Opinion ID: 1059625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Permit Requirement

Text: The Dails assert that the requirement in the Forestry Ordinance that a forest management plan be approved by the zoning administrator is in effect a permit requirement and, therefore, conflicts with the provision of Code § 10.1-1126.1(B) prohibiting localities from imposing permits. We disagree with the Dails' interpretation of the statute because it is not supported by the language in the statute and it relegates the submission and review process allowed by the statute to one of mere notice filing. Code § 10.1-1126.1(B) authorizes a county zoning administrator to review proposed silvicultural activity to determine whether it complies with applicable local zoning requirements. Allowing proposed activity to be reviewed for compliance implies that the review process encompasses more than simply a review of a proposed plan of activity. The statutory review process includes a component of evaluation and decision regarding compliance. Describing this decision as an approval in the Forestry Ordinance is consistent with authorizing the zoning administrator to make such a determination regarding compliance, and does not create a permit requirement. The Dails further argue that the compliance review is limited to determining whether the forestry plan complies with other zoning ordinances relating to non-silvicultural activities, such as noise abatement ordinances. However, there is nothing in the statute that suggests such a limited interpretation, and nothing in the statute suggests that the County cannot enact ordinances affecting silvicultural activity. Therefore, we conclude that the provisions of the Forestry Ordinance requiring submission and approval of a forest management plan by the zoning administrator do not impose a permit requirement for silvicultural activities and therefore do not contravene, and are not preempted, by Code § 10.1-1126.1(B).