The Patrick County Board of Supervisors will hold a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission on Sept. 28 to consider changes to the county’s subdivision ordinance, including increasing the maximum lot size from two acres to five acres.
The hearing will begin at 6 p.m. in the third-floor courtroom of the Patrick County Administration Building.
The board approved scheduling the hearing by a 3-1 vote at its Aug. 31 special called meeting. Chairman Andrew Overby of the Dan River District, Jonathan Wood of the Peters Creek District and Richard Cox of the Smith River District voted in favor.
Clayton Kendrick of the Mayo River District abstained, saying he was not prepared and did not have all the information he needed. Steve Marshall of the Blue Ridge District was absent from the meeting due to health reasons.
Clayton Kendrick of the Mayo River District abstained, saying he was not prepared and did not have all the information he needed. Steve Marshall of the Blue Ridge District was absent from the meeting due to health reasons.
Overby said the proposed change was prompted by concerns that some large parcels were being divided in ways that appeared intended to avoid the county’s subdivision ordinance.
“Earlier this year, it was brought to the attention of staff and several supervisors that a few large parcels of land were being subdivided with the apparent attempt to evade the subdivision ordinance,” he said. “After further review, we have determined that multiple parcels have been divided and subsequently sold or marketed as build-ready lots that may not meet requirements for the installation of wells and septic systems due to their size, location, and/or design.”
Overby said some of the lots are larger than the size currently regulated by the subdivision ordinance but appear to have been created in an effort to fall outside the ordinance’s requirements.
He said increasing the maximum lot size would provide better oversight of subdivided lots and protection for potential buyers.
As the board’s liaison to the Planning Commission, Overby said he asked the commission in April to review the existing ordinance, which was adopted in 2006, as well as another version that the commission previously recommended for approval in 2014.
He also asked the commission to identify other updates that may be needed.
“As of today, the Planning Commission has been unable to provide the board with an updated ordinance due to the very laborious and time-constrained task of updating our comprehensive plan,” Overby said. “In the interim, I’m asking the board to consider modifying our existing subdivision ordinance to increase the maximum lot size, requiring Planning Commission review, from two acres to five acres, and any other immediate changes the board deems necessary to ensure the subdivision of property within Patrick County is regulated in the best interest of its citizens, future potential citizens, and the county.”
When the Planning Commission and Building Inspections have no say-so over a development, Wood said the worst-case scenario is emergency services not being able to access properties because the roads weren’t built up to standard in order to save money.
“I have two young stepchildren that are around the age of looking for houses or buying property to build on. I’m not doing this to make it harder on them at all, I promise you,” Wood said. “I’m doing it specifically because I don’t want No Business Mountain, I don’t want Bull Mountain to look like Gatlinburg or Pigeon Forge.”
Noting that some people say the county has a housing issue, Wood said much of that issue won’t be solved by this.
“This is houses that are second houses, third houses. These are mountain homes for people in Greensboro or New Jersey to come to maybe once a year to put a camper on, to not even put a permanent structure on,” he said. “So, these are things I am trying to prevent so we don’t end up looking like the Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg areas.”
Cox said he supports Wood’s position but is concerned about the issue from a health and environmental perspective.
“What I’m afraid of is if we have small lots and we have no public sewer and no public water in the rural area, it’s going to require wells and septic services,” Cox said. “In order for a septic service the land’s got to perk. So in the interest of the potential buyer, if he buys a lot of land that’s two acres and he can’t find water on it and he can’t perk the land for the septic service, what’s he going to do? He’s stuck.”
Cox said having five acres provides a greater potential for supporting a septic system and obtaining suitable drinking water.
Kendrick said he was unsure about the proposed change.
“If there was someone that you could regulate to where the subdivisions” are, if it was a subdivision that should be five acres “I can see it,” Kendrick said. “But if it’s an individual, if I wanted to let one of my kids have two acres, and two acres in the right place, you’re going to get water and a septic tank on it. It kind of makes it hard to set an opinion on it.”
Overby said the county already has an exemption allowing property owners to subdivide specifically for family members.
Kendrick said he would prefer to give the Planning Commission more time to make recommendations.
“I wish if we had time, that the Planning Commission could come up with some recommendations to us,” he said.
Overby said the proposed change is intended as an interim measure while the Planning Commission continues its review of the 21-year-old ordinance.
“The intent is to allow the Planning Commission to continue working on the ordinance,” Overby said. “It is a 21-year-old ordinance, and it needs to be updated, but this is going to be a preliminary measure to put a halt to the subdivision that’s been going on.”
Overby also said changing the acreage requirement would not eliminate the Planning Commission’s ability to grant variances, including for properties outside the family-member exemption.
“So nothing is going to be concrete no matter what we do, but the Planning Commission still has the ability to grant a variance as long as it’s in the best interest of the county and the personal property,” Overby said.
Cox said he believes the proposed change is intended to prevent accelerated development rather than harm smaller landowners.
“That creates a health problem for the people that live in there who depend on water and sewer from the ground,” Cox said. “I think if I read this correctly there is an exemption for single-family structures that is not applicable by the use of this ordinance, so the intent of it is simply for development.”
Overby said the goal is to provide greater oversight.
“That’s pretty much all it is,” he said.
