Buncombe advisory board adopts revised farmland-preservation ordinance after state adds mandatory hearings

The Buncombe County Agricultural Advisory Board voted to adopt a revised farmland-preservation ordinance that updates county rules to match recent state changes requiring public hearings and longer review timelines before a governmental unit may condemn or rezone land enrolled in a Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD).

Corey Holman, representing NCDA ADFP, told the board that the updated state law now requires counties to record notice for enrolled parcels and to hold an advisory-board public hearing when a state or local government proposes condemnation or rezoning of land enrolled in a VAD. "All counties shall require that land records include some form of notice reasonably calculated to alert a person researching the title that such tract is located within one half mile of a tract enrolled in a voluntary agricultural district," Holman said during his presentation. He outlined a procedural timeline that shortens rushed actions by initiating agencies and gives landowners additional time to respond.

Why it matters: the statute establishes a series of deadlines and public‑notice steps intended to slow sudden actions that can affect working farms. Holman summarized the timetable presented to the board: the advisory board’s final report is to be issued within 45 days of a hearing request, the board must publish its report within five days after the hearing, a seven‑day public comment window follows the report, and no formal condemnation or rezoning may take place until 120 days after the advisory-board final report. Holman described the 120‑day period as a "cooling off" interval intended to create space for negotiation, settlement or legal remedies.

County counsel Amy (county attorney) explained the practical effect if a municipal or state agency were to proceed without complying with the notice and hearing requirements. She advised that an advisory board does not automatically obtain a possessory interest by enrollment and that remedies for failure to comply would most likely be pursued by affected landowners (for example, by seeking an injunction) rather than by the advisory board itself. "If an entity moves forward without complying with this ordinance, the standing to seek action against that entity would fall on the landowner," Amy said.

Board members asked whether rezoning actions routed through the planning board and commission trigger the same hearing requirement, whether adjacent (non‑enrolled) parcels are covered, and whose responsibility it is to check the county’s VAD/EVAD GIS layers. Staff said the requirement applies only to parcels actually enrolled in a VAD or EVAD, not to non‑enrolled neighbors, and recommended integrating VAD checks into plan-review workflows. Staff also noted the county maintains an online VAD layer and a separate FarmFinder map used by planners and realtors.

Approvals and next steps: the board approved six farmland-preservation applications on the agenda — described in staff materials as two EVAD applications, two new VAD applications and two VAD renewals — by voice vote. Later, after resolving an internal discrepancy in the draft language about a minimum‑size threshold (staff agreed to standardize the ordinance to a 10‑acre minimum to preserve administrative flexibility), a board member moved to adopt the revised farmland-preservation ordinance "as revised." The motion was seconded and approved.

Staff said the revised ordinance and accompanying program policies (application acceptance, stewardship, violations, recordkeeping and ranking/prioritization procedures) will be forwarded to the county commissioners; staff had indicated an objective of placing the ordinance on the May 5 commissioners’ agenda for adoption and that several program policies will be brought to the advisory board for formal adoption at a future meeting.

The board spent time distinguishing what VAD/EVAD enrollment does and does not do: enrollment does not change zoning, does not itself stop condemnation or development, and (except for recorded EVAD deeds) does not give the county a possessory interest in enrolled land. Instead, the program primarily provides public recognition, an added title‑search notice layer and procedural safeguards which together make it harder for condemning parties or purchasers to claim ignorance of agricultural uses.

What’s next: staff will circulate the final, standardized ordinance language and the internal ranking system for review. The board also planned training and resources (including the state VAD conference and a public‑hearing webinar) to help advisory‑board members and county staff implement the new hearing procedures.

Reported quotes in context: Corey Holman, NCDA ADFP: "All counties shall require that land records include some form of notice..." County attorney Amy: "If an entity moved forward without complying with this ordinance, the standing to seek action against that entity would fall on the landowner."