Subscribe to our Headlines

Supreme Court of Virginia Sides with York County Against Oyster Farmers

Oysters from the Chesapeake Bay (Photo courtesy VIMS)

Oysters from the Chesapeake Bay (Photo courtesy VIMS)

The Supreme Court of Virginia released its decisions in two cases from York County on Friday, siding with the county in its bid to stop a pair of oyster farmers from using their property in the county to facilitate their commercial oyster harvesting operations without a permit.

The two cases — both appeals from the county regarding decisions from York-Poquoson Circuit Court that sided with the farmers — were argued before the Supreme Court of Virginia in October. Each of the two cases has an oyster farmer pitted against the county, but the exact dispute is different in each case. At the heart of both cases is whether the farmers, Anthony Bavuso and Greg Garrett, need special-use permits to use their land to facilitate the oyster harvesting.

The dispute is not over whether the two are allowed to collect oysters on the water as that matter is regulated by the state, which has approved of their operations. The debate centers on a small part of their operations, when the oysters are removed from boats and transported on land owned by the men to vehicles. York County has jurisdiction over Bavuso’s waterfront property in Seaford and Garrett’s waterfront property in Dandy.

The decisions from the court leave Bavuso and Garrett needing a special-use permit if they wish to continue to use their land to facilitate the operations. In Bavuso’s case, Chief Justice Cynthia D. Kinser and Justice LeRoy F. Millette Jr. dissented from the majority’s opinion.

The only place left to take the two cases now is to the Supreme Court of the United States, should Bavuso or Garrett wish to appeal their respective decision.

York County Attorney James Barnett said Friday he was satisfied with both decisions.

“[The Supreme Court justices] seem to have understood and accepted all of our arguments, and you can’t ask for more than that,” he told WYDaily.

Garrett’s case centers on the notion that aquaculture is a form of agriculture. His land is zoned for rural residential development, where agriculture is allowed by right. The county’s definition of agriculture permits the raising of livestock for human food, though according to Barnett, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, agriculture does not include aquaculture. Barnett contends that offloading is only permissible with a special-use permit.

The Circuit Court sided with Garrett, saying he did not need a special-use permit to use the land. His attorney, Michael Ware, argued in October before the Supreme Court that an oyster is an animal and is thus livestock.

The Supreme Court sided with Barnett, saying the Circuit Court decision erred in determining that Garrett did not need a special-use permit to use his land to facilitate the oyster harvesting as a livestock/agriculture operation. According to a brief outlining the decision, the harvesting can only continue if it is an accessory use or as a home occupation, which would require a special-use permit.

“The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord,” Garrett told WYDaily on Friday. “There are a whole lot of losers in this decision and only one winner. The egos of a handful of people are the only winner. The losers are the bay, the environment, seafood lovers and people that care about food independence and being able to produce their own food, and my family. We’re the losers.

“The Supreme Court decided in a split decision that it is OK for us to have a commercial pig farm but not a commercial oyster farm. It just doesn’t make any sense,” he said.

In Bavuso’s case, the county argued he needed a special-use permit to facilitate oyster harvesting on his property as oyster aquaculture is a principal use and is thus not permitted on a property where there is also a house. With a few exceptions, a principal use for a property is its primary use. For example, if a parcel is zoned residential and has a house on it where people are living, then the house is its principal use. According to the county code, “a principal residential use shall not occupy the same lot with any other principal use.”

Barnett argued before the Supreme Court that Bavuso needs a special use permit to operate the property as a staging area for his oyster operation. Bavuso contends that his work, which he believes is aquaculture or livestock farming, is not a principal use and is thus allowed on his property by matter of right.

In a brief from the Supreme Court describing the decision, Bavuso’s property is said to clearly have a residential use for the principal use. It goes on to say that because aquaculture nor crop/livestock farming is listed in the county’s list of accessory uses, it is not an accessory use that is allowed. It is allowed by special-use permit, however, as it is a home occupation, according to the court.

Bavuso began harvesting operations in 2009, believing oyster aquaculture to be allowed by right. He remained unaware of the need for a special-use permit until he filed paperwork to grandfather his use of the land. At that point, York County Zoning Administrator Mark Carter said he would need a special-use permit due to the principal use of the property as a residence and not a business.

Carter’s decision was then appealed to the York County Board of Zoning Appeals, which agreed with Carter. In December 2011, Bavuso applied for the special-use permit, which was recommended for approval by the York County Planning Commission, a group tasked with reviewing special-use permit proposals and determining if they align with the land’s zoning designation. Their recommendation is then forwarded to the York County Board of Supervisors, who have the authority to accept or reject a special-use permit proposal. The supervisors voted in April 2012 to deny Bavuso the special-use permit, leaving the court system as the final place for the matter to go.

Like Bavuso, Garrett also initially applied for a special-use permit. His application went before the Planning Commission in November 2010, however they recommended the supervisors deny the application after a group of Garrett’s neighbors expressed concerns about how the operation would affect their quality of life. In January 2011, state Sen. Tommy Norment (R-1st District), who wrote a letter of support for Garrett’s 2010 bid for a special-use permit, introduced legislation to the Virginia Senate that would prevent localities from having any input into whether a property owner can engage in aquaculture on waterfront property. That legislation cleared the Senate before it died in committee in the House of Delegates.

He submitted a second special-use permit application for consideration in fall 2011 after tweaking the plans, however he pulled the application because of a scheduling conflict, according to county staff. In January 2012, the Board of Zoning Appeals decided Garrett was violating county code by operating an at-home aquaculture business without a special-use permit. By February, Garrett had filed the case in York-Poquoson Circuit Court.

Bavuso has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Related Coverage:

Share This Post

RSS
Posted by on January 3, 2014. Filed under Local News,York Govt Notebook. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

9 Responses to Supreme Court of Virginia Sides with York County Against Oyster Farmers

  1. Trevor Reply

    July 31, 2014 at 3:11 am

    There would be no problem if these guys would simply dock their oyster boats at a commercial wharf and offload their catch there like all of the watermen in Hampton Roads but they insist on trying to run oyster packing houses out of their back yards in upscale communities in the suburbs in violation of longstanding county ordinances.

  2. Lucille Reply

    January 23, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    Having flown over York County many times, I never cease to be amazed at the number of golf courses, in-ground pools, and clusters of gated communities. It is quaint that VA’s supreme court seemingly wishes to grant peace and quiet to neighbors when, in reality, utilizing every foot of usable land appears to be the norm in the 21st century. Garrett and Bavuso will win out eventually because profit trumps tranquility. Looking at Garrett’s extensive land holdings, it looks like the BoS might be jealous of his earnings. York County is no longer sleepy and rural. Big-time earners like Garrett could give a whit about quaint and quiet.

  3. york citizen Reply

    January 5, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    An overwhelming majority of the citizens in York County continue to re-elect a BoS they are satisfied with. Why? Obviously the BoS continues to work in the best interests of the entire County and not just a select few. They have done what has been expected of them and that is why they will get re-elected again. They have protected our rights, and for that we are thankful. All property owners’ rights need protection, County ordinances provides that protection, and the Va Supreme Court has just validated that such is the case. We the people of York County, THANK YOU BoS, Mr. Carter and Mr. Barnett.

  4. Rivergirl Reply

    January 5, 2014 at 10:05 am

    This is an embarrassment to the citizens of York County! For far to long we voters have been allowing our BOS to make decisions for “the greater good” without regard to what might be good for the environment, or personal freedoms. This fight has been a personal one on behalf of the supervisors, and I am disgusted! I say “bring on the pigs! Then grab the chickens and cows!” This isn’t over yet. Oh no. I can’t wait till election day!

    • not enough Reply

      January 5, 2014 at 5:06 pm

      Election day means nothing without qualified candidates to run. In the last election there was only one challenger who had the knowledge and experience to be an excellent Supervisor, yet he still lost to the incumbent. It was close, but a loss is a loss. The other challengers were running with an agenda, not unlike what you are purporting here. That is the wrong reason to run and will end in defeat every time. Voters know the difference between a puppet and someone who can think for themselves and not be controlled by special interests.

      Every four years we hear the rhetoric about how things have to change. Still no one with any real credentials steps up to the plate. This tells us that either county citizens are content with the current administration or no one wants to commit to four years of boring meetings and citizens complaining because their ditch doesn’t drain.

  5. BornNYorkCounty Reply

    January 4, 2014 at 10:00 pm

    Ridiculous is indeed the word to describe how York County has pursued these two York County citizens over three years now to shut down home based businesses. A total waste of county manpower and funds. This is not about violation of county codes,but more about control.
    As you have seen over the past few years there has been an steady attempt by our BOS, our legal council and the county zoning Czar, Mr. Carter to increase significantly the control over county citizens in many aspects of our lives. Does everyone forget the introduction of new county codes a couple of years ago that prohibited all activities on personal property that were not specifically approved by county code? The citizens of York County should have revolted over this attack on our personal freedoms, yet this sleepy little town seems surprisingly resigned to having more county government control over everything we do. It’s time the citizens of York County wake up and vote to place representatives on the BOS that truly represent the people of York County. It’s time voters sent the current BOS packing along with Mr. Barnett and Mr. Carter. Take our county back now!

  6. Thomas Nelson, Jr. Reply

    January 4, 2014 at 8:42 am

    Accessory use of ones’ property has been endorsed by York County government time and time again. We use our property as a Bed & Breakfast as well as my home. There are numerous private homes which are allowed special use permits for offices. The Board of Supervisors(BoS) should grant the Garrett and Bavuso special use permits. Many have pointed out underlying personal differences between these particular oyster farmers and some members of the BoS. The oysters in my opinion isn’t where the smell comes from!
    —–The answer may lie in the next Bos elections. Their supervisors term ends on December 31, 2015. Issues continue to surface with these positions. Some citizens have suggested the need for seven (7) supervisors and not just five (5). Many of the BoS Boards have seven members but the supervisors refuse to expand. Many citizens have suggested term limits for the BoS.
    —–Some positive changes in county government was the addition of new staff members (Deputy Administrator and Chief Tax Assessor). You can make a difference, so apply for an appointment to York County boards, committees and commissions and get involved. You can make a difference by voluntering and voting.

  7. Justice Reply

    January 4, 2014 at 8:11 am

    One man taketh away his neighbors’ property value and Peace; the Supreme Court giveth it back!

  8. PAalum Reply

    January 4, 2014 at 6:03 am

    Ridiculous. In Newtown, PA, a swim club owner was denied the right to sell his club to a developer for townhomes. The owner had been diagnosed with cancer and wanted to retire. The town refused because they thought more townhomes would lower other property values. The land was zoned so that the owner could develop a trailer park without further permission, so that is what he prepared to do. The township supervisors quickly changed their tune. These owners, if denied this fundamental right, should proceed with pig farms and manure fertilized farming. The idiots standing in their way should be forced to live just downwind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Website Development: Web Development Technology Partners, inc.