By Patrick Hurston
The Hardy County Commission voted Thurs., Oct. 30, to send the County’s 2025 Draft Comprehensive Plan back to the Planning Commission for revisions, following debate over the document’s effort to contextualize and distinguish between different types of farming operations, specifically traditional farms, local farms, family farms, and industrial, or corporate farm operations. At a public hearing in Sept., the language received widespread support from residents but was strongly opposed by both Pilgrim’s and the West Virginia Farm Bureau.
The decision came after a nearly hour-long discussion at the standing room only meeting and following the counsel of attorney Richard Gay.
Gay, who reviewed the full draft at the Commission’s request, told commissioners that while the plan was well-written and “covers a lot of territory,” the County “doesn’t have the legal authority under [these] recently amended statutes, and a whole bunch of other statutes, to change the definition of farming operations.” He noted that the state legislature had expanded and standardized the definition of agriculture under state law in recent years.
“In my opinion, the County Commission cannot adopt new definitions that differ from those in state code,” Gay said. “Otherwise, the plan complies with the statute and provides a strong update.”
Gay was referring to two recent pieces of legislation that amended state code. In 2019 the legislature passed a bill that amended Section 19-19-2 of the state code, providing definitions of “agriculture,” “agricultural land,” and “agricultural operation.” Subsequently, in 2024 another piece of legislation amended Section 7-1-3 of state code that prohibits “county commissions from adopting any ordinance, rule, license requirement, or other authorization that exceeds state law, rule, or regulation regarding agricultural operations…”.
Several residents addressed the Commission. Neil Gillies, Linda Peters, and Pilgrim’s Complex Manager Allen Collins spoke specifically to the farm definitions.
“I don’t see anything about the definitions in the plan as conflicting with that [state code].
It simply identifies that there are different levels, degrees of agriculture,” said Gillies.
“And it is clearly true that different size agricultural operations have different impacts on the county, and that should be at least a sense in the plan that it makes note of.”
Peters noted that the language in question was suggested by a local farmer and that more than half of the Planning Commission members are farmers, as well as two of the County Commissioners.
“I’m not a farmer, but even I know the difference between a family farm and a commercial operation and the impact that it has on our environment,” she said.
Peters also took advantage of the opportunity to draw attention to a utility scale solar project proposed for Old Fields and a 765-kilovolt transmission line that will run through Hardy County.
Prior to the vote Commissioner David “Jay” Fansler ensured that Collins also had a chance to speak.
Collins thanked the Planning Commission for its work and shared Pilgrim’s concern with the definitions, saying that it had the potential to deter investors from coming into Hardy County.
Collins said investors will “scan the press, they’ll scan any kind of state legislation and everything like that. And if those words constantly pop up, or that definition, if the definition stayed in there…an investment group will not invest in an area where they see a lot of that activity,” he said.
Under state planning law, when a County Commission amends or rejects a proposed comprehensive plan, the document must be returned to the Planning Commission with a written explanation of the changes. The Planning Commission then has 45 days to respond. “You guys will update the document, and then it comes back to the commission for a final vote,” Gay said during the meeting, citing Chapter 8A of the West Virginia Code.
County Planner Melissa Scott, who led the three-year update effort, summarized the proposed revisions before the vote. She said most changes were non-substantive, including updated payroll data for local employers and minor clarifications in the housing and economy chapters. The only section that had generated controversy, she noted, was the agricultural definitions.
During discussion, Commissioner Dave Workman moved to return the plan to the Planning Commission “with the suggested language revisions highlighted in the amendments” and the removal of the disputed farm definitions. The motion passed 2–0, with Commissioner Fansler seconding. Commission President Steven Schetrom was present via video but had expressed his agreement with the vote prior to leaving the meeting.
The Planning Commission will now have until mid-December to review and respond to the County Commission’s amendments. Once resubmitted, the County Commission may either adopt the plan as amended or request further changes before final approval.
The 2025 Comprehensive Plan, which replaces a version last updated in 2016, is intended as a long-term guide for development and community priorities over the next decade.
