Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press planning commission over proposed A‑1/A‑2 agricultural zoning changes; commissioners call for more data and public engagement
Summary
Dozens of residents opposed a proposed text amendment to King George County’s agricultural zoning rules, telling the Planning Commission the change would harm landowners and younger buyers; commissioners asked staff for more data and broader public engagement before making recommendations.
Dozens of residents spoke during the public-comment period to oppose an initiating resolution from the Board of Supervisors that would change minimum lot sizes in King George County’s A‑1 and A‑2 agricultural districts.
Speakers representing multi‑generation landowners, farmers and local real estate businesses told commissioners the proposal—under review as a text amendment—would devalue property, hinder family transfers and make it harder for younger residents to buy land. “I am totally opposed to this,” said Rose Payne, a long‑time landowner, during public comments. Several speakers said they had learned of the initiative only days before the meeting.
Commissioners did not take a vote to recommend adoption. Instead the commission’s discussion focused on process and evidence. Staff reminded the body that the board of supervisors authorized staff to evaluate the change and that revising the acreage figure would require dozens of other edits across the zoning ordinance. The county’s interim attorney (watching online) cited Virginia Code § 15.2‑2212 in saying appointments to the planning commission are within the supervisors’ purview; commissioners said they would limit their role to making recommendations to the board.
Multiple commissioners said they supported additional study. They urged staff to provide clear metrics—growth rates, building‑permit counts, the number and sizes of affected parcels, and school and utility impacts—before moving forward. One commissioner advised that if the problem is temporary, a short‑term measure with narrow scope would be preferable to a permanent rezoning.
Several commissioners also called for more transparency and for a joint meeting or subcommittee that would include supervisors, staff and stakeholder representatives. “We need to define the problem before we jump to a solution,” one commissioner said. The commission made no formal recommendation and the initiating resolution will remain a staff and Board of Supervisors matter pending further analysis and outreach.
Next steps discussed included additional data from staff, outreach to affected landowners and the possibility of a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors to identify the objective the ordinance change is intended to achieve.
