Due to several inclusions of the word "shall" in recent N.C. statutory updates concerning Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VADs), counties should consider amending or adopting a new VAD ordinance. To address these mandatory requirements, I have drafted a new model ordinance concerning several key areas: 1) the requirement of public disclosure of VADs, 2) a delegation of authority to the farmland preservation board to directly enroll parcels without parcel-by-parcel approval by the board of commissioners, and 3) an expanded public input session requirement in advance of public condemnation (eminent domain) or rezoning of land enrolled in the VAD program. The template is annotated with explanatory footnotes, with key change areas highlighted in yellow.

The model ordinance is a draft ready for review by county Farmland Preservation Boards and (importantly) county attorneys reviewing county ordinance and amendment proposals. The model ordinance is annotated with explanatory notes. Given that many existing ordinances were drafted with permissive "may" language in these key areas, it is likely that a new ordinance should be presented and adopted. Questions and clarifications are welcome to rabrana2@ncsu.edu.

The template includes language mandated by the 2018 Farm Act (Session Law 2018-113). This change requires counties to post sufficient notice in land records systems (often Geographic Information Systems [GIS] by popular practice. This change is discussed in this linked article.

1. The Farm Act of 2021 (S.L. 2021-78)

This was an update that clarified the use for a qualifying parcel to the objective standard of the "bona fide farm" zoning exemption, expanded the authority of local boards by allowing the county board of commissioners delegate direct enrollment powers to the farmland preservation board. This change overcame a theoretical requirement (tested in at least one county) that parcels were not enrolled as VADs unless done so by the board of commissioners. Also, the Farm Act of 2021 made mandatory a requirement that some notice be placed in public records sufficient to identify the proximity of a VAD to other parcels. Lastly, to align the agricultural land use requirement with an objective standard, the Act made clear that qualification as a "bona fide farm" for zoning exemption purposes was the standard for considering whether the parcel is in agricultural use.

• Clarification of Purpose: The statute was amended to explicitly state that the purpose of VADs is to "decrease the likelihood of legal disputes, such as nuisance actions."

• Delegated Authority: It allowed Boards of County Commissioners to delegate the power to establish and modify VADs directly to the Agricultural Advisory Board. This streamlines the enrollment process for farmers.
• Bona Fide Farm Use Alignment. The qualified use requirement reference to "agricultural purposes" - a definition increasingly challenged by expansions in agritourism and other rural land uses - was changed to: "Is used for bona fide farm purposes, as that term is defined in G.S. 106-743.4(a) and G.S. 160D-903."

• Expansion of Notice Requirements: It solidified the requirement that all counties include notice in their land records for any tract within one-half mile of a poultry, swine, or dairy farm, or 600 feet of any other qualifying farm. This alerts potential home buyers that they are moving near an active farm.

2. 2025 Update (S.L. 2025-12): Public Hearing Requirements

Legislation finalized early in the 2025 legislative session, has added new mandatory requirements regarding eminent domain and land use.

• Re-Zoning: This change extends the protections of a VAD to include rezoning actions. Previously, the statute primarily focused on condemnation (eminent domain) with a very tight public hearing window requirement; now, local governments must follow expanded notice and public hearing before rezoning land within a VAD.

• Public Hearing Window: The time for an Agricultural Advisory Board to hold a public hearing on a proposed condemnation or rezoning was increased from 30 days to 45 days. Note that the template attempts to provide a process on timing to comply with the public hearing and report requirement.

The mandatory feature is the 45 day limit, inside of which must include the notice of the hearing, the hearing itself, the preparation of the report on the hearing and the submission of the report to the condemning entity (agency). Note also that the condemning agency may not initiate condemnation (eminent domain) nor may the planning board initiate a rezoning action until 120 days following receipt of the agricultural advisory board’s report.

• Action Moratorium: Government agencies are now prohibited from initiating condemnation or rezoning for 120 days after the Advisory Board submits its findings (up from a much shorter previous window). This is intended to allow more time for landowners and local stakeholders to advocate for alternatives to taking or changing allowable uses that may place development pressure on the land. The updated § 106-740 remains silent on the manner (e.g. timing and location), public notification, and contents of the published notice of public hearing, or any contact with affected landowners (including military bases). While the §106-740 requirement is a “public hearing” related to a “rezoning,” is not the rezoning action itself, which has specific notice requirements of N.C.G.S. §160D-601 and NCGS §160D-602, depending on the number of landowners affected by the rezoning. The timing of notices (mailed and/or published as the case may be) appears to fit within the 45 day limit of §106-740. Thus, the county agricultural advisory board may elect to follow the 601 and 602 notice procedures.