State 'clutter' exemption limits county removal of junk on agricultural land; Dinwiddie staff to revise ordinances and seek fixes

Dinwiddie County — The Dinwiddie County Board of Supervisors was briefed May 6 on changes to Virginia state code that add a definition of "clutter" and exempt agricultural land from certain junk‑and‑trash removal powers, a change county attorneys say limits the locality’s ability to enforce existing cleanup rules on A‑1 and A‑2 parcels.

Assistant county attorney Michael Drury told the board the amended state code includes the term clutter in the section that authorizes removal of junk and trash. He read the state definition presented to the board: "Clutter" means "mechanical equipment, household furniture, containers, and similar items that may be detrimental to the well‑being of a community when they are left in public view for an extended period of time, or allowed to accumulate." Drury said that the statute also exempted land zoned for agriculture or an active farm operation from enforcement under that section.

"What this means is, any land in the county zoned A‑1 or A‑2, and farm operations ... we would not be able to enforce this code section for clutter," Drury said. He told the board that the new language creates ambiguity about whether the exemption applies only to items classified as "clutter" or to all junk and trash, and that county staff will therefore review agricultural parcels on a case‑by‑case basis.

Drury outlined the county's alternative enforcement option: the public‑nuisance statute. He read the nuisance definition the county may rely on, which covers "dangerous or unhealthy substances that have escaped, spilled, been released, or which have been allowed to accumulate" and "unsafe, dangerous, or unsanitary public or private buildings, walls, or structures which constitute a menace to the health and safety of the occupants or of the public." Drury noted that public‑nuisance enforcement requires court action for abatement, which yields a stronger court order but is slower and may not apply to many cases that were previously handled administratively.

Several supervisors and staff described practical impacts in Dinwiddie’s rural areas: properties on small acreage that look like clutter to neighbors may now be protected by the agricultural exemption unless they clearly meet the public nuisance standard. Public safety officials flagged fire risk from accumulations of potentially flammable materials on rural lots. County staff said they have temporarily held enforcement actions in agricultural zones pending updates to the local ordinance and additional review by planning and legal staff.

Next steps described to the board included drafting amendments to align the county code with the state code and to clarify enforcement on small residential lots in agricultural zones. County staff also said they will pursue legislative language to remove ambiguity at the state level — for example, the county noted other localities have used planning‑district language or acreage thresholds to permit enforcement on small residential lots located in agricultural zones. Drury said ordinance amendments will be prepared for future board consideration and anticipated returning after the June meeting for a public hearing on proposed changes.

Why this matters: the change limits the county’s administrative options to abate visible accumulations on farmland and certain rural properties, shifting some enforcement to the public‑nuisance process and increasing reliance on case‑by‑case legal review. That can slow cleanup and complicate responses to health, safety and fire‑risk concerns.

No ordinance changes were enacted at the May 6 meeting; the board directed staff to draft amendments and continue legal review and outreach.