Ag/Forestal Committee recommends multi-pronged plan to protect farms and forestland; News roundup
Engage Louisa is a nonpartisan newsletter that keeps folks informed about Louisa County government. We believe our community is stronger and our government serves us better when we increase transparency, accessibility, and engagement.
This week in county government: public meetings, April 21 through April 26
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here. (Note: Louisa County occasionally schedules internal committee/work group meetings after publication time. Check the county’s website for the most updated information).
Tuesday, April 22
Human Services Advisory Board, 114 Industrial Drive, Louisa, 11 am.
Help our friends at Charlottesville Tomorrow build an informative voter guide: Charlottesville Tomorrow, a nonprofit news organization based in Charlottesville, plans to publish a voter guide with information about dozens of local races on this year’s ballot in Charlottesville and 12 Central Virginia counties including Louisa. Let them know what you’d like to see in the guide by filling out this short and simple survey.
Quote of the week
“The county has put a lot of money into salaries, [tax] exemptions, and tax incentives and on and on and on to [attract] commercial and corporate growth…What we are saying is it’s time to look at keeping some of this land rural.”
-Ag/Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee Chair Jim Riddell on a multi-pronged plan aimed at protecting the county’s farms and forestland.
Read more about the plan in the article below.
Agricultural/Forestal Committee recommends multi-pronged plan to protect farms, forestland
For nearly 150 years, Jim Riddell’s family has raised livestock on a verdant expanse of pastureland in northern Louisa County.
Now days, the Riddells run a cow-calf operation, tending dozens of beef cattle from birth that eventually go to market, ending up as hamburger and steak on the dinner table.
The Riddells’ business, Estes Cattle Corporation, is one of 452 working farms in Louisa County, according to the USDA’s 2022 Agricultural Census. These farms cover some 86,000 acres, ranging from niche organic outfits to large-scale operations covering hundreds of acres dedicated to soybean and corn production. Coupled with timber, they constitute one of the county’s largest industries, generating millions of dollars in revenue annually.
But over the years, Riddell, who spent much of his career working as an extension agent and, more recently, a lobbyist with the Virginia Cattlemen’s Association, has watched as farms and timberland are squeezed. He’s seen commodity prices plummet and pasture and pine trees replaced by subdivisions and solar panels. In the last five years, he says, the county has lost some 6,000 acres of farm and forestland, a consequence of industrial and residential growth.
“It kind of puts us in somewhat of a perfect storm situation. We are losing ag land rapidly and forestry land rapidly as well,” Riddell said at a meeting of the county’s Agricultural/Forestal and Rural Preservation Committee earlier this month.
According to the University of Virginia’s Weldon Coooper Center for Public Service, Louisa County now ranks as the third fastest-growing locality in the state with its population jumping more than 10 percent since the 2020 census. The county has approved more than 5,000 acres for utility-scale solar generation. And, two years ago, Amazon Web Services (AWS) purchased some 1,600 acres—mostly forestland in the center of the county—that will one day be home to dozens of data centers.
Now, Riddell and other leaders in the ag community say it’s time for the county to take decisive action to conserve farms and forestland for future generations and to protect the county’s natural resources, from its soils to its water supply.
“The county has put a lot of money into salaries, [tax] exemptions, and tax incentives and on and on and on to [attract] commercial and corporate growth…What we are saying is it’s time to look at keeping some of this land rural,” Riddell said.
To make that happen, he and other multi-generational farmers have met informally for months, sharing ideas about the best ways to protect rural land and ultimately crafting a multi-pronged “Agriculture and Natural Resource Protection” plan. With an eye toward incentivizing folks to hold on to their land, the plan proposes everything from tax breaks for farmers to a locally-run conservation easement program.
“We tried to focus initially on economic issues…things that affect the return on farmland [like] tax exemptions. We don't have all the answers, and this is not all-inclusive…These are just strategies and steps to take, tools to put in the toolbox, if you will,” Riddell said in an interview last week.
At its April meeting, the Ag/Forestal Committee, which Riddell chairs, recommended that the board of supervisors implement most of the plan. The committee will formally present the plan to the board at its May 5 meeting.
Here’s a look at its recommendations.
PDR, TDR programs to protect working farm and timberland
One of the most powerful conservation tools that the committee recommends is the establishment of a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and/or Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.
Generally, PDR programs enable landowners to sell residential and industrial development rights on farm and forestland to a locality while maintaining ownership and continuing to use the land. Through the acquisition of development rights, the programs essentially conserve farms and forestland in perpetuity, limiting their future uses.
According to Riddell, 14 localities across the state administer PDR programs with funding drawn from a mix of local, state and federal sources.
TDR programs, on the other hand, take a market-centered approach in which property owners transfer the development rights on their land for use on another parcel, typically in an area targeted for growth.
The Ag/Forestal Committee expressed interest in establishing a PDR program several years ago, but the idea never gained traction. But, as the county grapples with residential and industrial growth, with the latter poised to bring significant revenue, Riddell and other ag leaders think the initiative could finally be ready for primetime.
Riddell pointed to Fauquier County as an example of an impactful PDR program, calling the northern Virginia locality the “poster child” for the initiative. Since starting its PDR program in 2002, Riddell said Fauquier has conserved nearly 100 working farms, covering about 13,000 acres.
“What generally happens is they will end up buying the [development] rights of property right up against a growth area,” Riddell said at the committee’s April meeting. He added that property in proximity to Interstate 64 just outside a designated growth area could be an ideal candidate for the program should it be implemented in Louisa.
Several supervisors have already signaled they’re open to the idea. Board Chair Duane Adams said during a meeting in February that he’s been interested in setting up a PDR program since he joined the board seven years ago. Adams said that anticipated revenues from economic development—an apparent reference to AWS data centers—could provide funding for the initiative.
“We invest in economic development to attract business and economic growth here, which is what is going to spur our ability to have funding to probably purchase these developmental rights or at least consider it, if the board wants to do that,” he said.
TDR programs are less commonplace in Virginia with only three localities—Arlington, Stafford and Fredrick counties—utilizing the conservation tool.
Under a TDR, a locality typically designates certain areas as “sending” zones and other areas as “receiving” zones. A “sending” property can sever its development rights, making them available to a receiving parcel. Sending parcels are generally located in areas designated as rural while receiving parcels are in areas targeted for development.
Committee member Dustin Madison, who oversees some 30,000 acres of cropland for Hanover-based Engel Family Farms, said TDR programs are appealing because they rely on the marketplace, not taxpayer dollars, and mostly keep government out of the mix.
“It would be less county involvement and more transfer among individual landowners…I like it because it does keep the county out of it, and it allows the market to decide what’s what,” he said.
Tax incentives to protect farms and forestland
The plan recommends strengthening existing tax incentives aimed at preserving farm and forestland and implementing new tax breaks.
The county already offers owners of farm and forestland a significant reduction in their real estate tax bills through its Use Value Taxation program, colloquially referred to as “land use.” The program, which is offered for farms and forestland in 75 counties statewide, places a special assessment on land used for agriculture, horticulture or forestry based on its “use value,” instead of its fair market value, translating into significantly lower tax bills.
To qualify for land use, parcels must meet minimum acreage requirements: five acres, excluding a one-acre homesite, for property used for agriculture or horticulture, and 20 acres for timberland.
When a property is no longer used for agriculture or forestry—it’s sold to a developer to build houses, for example—its owner is on the hook for rollback taxes for the year in which it’s removed from the program and the five previous years. Rollback taxes equate to the levy a property owner would’ve paid had their land been assessed at fair market value.
Riddell and other ag leaders say the program makes sense because ag and forestland don’t require many services and, if the county got rid of it, many people would likely sell their land, opening the door to more residential development and, potentially, higher taxes for everyone.
“Our cows and our trees and our vegetables don’t go to school. They generally don’t need a lot of other services that non-ag uses demand,” Riddell said.
Riddell noted that, for every dollar collected in taxes from farm and timberland, just 30 cents are spent from county coffers. But, for every dollar collected from residential property, $1.65 is spent.
Though the land use program is administered by the Commissioner of the Revenue’s office, it’s authorized by the board of supervisors. While it appears to have broad support from the current board, the committee recommends raising from a simple majority to a three-fourths majority the number of votes required to ax it.
“Maybe today we don’t have to worry about it. But two of our seven members of the board represent what I would say is the lake, and one represents Spring Creek. That’s three people right there who can easily be swayed by people who may not find the value in land use [taxation]. It only takes one more. That’s not this board, and it probably won’t be the next one, but [it could be] the next one,” Madison said.
The committee sees real estate tax rebates as another way to incentivize property owners to keep their land in ag and forestry use. It proposes beefing up the tax savings for property enrolled in land use by tacking on a 25 percent real estate tax rebate annually. It recommends a 50 percent rebate for property that’s in both land use and one of the county’s Agricultural/Forestal Districts (AFDs).
AFDs are a conservation tool in which landowners voluntarily prohibit development on their property for 10 years and, in return, are guaranteed enrollment in land use.
In addition, the committee proposes earmarking money received from rollback taxes for agriculture and natural resource protection programs. Commissioner of the Revenue Stacey Fletcher estimated that, over the last few years, the county received between $50,000 and $75,000 in rollback taxes annually.
It also asks the board to designate any money received from the state’s Forest Sustainability Fund--a revenue stream available to the county because it offers land use taxation for timberland—to land conservation programs.
Beyond real estate tax rebates, the committee recommends exempting non-registered farm use vehicles from personal property taxes and agricultural buildings meeting conservation standards from real estate taxes.
Committee member Steve Hopkins, who farms in the Patrick Henry District, noted that the latter provision is permitted by the Virginia Constitution, and the attorney general is currently reviewing whether it can be included in the tax code. Riddell said the personal property exemption, approved by the General Assembly last year, could save farmers roughly $100,000 annually.
Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, who farms in eastern Louisa and serves as the board’s representative on the committee, said that while he supports the proposed tax relief package, the rebates represent “a pittance” compared to what landowners pull in if they sell their property for industrial or residential development. Regardless of the incentives, he said, people must have the desire to hold on to their land.
“If you give a 100 percent tax credit [based on a land use assessment], it’s not going to incentive me when Clayton Homes comes and offers me $50,000 for my three-acre lot…You have to have the desire to want to keep [your land] first,” Williams said.
Grant funding to promote conservation easements, support ag-related biz
The committee sees grant funding as another tool to protect farms and forests. It recommends launching a program that awards $15,000 grants to help property owners place their land in conservation easements, which limit development in perpetuity, and $10,000 grants for families working on farm/forest transition plans. The plans help ensure property remains a working farm or forest as it’s passed down through the generations.
Committee member Dave Stone, who spent much of his career working for the Virginia Department of Forestry, said that helping people place their land in a conservation easement is one of the most important aspects of plan because the easements ensures land remains rural over the long haul. He said he frequently talks with people who might be interested in conserving their land but don’t have the resources to navigate the process.
“A grant to help people get a conservation easement, that could be a really big deal to folks who don’t have a lot of money,” Stone said.
The committee also asks the county to ensure funds are available to match state grants awarded through the Agricultural and Forestal Industry Development Fund (AFID). The program provides matching grants to localities in support of farm and forest-related economic development. The funding can be used to incentivize new and expanding agribusinesses; build local food and farming infrastructure; and support planning efforts and local initiatives that benefit ag and forestry.
Louisa County has received funding from the program on at least three occasions. In 2016, the county, in partnership with Coyote Hole Ciderworks, was awarded $20,000 to help the cidery purchase equipment and hire employees. In 2023, the county and Better Future Farms received $200,000 to launch the company’s 61-acre hydroponic lettuce operation. And last year, the county, in partnership with Century Farm Market, received nearly $18,000 to expand the store’s refrigeration capacity.
Per the program’s rules, the county must match state grants via either cash or in-kind contributions.
New staff position and relocation, expansion of extension office
The committee recommends the county hire a full-time staffer in its Community Development Department who’s dedicated to dealing with land use requests in agricultural zoning and programs aimed at protecting farms and forestland.
“In the last 20 years, we’ve had people in spots to advocate, administer and work on bringing [commercial and corporate growth] to this county. We’ve got someone now that’s doing a lot of work. So, what we are saying is hire someone to work here in the county to help preserve and protect ag and forestry for the future,” Riddell said.
He noted that the staffer would ideally handle CUP and rezoning requests for agriculturally zoned property and, eventually, a PDR or TDR program should the county choose to implement either. The staffer would also serve as a resource for community members looking for ways to protect their land or exploring farm/forest-based economic development opportunities.
Williams said he expects the recommendation will be well-received by the board, in part, because the county should have ample revenue to fund it. Under state law, the hefty building permit fees AWS will pay for its data centers must be used by the Community Development Department.
“We are going to have so damn much [permit money] that we are going to have to come up with ways to consume it,” Williams said, noting the county received $330,000 in building permit fees from AWS this year, and it’s expecting to receive double that next year.
The committee also recommends moving the county’s cooperative extension office from its current location in the Town of Louisa to a larger facility that could serve as a “regional Ag and Forestal Education Center, training youth and adults in leadership, innovative practices, and creating economic development in agriculture and forestry.”
In addition, it recommends allocating money to study the feasibility of developing an agritourism event center.
Committee stops short of backing proposal to reduce division rights on A-2 zoned property
The committee decided not to include in its recommendation to the board a proposal to decrease the division rights for property zoned agricultural while maintaining the minimum lot size at 1.5 acres.
Under current code, the county has two ag zoning designations, A-1 and A-2, with both requiring a lot be at least 1.5 acres and meet certain width, depth and road frontage requirements for residential development.
The primary difference between the designations hinges on how many times a parcel can be divided with an A-1 zoned property limited to three divisions and an A-2 parcel allowed seven.
The draft plan that Riddell initially presented recommended sticking with the acre and half minimum while “reducing [the] number of divisions allowed,” in A-2 zoning, but it didn’t specify by how much.
Decreasing the number of times a property owner can divide their land could be a powerful tool in ensuring large chunks of farm and timberland remain intact. But it would curtail a landowner’s property rights by limiting their ability to sell off pieces for development.
While most committee members seemed open to the idea of cutting division rights in A-2 zoning, they opted to remove the proposal from the plan—at least for now.
Hopkins said he’d prefer to set the proposal aside in the short-term because he fears it could detract from the committee’s other recommendations
The decision to drop the proposal came after Williams called it “controversial” and questioned whether it could win support from four board members. He suggested that stripping landowners of development rights amounted to taking money out of their pockets and recommended the committee include a more general statement related to density and raising the minimum lot size.
“If you got a piece of property over there, and you have a bunch of division rights and I take you down to two, have I just taken rights and wealth from you when I did that? What’s the outcry going to be from that,” Williams said.
While the committee chose to hold off on recommending a reduction in division rights, they declined to suggest that the board consider upping the minimum lot size.
Riddell has voiced opposition to raising the minimum beyond an acre and a half at two recent public meetings. He argued that jacking up the minimum lot size to four or five acres would be the “death knell” for farming in the county at a town hall hosted by Adams last month. He said requiring larger lots for residential development wouldn’t save farmland but consume more of it.
Riddell has argued that increasing the minimum lot size would harm forestry for similar reasons.
“One of the biggest challenges to forestry in Louisa is fragmentation. The small lot, the five-acre tract, you can't get anybody to cut that,” he said.
County officials have toyed with the idea of significantly increasing the minimum lot size in the past in response to community members’ interest in slowing growth. When the board revamped the county’s Comprehensive Plan six years ago and followed that up with a rewrite of its Land Development Regulations, the planning commission recommended upping the minimum lot size to five acres in A-1 zoning and 3.5 acres for parcels zoned A-2.
But the board of supervisors voted 5-2 to reject that proposal, choosing to maintain the acre and half minimum. Williams and Adams both voted in opposition with Williams pushing to up the minimum to 10 acres.
Adams said at his March town hall that Riddell and other ag leaders had convinced him increasing the minimum lot size isn’t a good idea.
Still, making significant changes to the zoning code to protect farm and forestland—and slow residential growth—isn’t off the table. County officials will likely address the issue when they begin a state-mandated review of the Comp Plan later this year.
Beyond tackling density allowances in the county’s rural reaches, the board is also expected to consider shrinking its designated growth areas. During the 2019 Comp Plan rewrite, supervisors slashed the growth areas by more than 70 percent.
News roundup: LCHS names new boys’ basketball coach
Engage Louisa focuses on Louisa County government. We recognize we can’t cover everything, and there’s plenty of other news in our neck of the woods. With that in mind, we occasionally include a roundup of links to the work of other journalists covering noteworthy events and issues that impact our community.
Jayvon Jackson named Louisa County High School head boys basketball coach -29 News
‘They tried to rape us:’ Coeds say they were nearly date raped at Louisa homestay -The Daily Progress (paywall)
Lake Anna Advisory Committee trying to win grants to mitigate Harmful Algae Blooms -Lake Anna Life
Fluvanna and Louisa County small businesses eligible for disaster-related SBA loans from January storms -Cville Right Now
Trump orders closure of federal agency supporting libraries—here’s how it will affect central Virginia branches -Charlottesville Tomorrow
Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.
Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.
Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings. Click here for archived video.
Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.
Essentially, yes.
Thank you for that very thorough information about Jim Riddell's committee recommendations. I'm trying to understand the TDR. Maybe I don't totally understand development rights but both the sending and receiving properties already have whatever development rights is in accordance with their zoning. So when the sending property transfers it's rates to the receiving property does that mean the receiving property can be developed more densely?