan advised them to err on
the side of caution and remove their parcels at this time if they were planning on their land in a
district in the near term.
Kathy Black argued that there is no guarantee that the land withdrawn from the district would
be placed in a conservation easement or that the value would either increase or decrease
because of the change of AFD status. Bowman said it would be difficult for the committee to
support the withdrawal of the land to join another easement, as the restrictions of an AFD do
not prohibit the land from joining an easement.
Meeting Adjourned: 7:15 PM.
6