Discussion of the prime soils ordinance still lacks resolution

By Tabitha Reeves

Though discussed at length since its conception three years ago, the Loudoun County zoning ordinance amendment, or ZOAM, that was written to preserve rich farming soil for rural economy purposes and limit housing development has yet to be officially passed or opposed.

On July 13, at a public hearing and work session by the county’s Planning Commission, the decision to withhold further action on the plan until finding out more information passed 8-0-1. The ZOAM will be revisited at a “future work session.”

Additionally, the public hearing made clear the general disagreement amongst Loudoun County farmers, landowners and other stakeholders about the impact, or – in some cases – lack thereof, of the amendment.

“It would be a fallacy to believe that if you pass this now it will have some permanent effect on the county,” Western Loudoun resident Brook Middleton said, after explaining that zoning and rezoning ordinances are passed frequently in the county.

Instead of a lasting positive effect, stakeholders fear that the proposed ZOAM will de-incentivize conservation easements and thereby eliminate benefits brought by the easements.

The Loudoun County government defines conservation easements as a “voluntary legal agreement in which a landowner retains ownership, use and enjoyment of their property while they convey certain rights to a qualified land trust to protect farms, forested areas, historic sites and natural resources.”

An interactive map of Loudoun’s conservation easements can be viewed on their website, and displays the over 75,000 acres of the county’s soil that is protected by easement.

Once land is put into conservation easement, the decision cannot be reversed by a future legislative act.

Chuck Kuhn, president of the farming company JK Land Holdings LLC, explained that his company owns more land than any business in Loudoun County aside from Dulles International Airport. While thousands of their acreage is planned to go into conservation easements, the passing of the proposed ZOAM would change everything, according to Kuhn.

“I am here promising you it will have a detrimental effect on conservation easements in Loudoun County on me alone,” Kuhn said. “It is going to be detrimental to the conservation easement program.”

Commissioner Roger Vance (Blue Ridge) said that it is a “false narrative” to believe that the preservation of prime soils and effectiveness of conservation easements are mutually exclusive. His belief is shared by other stakeholders who spoke at the hearing and sent letters advocating for the passing of the ZOAM.

Planning Commission Chair Michelle Frank (Broad Run), in agreement with other planning commissioners, are waiting to hear the results of a contractor study that will determine whether the prime agricultural soil ZOAM will hinder the success of conservation easements.

In addition to contention surrounding easements, many voiced opposing opinions on what percentage of prime farmland soils should be preserved per property and overall regionally according to the proposed amendment.

The ZOAM states that when a tract of land contains five or more acres of prime farmland soils, 70% of the soils must be left for farming and open spaces purposes, leaving a remainder of less than 30% to be developed with residential clusters.

However, the most recent draft of the plan included a “savings clause,” which can shrink that percentage of preserved soils to 30% if deemed necessary by developers, allowing up to 70% to be used for building residential clusters.

In their presentation and responding to questions, project manager Jacob Hambrick and staff member Mark Stultz repeatedly stated that the addition of the clause was intended as a compromise to increase flexibility of the ZOAM.

“It seems like a loophole designed to render the entire effort to keep land available for farming moot,” Chris Van Vlack, Lovettsville farmer and member of the Board of Supervisors-appointed workgroup on the issue, said.

In a letter Van Vlack sent to the Planning Commission, he pointed out that decreasing the preservation requirement to 30% would be lower than what the vast majority of stakeholders had requested.

Though some landowners advocated for up to 85% protection and there were others that were okay with 50%, only one stakeholder requested less than 30%, Van Vlack wrote, referring to Kuhn who asked for 20%.

“The percentage change directly conflicts with three plus years of public input and work group negotiations,” Maura Walsh-Copeland, member of the Zoning Ordinance Committee, said.

Amongst disagreement and criticism, various speakers at the hearing, as well as commissioners such as Vance, made a point to thank staff and workgroup members for their continued effort on such a divisive issue.

“I want to make sure that we don’t get out of balance here and don’t forget that what we’re trying to do here is to protect the soils that are irreplaceable and that provide something that we can’t just move or create somewhere else,” Commissioner Jane Kirchner (Algonkian) said.