By Tina Alvey
LEWISBURG — Greenbrier County’s proposed comprehensive plan either has too much or too little to say about adoption of a right to farm ordinance, depending on which farmer has the floor at the moment.
During Wednesday’s meeting of the county planning commission, Planner Vernon Hayslette renewed his objection to the plan’s call for the county commission to support such an ordinance, while members of the county farm bureau appealed to the planners to add more detailed pro-ordinance language.
In response to Hayslette’s request that the plan be amended to delete any mention of the right to farm ordinance, planning commission President Britt Ludwig said, “I think it would be disruptive to the process ... to take up this item.”
The county commission has a public hearing set for Nov. 10 to gather input on the proposed plan.
Hayslette’s written request for an amendment reads, in part, “The right to farm ordinance is in conflict (with) all existing state laws and rules pertaining to farms and woodlands and should be eliminated from the plan.”
Hayslette’s request points out that the planners have already amended the proposed plan to exclude small farms from right to farm regulations.
Planner Margaret Hambrick also presented written documentation of her position on the issue, which includes the small farm definition already folded into the proposed plan. For purposes of the plan, a small farm is “a farm where the farmer or farm family participates in the day-to-day labor and management of the farm and owns or leases its productive assets.”
Hambrick concludes her five-page document by writing, “In summary, no plan (and no ordinance, or any other action taken by a government representative) will satisfy all parties. I recommend the adoption of this comprehensive plan as an important first step toward planning a positive future for Greenbrier County.”
Ben Tuckwiller, president of the Greenbrier County Farm Bureau, noted the state bureau has adopted the right to farm language as policy.
Tuckwiller said he and other local bureau members consulted with Circuit Judge James J. Rowe about the best path to take in moving that policy into law. Upon Rowe’s suggestion, the farm bureau asked the planners to include support for a future ordinance in the comprehensive plan, Tuckwiller said.
The organized farmers thought their suggested language for the plan would be included as presented, but the reference to a right to farm ordinance was reduced to two brief mentions, with no details of what “right to farm” means in this context.
Bureau member Sam Tuckwiller read the five points his organization wants the plan to include. They are:
1. Create a legal presumption that agriculture management practices are not a nuisance and are an expected part of quiet enjoyment of property.
2. Protect agriculture from nuisance lawsuits and/or complaints by persons who are not accustomed to sights, sounds and smells associated with generally accepted agriculture management practices.
3. Exempt agriculture from noise ordinances, light ordinances, dilapidated building ordinances and other nuisance ordinances.
4. Exempt agriculture from zoning restrictions and other regulatory tools that may interfere with generally accepted agriculture management practices.
5. Have a disclosure provision requiring real estate agents and/or the recording clerk to notify potential property buyers of the right to farm ordinance.
The planners did not consider any amendments to the plan Wednesday, as that item was not on the agenda for the regular session.
— E-mail: talvey@register-herald.com
