Lee County discusses changes to agricultural ordinance, new enhanced voluntary agricultural district and conservation easement funding

Lee County officials presented proposed revisions Feb. 17 to the county’s Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Ordinance and outlined a draft conservation easement policy and possible county funding to support land‑conservation projects.

Dr. Stone, introducing the package, told the board the ordinance revisions recommended by the Agricultural Advisory Board include three principal changes: removing a requirement that advisory‑board membership be tied to districts, adding an Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) program, and reducing the minimum acreage required for program membership from 5 acres to 1 acre for horticulture or agricultural uses defined under state statute. “The Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District comes with a 10 year irrevocable agreement,” Dr. Stone said, noting that EVAD participation is a greater commitment than the existing Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) but carries additional incentives.

Dr. Stone described EVAD incentives his presentation lists: participants may be eligible to count 25 percent of gross sales from certain nonfarm products toward bona fide farm qualifications, to receive a higher share of agricultural cost‑share funds, and to receive higher priority for some state grants. He said the county’s recommended change to minimum acreage is meant to recognize the rise of small, high‑value farms and to make the voluntary programs available to smaller operations. He noted the change would not alter present use value (PUV) tax eligibility, which remains governed by existing state and county tax rules.

Commissioners and members of the public pressed staff on details. Dr. Stone said a bona fide farm qualification requires a $10,000 minimum gross income and typically uses a three‑year average for verification through the North Carolina Department of Revenue. Commissioners asked how EVAD agreements could be ended; Dr. Stone said county enforcement would be required if a landowner violated the EVAD covenant and that he had consulted a state agricultural attorney for guidance.

The public hearing on the ordinance revisions drew several speakers. Supporters included Jim Womack, who said he favored preservation “with emphasis on the word preservation” but urged care about PUV tax impacts; Aaron and Hunter Ayers, VAD participants who said EVAD would help access grants and show county interest in agriculture; Kathy Howard and Cecil Cameron, who urged county support for conservation and preservation; and Melissa Cloonan of the Triangle Land Conservancy, who described the conservancy’s role working with landowners to assemble grant funding and manage easements.

Opponents raised concerns about unintended tax impacts and about timing relative to the county’s master plan. Resident David Smoke told commissioners he was “generally speaking against this EVAD motion” and asked that the ordinance revisions be considered after an updated county master plan, expressed concern about potential tax‑exempt parcels proliferating countywide and requested baseline data on current acreage and tax values under existing programs.

On conservation easements, staff and Triangle Land Conservancy representative Melissa Cloonan described the typical process: the landowner and conservancy obtain a before‑and‑after appraisal, conduct surveys, and negotiate an easement tailored to the property’s conservation values. Cloonan said typical transaction costs include an appraisal (roughly $3,000 in many projects) and a survey (she cited a range that can be much larger depending on acreage and complexity) and that some counties provide local funding to cover transaction costs that grant programs will not pay. Dr. Stone said local contributions often make state grants more competitive and that county funding can “unlock” projects that otherwise would not proceed.

Staff emphasized that conservation easements are voluntary, that the county would not hold easements, and that a local funding program would be structured to provide up‑front or matching dollars to make projects feasible. No formal action was taken Feb. 17: Dr. Stone presented the ordinance revisions and the conservation easement policy for discussion, public comment was received and the public hearing was closed.

Commissioners asked staff to refine details and return with options, including potential funding mechanisms and the application process staff would use to vet conservation projects. Several commissioners and commenters asked for data showing current acreage and the fiscal effect of the existing PUV program and voluntary districts to inform any future board decision.