By Patrick Hurston
The Hardy County Commission held a public hearing last week on the County’s 2025 Draft Comprehensive Plan, giving residents what may be a final opportunity to comment on the long-term policy document that will guide future development.
The hearing was attended by about 25 people, including members of the Planning Commission and was broadcast live on Facebook. It included an overview of the plan’s contents and discussion of several key issues, with agriculture sparking the most feedback.
County Planner Melissa Scott, who has worked on the plan for three years with the Planning Commission, summarized the nine-chapter plan, which covers government, infrastructure, housing, agriculture, jobs and economy, environment, and land use. She emphasized that the plan is a policy guide, not a regulatory document. It is intended to capture community priorities and set goals for the future. It is based on community input gathered through surveys, workshops, and public meetings. More than 600 residents participated in the planning process.
Scott noted that agriculture has its own chapter in the plan, reflecting its central role in the County’s economy and culture. That chapter contains new language suggested by a resident that distinguishes between types of farming operations, specifically local, family-owned farms and larger, corporate or industrial farms. It was approved by the Planning Commission, many of whose members are farmers.
“We wouldn’t consider Hardman’s Hardware and Lowe’s the same, or Fertig Cabinets and American Woodmark. We wouldn’t consider those the same,” Scott said. In the same way, she noted, “We don’t really consider small family farms the same as a large, concentrated operation that has far more water use and [poultry] houses than any farmer – local farmer – could afford.”
That distinction has become a point of contention. Both Pilgrim’s Pride, the County’s largest employer, and the West Virginia Farm Bureau submitted letters opposing the language, urging the County Commission to strip passages that differentiate between “traditional family farms” and “industrial or corporate-owned farms,” arguing such language could be seen as laying groundwork for restrictions on large poultry operations.
The letter from Pilgrim’s goes so far as to call the definitions “divisive.” Signed by Complex Manager Allen Collins, the letter also claims the proposed definitions “serve only to establish a pathway that leads to zoning and regulation of farms…” It further states that any zoning and regulation of farms “illegally contradicts state law.”
The Farm Bureau letter uses some identical language. Signed by its president, Charlie Wilfong, the letter calls the effort to define an industrial operation “confusing, misguided and divisive. In particular, the Farm Bureau objects to attempts to create classifications of farms into what appear to us as arbitrary and novel to Hardy County.” The Farm Bureau did not respond to the Examiner’s request for comment.
Scott said the Planning Commission’s intent was not to prohibit or restrict large farms, but rather to acknowledge that different types of agricultural operations can have different impacts on land, neighbors, and water resources.
“The Planning Commission has no intention of prohibiting large farm operations,” she said. “Food production is perhaps the most important contribution Hardy County can make to a prosperous future. However, we also have to ensure that all new businesses respect the limitations of our local resources, particularly our water and our infrastructure.”
“This is not a regulatory document at all, in any way, so it is only a policy document,” she said. “It simply documents what is going on in our community and the goals that we have for our future.”
Several residents noted concerns about the demands of large-scale poultry facilities on groundwater, with Neil Gillies recalling controversies around mega farms in the Old Fields area.
Gillies also read a statement from Lost River resident John Rosato, which stated, in part, that the plan’s agricultural section “acknowledges the very real differences in scale and intensity of use. Planning for those impacts is essential to protect agriculture and safeguard our County’s future.”
At the same time, Scott acknowledged that recent state legislation has reduced Counties’ authority to regulate agricultural activities. Laws passed in 2023 and 2024 expanded the definition of agriculture while limiting local control, raising questions about how much influence county governments retain. Scott noted that Hardy County’s regulations have historically been modest, such as setback and floodplain rules, but said state law now places many of those powers in doubt.
“Technically, no, we’re not able to regulate agriculture,” she said. “But if that’s the case, I’m not sure why there’s so much effort to remove a few sentences of discussion from a policy document.”
Rosato’s statement framed the issue as one of local stewardship versus outside influence, stating “Hypothetical limitations should not distract from the purpose of this plan which is to reflect the land use priorities of Hardy County residents, not those of outside corporate and lobbying interests. They care little for this community or its environment.” Rosato serves as the chair of the Hardy County Democrats, though it appeared his letter was submitted as a private citizen and not in his official capacity as party chair.
Beyond agriculture, the draft plan also addresses several other priorities. The housing chapter highlights the county’s shortage of available homes and the role of short-term rentals, such as Airbnb and VRBO, in reducing long-term housing supply. The plan calls for updating outdated regulations to address those challenges.
Infrastructure planning is another focus, particularly the expansion of public water and sewer systems to support future growth. The environment chapter includes new data on landslide risks and floodplains, while the jobs and economy chapter reviews employment statistics showing Hardy County’s high workforce participation but low median incomes.
Public comments at the hearing touched on these broader issues as well. Annabel Park of Lost River raised concerns about how short-term rentals are managed, suggesting clearer communication to property owners and possible updates to subdivision regulations. Others highlighted the importance of protecting local water resources considering both agricultural and residential growth.
The hearing underscored Hardy County’s unique position as the state’s top agricultural producer, home to both generational family farms and major corporate operations. The challenge, as Scott put it, is finding a way forward that preserves opportunity for farmers while protecting the county’s land and water for generations to come.
“The plan is about the use of land and resources in Hardy County, and the goals are based on input from our citizens, farmers, and stakeholders,” she said.
Rosato’s statement put a finer point on it: “This plan is not a directive handed down by the Planning Commission or by our County Planner… It is the voice of our community, and it deserves to be respected as such.”
No vote was taken at the hearing. The Commission will consider the public comments and schedule a vote for a future meeting.
