Planning commission splits on early withdrawal request for Oak Hill Farm; sends item to work session

The Loudoun County Planning Commission on July 29 considered an early withdrawal request from the New Oak Hill Agricultural and Forestal District that would allow a 1,233.08-acre parcel to be removed from the AFD at the owner’s request. The landowner has said the withdrawal would facilitate an intended sale to a conservation fund and potential transfer that could support establishment of a state park.

Staff explained the statutory withdrawal pathway under Virginia law and noted the Agricultural District Advisory Committee and staff support the request as written, because of the conservation objective and because another landowner indicated willingness to add acreage to keep the district intact. Commissioners pressed staff and county attorneys on contingency issues: whether rollback taxes could be owed, whether a county purchase commitment would change the economics, and what would happen if the General Assembly or the state later declined a park designation.

A number of commissioners voiced concern that removing the parcel earlier than the district’s planned expiration would expose the county and neighboring residents to potential interim subdivision or cluster development before a state designation could be finalized. Several commissioners asked whether a deferred effective date, a Board-level condition or a legal instrument could reduce that risk.

Commissioner Dale Jasper moved to recommend approval of the early withdrawal to the Board of Supervisors; that motion failed in a recorded voice vote. A later motion, made by Commissioner Myers and amended by Vice Chair Miller, asked that the commission forward the application to a work session so county attorneys, the conservation fund or applicant representatives and staff could answer outstanding logistical and legal questions. The amended motion to send the matter to a planning commission work session carried 8-1 (Commissioner Banks opposed).

Next steps: the item will return to a planning commission work session where staff, county attorneys and the applicant have said they will present additional detail about the purchase arrangements, rollback tax exposure, possible timing options and whether safeguards can be drafted for the Board of Supervisors’ consideration.

Why it matters: The case illustrates tradeoffs when landowner tax and gifting incentives intersect with public conservation goals. Commissioners at the hearing balanced the applicant’s stated conservation purpose against community concerns about an interim development risk if the county or state process did not complete as hoped.