Orange County planning panel recommends denial of special-use permit for large livestock operation in Rhodesville

The Orange County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a special-use permit requested by Steven Siegel to keep multiple livestock on a 1.8-acre property at 25355 Lafayette Drive in Rhodesville.

Kira Davis, a planner with Orange County, told the commission that Siegel had applied for SUP 202400314 to allow 23 goats, four sheep and two cows on the property and that staff recommended a more limited allowance (—the owner shall be allowed to keep either one cow or six goats—) with conditions, including that feeding and waste locations be at least 100 feet from neighboring wells and the stocking limit be restricted to one USDA animal unit per acre for the fenced area.

The application drew multiple neighbors to the public hearing who said the animals have already affected their quality of life. Donna Harpold, who identified herself as living at 25343 Lafayette Drive, said she had submitted a written letter opposing the permit and told commissioners she had —spent less and less time outside— because of a —constant odor— from the neighboring property. Charles Turner, of 25363 Lafayette Drive, said he had counted —over 50 animals— and described recurring escapes, debris and foul smell that he said reduced his ability to sell his home. Allison Cook, who said she lives at 25362 Lafayette Drive and grew up on a farm, raised concerns about runoff into shallow wells and the limits of pasture rotation on a small parcel.

Commission discussion focused on two recurring themes: potential impacts to neighboring private wells and the county—s ability to enforce conditions. Michelle Meiksel, director of Development Services, told commissioners that staff had consulted the Virginia Department of Health and that the recommended 100-foot separation for feeding and waste locations came from that agency. Meiksel also said special-use inspections would be the principal enforcement tool and that code-enforcement staffing is a split, part-time function; the county was in the process of replacing a staff member who performs those inspections.

Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to a property owner who wants to keep animals but expressed doubt that the county could reliably monitor compliance. Commissioner (Mister) Vanhoven, speaking as a commissioner, said he was hesitant to rely on annual inspections and suggested more frequent checks if the permit were granted; other commissioners said scheduled inspections would be difficult to sustain. Chairman (Mister) Capel and other commissioners repeatedly cited the neighbors— complaints and the small size of the parcel as factors weighing against approval.

After discussion, a motion to recommend denial of SUP 202400314 carried on roll call. The motion was amended on the record to list the reasons for the recommendation: concerns about water quality for surrounding wells; impacts on neighbors including flies, noise and odor; and inconsistency with the R-1 residential zoning. The roll call recorded Commissioners Capel, Marshall and Bryanton voting —aye.— The commission—s action is advisory; the final decision rests with the Board of Supervisors.

The applicant, Steven Siegel, told the commission he could —work with— the staff recommendation and said some animals could be moved to other property he or his employer controls if the permit limited numbers. Siegel also reported prior contact by animal-control officers and that his animals were found healthy during those visits.

Next steps: the commission—s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for a final decision. The commission noted that the matter could be revisited if the applicant reduces animals and demonstrates improved neighbor relations and compliance with county conditions.

Ending: The item concluded with staff thanking neighbors and the applicant for attending; the commission then moved on to other agenda items.