Goochland BZA upholds zoning administrator in appeal over proposed farm stand
May 18, 2026 | Goochland County, Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Goochland County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 18 voted to uphold the zoning administrator's January 21, 2026, determination that a proposed farm stand at parcels on Shallowwell Road is a permitted accessory use of an agricultural operation but must meet the county's farm-stand development standards.
The decision came after attorneys for the appellant, Aurora Hill Foundation LLC, argued state agritourism protections and the Right to Farm principle limit local regulation. Brian Prater of Williams Mullen, counsel for the appellant, said the farm would offer tours, education and on-site sales and that state law protects "the sale of agricultural and silvicultural products" at an agricultural operation. "The General Assembly has acknowledged this as very important," Prater told the board.
Goochland County Attorney Tara McGee, representing the zoning administrator, said the zoning administrator had correctly applied the county code and that the board should start with a presumption of correctness for administrative determinations. McGee outlined the farm-stand standards in staff materials, including the 200-square-foot size limit and a 25-foot setback from the right of way, and said larger retail operations should proceed through a conditional use permit (CUP). "If you want to do something different than these standards, that's when you get a conditional use permit," McGee said.
A neighbor, Tracy McGuire of 1077 Shallowwell Road, urged caution, citing late notice, privacy and safety concerns after observing recent activity on the site. "It seems like a very commercial activity... It doesn't look like a farm stand. It looks like a home," McGuire told the board, asking the panel to defer action until buffers, fencing and parking are clarified.
Board members debated whether the BZA could rule on the validity of a county ordinance relative to state law and briefly recessed to consult counsel. When the board returned and took a formal vote, the motion to uphold the zoning administrator passed 4–1.
The board's action leaves the zoning administrator's determination intact; any proposal that exceeds farm-stand development standards or that presents issues of health, safety or welfare would be considered through the county's CUP process or, if a party seeks to challenge the ordinance itself, in circuit court, McGee said. Prater noted that the applicant had filed initial paperwork for a CUP and that the community meeting on the CUP was scheduled for the following week.
The board did not modify the ordinance language; it ruled on the administrative determination before it. The appellant may pursue the CUP process or other legal remedies if it wishes to challenge the ordinance.
The board moved to the next agenda item after the vote.
The decision came after attorneys for the appellant, Aurora Hill Foundation LLC, argued state agritourism protections and the Right to Farm principle limit local regulation. Brian Prater of Williams Mullen, counsel for the appellant, said the farm would offer tours, education and on-site sales and that state law protects "the sale of agricultural and silvicultural products" at an agricultural operation. "The General Assembly has acknowledged this as very important," Prater told the board.
Goochland County Attorney Tara McGee, representing the zoning administrator, said the zoning administrator had correctly applied the county code and that the board should start with a presumption of correctness for administrative determinations. McGee outlined the farm-stand standards in staff materials, including the 200-square-foot size limit and a 25-foot setback from the right of way, and said larger retail operations should proceed through a conditional use permit (CUP). "If you want to do something different than these standards, that's when you get a conditional use permit," McGee said.
A neighbor, Tracy McGuire of 1077 Shallowwell Road, urged caution, citing late notice, privacy and safety concerns after observing recent activity on the site. "It seems like a very commercial activity... It doesn't look like a farm stand. It looks like a home," McGuire told the board, asking the panel to defer action until buffers, fencing and parking are clarified.
Board members debated whether the BZA could rule on the validity of a county ordinance relative to state law and briefly recessed to consult counsel. When the board returned and took a formal vote, the motion to uphold the zoning administrator passed 4–1.
The board's action leaves the zoning administrator's determination intact; any proposal that exceeds farm-stand development standards or that presents issues of health, safety or welfare would be considered through the county's CUP process or, if a party seeks to challenge the ordinance itself, in circuit court, McGee said. Prater noted that the applicant had filed initial paperwork for a CUP and that the community meeting on the CUP was scheduled for the following week.
The board did not modify the ordinance language; it ruled on the administrative determination before it. The appellant may pursue the CUP process or other legal remedies if it wishes to challenge the ordinance.
The board moved to the next agenda item after the vote.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
