To the Editor:
In response to Pilgrim’s letter about the Hardy County Comprehensive Plan.
The devil is in the details, so here are just a few:
- Let me start by stating that I am a fan of Hardy County’s approach to developing and implementing a comprehensive plan that respects the rights and needs of all members of our community. Hardy County has had zoning and land use regulations in place for more than fifty years. In all those years they have never impeded agriculture; in fact, they broadly protect agriculture. This is evidenced by the enormous growth in agricultural production and longstanding preservation of farmland – a top priority of Hardy County citizens according to input collected for the last several comprehensive plans. The planning commissions charged with developing these plans and administering regulations have always been made up primarily of local farmers looking out for the local agricultural interests.
- It is essential that our planning commission consider and plan for the impacts of new development regardless of the industry. It should be obvious to everyone that large, industrial scale developments use more land, more water, and have greater impact on infrastructure and neighboring landowners than small locally owned businesses – no matter what they produce. The purpose of planning is to determine impacts of development and address those impacts proactively, prior to construction, through a fair permitting process. This helps ensure that the developer accepts responsibility for impacts and pays for mitigation and not the taxpayers. Step one of this process is identifying different levels of impact to the community.
- The agricultural classifications included in the proposed comprehensive plan identifies different levels of impact by clarifying the difference between local farms diversified through poultry grower contracts and larger, concentrated growing operations owned by the processing industry itself or by investor groups. As stated in the above bullet, industrial scale developments obviously use more land, more water, and have greater impact on infrastructure and neighboring landowners than small locally owned businesses. I’ve seen zero evidence that the County does or might seek to prohibit expansion or limit numbers of these, but simply seeks to ensure new large developments are located where an appropriate level of services can be provided to the development with minimal impact on the water supply and transportation services of existing residents and farmers. To do otherwise would be malpractice.
- Hardy County land use regulations support the right to farm and offer many exemptions to small local farmers that, frankly, are not appropriate for industrial scale operations that are not on farms, that are much larger than a local farmer could ever afford, and that use exponentially more water. Without specifying differences all farms get those exemptions.
- Now, regarding the agricultural bills mentioned in the Pilgrim’s letter, those bills were sold as pro-agriculture, but were really anti-local government. They attempt to eliminate local voices and local permitting from local development decisions such as those described above. These bills declared that agriculture of all types and sizes should be treated the same throughout the state and that local governments should have no power to ask anything of them, no matter the size. These bills even prohibit local input into fundamental issues like determining what is considered agriculture, whether there is enough local water to supply the needs of the new development without impact to existing users, requiring setbacks on industrial sized buildings, and ensuring that local roads can handle the increased traffic. Who benefits from eliminating local control or, at least, input for that? Not small local farms and the local farmers on the planning commission know that. Is trying to maintain this basic level of local control really radical extremism?
- The agricultural classifications proposed in the comprehensive plan hold no regulatory or legal power like the legislation discussed. However, it seems they may be a threat to the claim that small locally owned farms are the same as large industrial scale agricultural operations. Is that perhaps the REAL reason for the opposition?
Regards,
Neil Gillies, Baker, WV
