BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING JUNE 24, 2002

Need for Consistency l Several landowners have been told over the years that they could have horses in R1 if their lot was large enough. l Uncertainty in interpretation of zoning ordinance (Tab 1) l Statement of intent for R1 states: “to promote and encourage a suitable environment for to family life” (Tab 2) l There are over 1,000 parcels in the county zoned R1 that are three acres in size or greater. (Tab 3) l Several landowners tonight will tell you that they believed that this type of use was permitted.

The Proposed Amendment l Limited in scope. l Only applies to lots three acres or greater. l Only allows horses and ponies by right and only one such animal per acre. l Allows special use permits for larger lots to be farmed. l There are many R1-zoned lots in the county that are large acreage. Several over 100 acres. l Under current zoning, they cannot even apply for a special use permit to permit farming. l They have no right to have large animals, and no ability to ask for permission.

Economic Impact l Lost Home Sales Due to Inconsistency l At least three home sales have been lost in recent months due this problem. l One home sale currently at risk. l As previously stated, if ordinance is not changed, large lot owners in R1 will have to personally mow all their acreage. l Negative impact on resale value. l Negative impact on tax base for the county.

Economic Impact l Individuals seeking homes will look in neighboring counties. Neighboring counties allow this type of use. l Even the Town of Pulaski, which is more urban, allows generalized farming in residential districts with special use permits.

Administrative Impact l If not approved, multiple rezoning requests will come from landowners. l As stated above, currently in the county, the over 1,000 landowners with large lots zoned R1 are in violation and have no redress. They cannot hay, they cannot have animals to graze, and they cannot seek permission to do so.

The Need l There is no rural residential zoning classification in the county. l There are several areas in the county where developments now exist, or may, in the future. l People are looking for land, but within a community. l Ability to have horses is desirable.

Conclusion “The purpose of zoning by a county is the same as that by a city, that is, to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, to protect and conserve the value of buildings and encourage the most appropriate use of the land.” City of Richmond v. Board of Supervisors of Henrico County, 199 Va. 679, 686 (1958) “The regulations should be related to the character of the district which they affect; and should be designed to serve the welfare of those who own and occupy land in those districts. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Allman, 215 Va. 434, 444 (1975)

Importance of Amendment l To provide consistency, so that land owners know what they can do with their land, realtors know how they can market the land, and prospective purchasers know what their rights will be. l The proposal’s controls provide reasonable limits. l It will have a positive economic impact on the county. l Higher land values l Improved tax base l Make county a more desirable place to live l Reduce number of zoning requests