Review of the Kinloch Agricultural/Forestall District - Required 10-year review of the Kinloch Agricultural/Forestall District. The district includes the properties described as Tax map 65, parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A, 86, 89, 90, 91, 91A, 92, 93, 93A, 93A1, 94, 94A, 95, 95A, 100, 121; Tax Map 66, parcels 2, 3A, 3C, 32, 32D, 32E, 34, 34B. The district comprises a total of 2085.97 acres and is located in the vicinity of Cismont, with portions of the district bordering Route 231 (Gordonsville Road), Route 740 (Zion Hill Road), Route 22 (Louisa Road) and Route 640 (St. John Road). The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RA Rural Areas. (Rebecca Ragsdale) DEFERRED FROM SEPTEMBER 21, 2004.
Ms. Ragsdale summarized the staff report. Just north of the Keswick Agricultural/Forestall District is the Kinloch Agricultural/Forestall District, which is on the same review cycle as Keswick that was created at the same time in September, 1986. It was also reviewed in October of 1994. It was originally 1,586 acres and also increased in acreage to its current 2,085 acres. Staff distributed an update to the Commission. Since the staff report was prepared there were two requests to withdraw from the district. Keswick Winery has requested to withdraw from the district, which is 393 acres with the majority being forestry and the rest in vineyards. The Holly Fork property, which is owned by the Watkins, is also requesting withdrawal of 193 acres. There is one requested addition of 11 acres by Ms. Sargeant who is in horse boarding and training. Those are the requested changes to the district. That would bring the total withdrawal from the district to 500 acres. There would be 1,500 acres remaining in the district. A large portion of this district is also under easement. About one-half of this district is under easement. The properties that are not under easement will remain in the district. This is also in the vicinity of the Southwest Mountains and is just north of Keswick. It is consistent with the Rural Area Policy as mentioned before in supporting agricultural and forestall industries. It also includes the Scenic By-Way on Route 231 and a portion of Route 22 along through the district. The Agricultural/Forestall Advisory Committee reviewed this also at their September meeting. They have not been updated as far as the requested withdrawals, but recommended renewal in the same ten-year review period.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was curious on why a vineyard and winery would withdraw from an agricultural/forestall district. He asked staff if they knew why they were withdrawing.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that there were no specific reasons other than they were not interested in participating in the County program any longer. She pointed out that was all that their attorney could offer as far as their reason for withdrawing.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were winery uses prohibited by being in the district.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that any uses allowed by right in the Rural Areas would be allowed, and she was unaware of any use that would not be allowed relating to the winery operation.
Mr. Thomas opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Since the Commission has already spoken to the applicant, he invited public comment on the application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and possible action.
Mr. Higgins made a motion to recommend approval of the Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District with the two deletions of parcels 93 and 93A and one addition of parcel 10G1.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Thomas stated that the motion carries and would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on November 3.
Return to PC actions letter