Orange County supervisors debate voluntary A1/A2 agricultural zoning, request maps and data

Orange County supervisors spent a work session reviewing draft language for two proposed agricultural zoning districts — A1 (Agricultural Conservation) and A2 (Agricultural General) — focusing on intent, voluntary participation, permitted uses and potential incentives.

The discussion matters for a large share of county land: staff said the county’s future land-use map shows roughly 94% of county land designated as agricultural, and supervisors and staff warned that how the county defines A1 and A2 could affect owners across wide areas. No zoning changes were adopted at the session; supervisors directed staff to produce more detailed maps and data and to return with materials at a later meeting.

Planning staff described the A1 designation as intended “to primarily accommodate farming, forestry, livestock maintenance, and other related farm activities,” and said the draft places emphasis on conservation, low-impact uses and low population density. Staff also presented an A2 draft that would permit farming and related activities while allowing a broader set of limited commercial and residential uses compatible with a rural character. The Berkeley Group draft and planning commission notes were circulated as background material.

A central point of debate was whether the A1 designation should be strictly voluntary (landowners opt in) or whether the county should reserve authority to apply the district in some future circumstances. One supervisor urged making the intent explicit that A1 be voluntary; several colleagues replied that while the board could pledge a voluntary approach in outreach materials or a preamble, language placed inside a zoning ordinance might constrain future boards or create legal exposure. The county attorney was asked to review whether inserting the word “voluntary” into ordinance text creates legal risk.

Supervisors and staff also discussed policy tools and incentives. Options raised included sliding-scale lot standards and transfer-of-development-rights (TDR) programs that would let owners sell development rights to receiving areas (for example, parts of the county envisioned for more intense growth). Participants flagged trade-offs: large-lot minimums can preserve open space yet can raise land costs and reduce housing options for younger families and essential workers, while smaller-lot rules can permit more dispersed residential development and incrementally erode agricultural character.

Staff said they would produce several materials before the next session: updated GIS maps showing currently conserved parcels and existing pattern of smaller residential lots (including parcels subdivided into 3 acres or less and 2 acres or less), tables of recent subdivisions and a build-out analysis with assumptions about infrastructure and road needs. John Watermullen (GIS staff) and other planning staff were asked to prepare 11x17 maps and web links so supervisors and the public can review proposed district footprints and the data behind them.

Supervisors also reviewed a draft list of permitted and special uses that staff pulled from the existing ordinance and the Berkeley Group draft. Uses shown as potentially allowed in A1/A2 included agritourism, horticulture, forest uses, single-family homes, home occupations, bed-and-breakfasts/short-term rentals and, as special uses, larger-scale operations such as on-site processing, wineries and other agribusiness activities. Some supervisors asked staff to clarify definitions (for example, what counts as an “agricultural operation” or a potentially high-nuisance use such as large animal feeding operations) before any final recommendations.

No rezoning decisions were made at the meeting. Staff and supervisors repeatedly noted that any future rezoning would follow the formal process: planning commission hearings, public notice to landowners, and Board of Supervisors public hearings. Several supervisors emphasized that drafting the district language now is intended to create tools for property owners and the county (voluntary or otherwise), not to immediately rezone parcels.

Votes at a glance

- Adjust agenda (move/clarify work session and closed-session sequencing): motion made and seconded; vote: all present voted “aye” (record does not list individual names). Outcome: passed.

- Enter closed session under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act for consultation with the county attorney regarding actual or probable litigation (citation read at the meeting): motion made and seconded; vote: all present voted “aye” (record does not list individual names). Outcome: passed.

What’s next

Staff will return with detailed maps, a table of recent subdivision activity, and a build-out analysis to help supervisors assess how many lots could be created under different minimum-lot or sliding-scale scenarios. The board set no schedule for rezoning; supervisors said further work sessions and a later hearing sequence will be required if the board elects to move toward formal district maps or ordinance amendments.

Ending: The session closed with supervisors asking the county attorney to review legal language on intent and voluntariness and requesting that planning staff prepare clearer maps and data for the next workshop.