HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP201800002 Correspondence 2018-12-04 (3)December 4, 2018
Re: AP2018-00002 Rosyln Farm and Vineyard
Dear Members of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals:
I understand this body cannot change county ordinance, but I suggest it can make an
interpretation where there is a conflict and where there are not complete definitions. The
Piedmont Environmental Council urges you to consider these thoughts and vote to
uphold the appeal.
The purpose and intent of section 5.1.58 of the county's zoning ordinance states in part
that "appropriately scaled low -impact events and activities on farms engaged in
agricultural production" as a way of meeting the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
This section goes on to state that conflicts can arise between residential and agricultural
uses. As such, there are to be strategies to address potential impacts.
These strategies are encoded within the matrix within subsection D. The major question
in the appeal is the question of whether a "farm to table" dinner is an allowed event
under county code.
Section 3 of the zoning ordinance does not include a definition for "farm to table" and
there are open questions as what this means, and how its specific impacts would be
mitigated. That is a matter for the Board of Supervisors to take up in the future, but for
today, we would argue that this lack of a definition is sufficient grounds to uphold the
appeal.
The appellant does not dispute the possibility of other agritourism related uses at the
site, but the issue before you is whether this property is called a farm simply for the
purpose of enabling it to have events.
Section 3 of the zoning ordinance includes a definition of "devoted to the bona fide
production of crops, animals or fowl." Before establishing over a dozen criteria to
measure whether that standard has met, the language in this section specifically states
the purpose of this definition is to ensure "agricultural production is engaged in good
faith and not merely to enable the lot to be eligible to host events and activities at an
agricultural operation.
Date a 1
Name
Time 6L+ e
Agenda Item AP _p�2_
The zoning ordinance is clear that staff has several factors to consider when making a
determination about whether agriculture is the primary use of the property. In their
appeal, the appellants argue that "staff did not properly confirm primary property use as
agriculture."
In the staff report for this appeal, staff states that they only reviewed the first three
criteria. Those facts are not in dispute. But there is no information about the other
criteria listed in the code:
(iv): the crops, animals, or fowl being produced;
(v) the acreage of the lot and of the site;
(vi) the owner's federal tax forms including Form 1040F (Farm Expense and Income), Form 4385
(Farm Rental Income
and Expenses), Form 1040E (Cash Rent for Agricultural Land), Form 1040C (Business Profit and
Loss), or Form 1120 (Corporate Partnership);
(vii) receipts showing gross sales over the most recent three-year period or evidence of the value
of agricultural products that would have been sold but for a natural disaster;
(viii) the proportion of the owner's total income derived from agricultural production on the site;
(ix) evidence of participation in a federal farm subsidy program;
(x) evidence of operating under a conservation farm management plan prepared by a
professional;
(xi) the proportion of capital investment in the site devoted to the production of agricultural
products, operating, and labor expenses;
(xii) Albemarle County -level United States Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture data;
(xiii) any other relevant factors.
Because none of this information was provided, we argue the application was granted
based on incomplete information. We feel that was in error and you should uphold the
.•
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter,
Sean Tubbs
Field Representative, Piedmont Environmental Council
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Greene
434-977-2033, ext. 7046
434-422-2375 (cell)