Planning commission recommends renewal of Colchester Farm Agricultural and Forestal District

The Culpeper County Planning Commission on a voice vote recommended continuation of the Colchester Farm Agricultural and Forestal District, which covers 427.88 acres in the Salem election district.

The recommendation followed a briefing from the county’s agricultural-and-forestall advisory committee. The committee reported it met Jan. 23, 2025, that the district includes five enrolled parcels totaling 427.88 acres, and that there have been no voluntary withdrawals from the district since its 2017 renewal. Thomas O’Halloran, chairman of the Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee, signed the committee’s recommendation that the commission renew the district for another eight-year period.

Harrison Previn of Culpeper County Planning and Zoning presented the committee’s report to the commission. After a short question about why one parcel in the center of the district was not enrolled, which Previn said likely reflects a landowner choice, the commission opened and closed the public hearing with no members of the public speaking. Commissioner Berg moved that the commission recommend continuance of the district “in accordance with the provisions of Code of Virginia §15.2‑4304 through §15.2‑4314” and the local zoning ordinance. The motion was approved by voice vote; the chair declared the application approved and the commission will forward its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

Why it matters: Agricultural and forestal districts are an established local tool to encourage long-term agricultural use by providing tax and land-use incentives. The commission’s recommendation is an intermediate step; the Board of Supervisors makes the final determination on renewal, modification or termination.

What the record shows: The advisory committee’s signed recommendation notes the district’s acreage and that no parcels have withdrawn since 2017. The planning commission conducted the public hearing as required and made its recommendation by motion; no public comments were recorded at the meeting.

What’s not in the record: The minutes and presentation did not specify the owners of the five enrolled parcels, the parcel omitted in the district center, or any proposed changes to district terms. The Board of Supervisors’ final action and any conditions or amendments were not part of this meeting’s record.

Next steps: The commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors for final action on continuation, modification or termination of the district.