CHESAPEAKE — City Council is poised to consider a resolution that would close a land use development loophole in an effort to preserve more of its rural, agricultural land.
Over the last few months, the city’s planning staff has been meeting with residents in small rural listening sessions to discuss issues related to development, farming and preserving rural and agricultural land. Planning Director James McNamara shared an overview of key takeaways from those sessions with council members Tuesday, along with a few suggestions that could aid further rural preservation.
Among the suggestions that council decided Tuesday to consider is amending the city’s zoning and subdivision ordinances to close the agriculture subdivision loophole, which has allowed developers to skirt the typical level of city scrutiny and build in historically rural areas with greater density than would otherwise be allowed. Council member Debbie Ritter asked planning staff at Tuesday’s meeting to prepare an initiating resolution to be considered at the next council meeting.
The loophole developments are allowed by-right, meaning they are permitted under zoning laws and handled administratively with no public hearing or legislative action required by the Planning Commission or City Council. They allow landowners to subdivide their land into more parcels over time to create higher density development.
City leaders have discussed addressing this zoning loophole for decades, but the issue became a glaring one in recent years due to the sprouting of 100 new homes along Sanderson and Cedarville roads in southern Chesapeake. City leaders anticipated it would ultimately cost the city nearly $1.28 million in the long run because no proffers were offered to offset the impact to city services.
As Chesapeake farmland is harvested for developments, the city grapples with legal loopholes
Through the listening sessions, city staff gathered that balancing landowners’ property rights and the need for growth will require more pathways for property development and further support of agricultural and farming operations.
Farmers and landowners told city staff that it’s often difficult to turn down money being offered to them by developers and that they should be able to do something other than farming with their land, especially during housing shortages. They also emphasized the need for more city oversight and public input on development, more infrastructure, potential impacts to ground water and school overcrowding.
Chesapeake currently offers a program in which the city can purchase development rights and place an easement on properties. The landowner receives fair market value but still retains ownership, meaning they can place a house on their land and continue using their land for agricultural purposes. McNamara said Tuesday the amendment for agricultural subdivisions could require an easement that similarly restricts land use of the property, limiting it to “agricultural use, silvicultural use, natural habitat and biological diversity, historic preservation, natural resource based outdoor recreation or education, watershed preservation, preservation of scenic open space, or preservation of open space.”
The changes would ultimately lead to more open space and farmland being preserved, McNamara said, though agriculture subdivisions would still be considered by-right development.
If the loophole is closed, one alternative for landowners is a residential estate rezoning, McNamara said, which the city currently offers though it’s rarely used. Like agriculture subdivisions, they call for at least three acres but can extend to public roads with lots better suited for the land. And a rezoning means the development is subject to public hearings with staff analyses and potential proffers to offset the impact.
“A lot of what you’re seeing with the agricultural subdivision loophole could be accomplished with the RE-1 rezoning,” McNamara said. “This would allow Council to have oversight of development, would be able to provide recommendation, which we’re not getting at this point in time. Right now, you’re seeing by-right (development) with no citizen input, no Council oversight, no proffers being offered to offset any impacts.”
The change would also include tweaks to city policy regarding minor subdivisions and conservation cluster subdivisions, which are also by-right. McNamara said requiring the use of only existing road frontage when property is being subdivided is one way to control growth for minor subdivisions. And conservation cluster subdivisions are ideal because more of the property’s open and agricultural land must be preserved.
Conservation cluster development “allows you to place lots with the existing environment on the site,” McNamara said. “You get the same number of yield but you get more open space preserved and you’re able to develop around natural features at this point in time.”
McNamara also said the city could develop guidelines to establish planned unit development, or PUD, for farming villages, which requires a rezoning, sets aside farmland and includes enhanced designs and amenities. McNamara said such PUDs have been seen in Northern Virginia, describing them as immersive experiences with educational opportunities like community gardens, for example.
Other issues touched on during the listening sessions included solar farms, agribusiness and agritourism, the Costal Virginia Commerce Park and the need for more farming incentives, especially for young farmers.
Natalie Anderson, 757-732-1133, natalie.anderson@virginiamedia.com
