The Patrick County Board of Supervisors will hold a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission on Monday, Oct. 19, to consider proposed changes to the county’s subdivision ordinance, including expanded oversight of land divisions involving parcels smaller than five acres.
The meeting begins at 6 p.m. in the third-floor meeting room of the Patrick County Veteran’s Memorial Building on Rucker Street in Stuart.
The proposed ordinance, last updated on Sept. 9, would require certain land divisions involving parcels of less than five acres to undergo review and approval before the property could be transferred or sold.
The draft states that single-lot conveyances of less than five acres must be submitted to a subdivision agent for review and approval before being recorded. It also requires an approved and recorded final plat for certain conveyances that would leave a remaining parcel of less than five acres.
Supervisors have expressed differing opinions about the proposal, which supporters say is intended to protect buyers from purchasing property that cannot accommodate a home.
Board Chairman Andrew Overby, of the Dan River District, said the proposed changes arose after county staff, residents and another supervisor raised concerns about property being subdivided and marketed as suitable for construction.
“There’s been some problems where those supposed buildable lots have not been able to perk, and the people who had purchased those properties didn’t know that until they had purchased the properties,” Overby said.
After looking at the ordinance, Overby said he and at least one other supervisor thought the board needed to consider modifying it and added that the proposal would restore the five-acre threshold that was reduced to two acres in 2005.
“To make it more restrictive and go back to the five-acre limitation as opposed to the two-acre that it currently is right now. For all practical purposes, that’s really the only change that is proposed right now in the ordinance, other than some minor administrative changes,” he said.
The proposal also would expand the definition of immediate family members eligible for certain family subdivision provisions to include stepparents, stepchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews.
“We tried to make that a little less restrictive as far as defining what a family member is to allow those family member subdivisions to be able to be administratively approved, without them having to go through the entire process of going to the Planning Commission,” Overby said.
Overby said the changes are intended to provide additional oversight and help prevent buyers from being misled about whether property is suitable for development.
“We’re trying to fix this, or at least help this, to the extent of creating a little bit larger oversight mechanism than what we’ve previously had. Actually, we used to have it at five acres, and it was changed in 2005 to two acres,” he said.
After reviewing minutes from the 2005 meeting, Overby said he believes the earlier change was shortsighted “because the justification that was used did not really match what the change actually ended up being.”
Vice Chairman Clayton Kendrick, of the Mayo River District, said he is leaning toward supporting the ordinance, although he still has questions about some provisions.
“There’s a couple of things that we still need to iron out that I had some questions about, and there’s a couple of things that I don’t understand the way they’re written, but I think I’ll probably go for it,” Kendrick said.
He believes the board could vote on the ordinance following the public hearing, depending on the comments received.
“There’s some stuff going on that sort of needs to be taken care of before it gets out of hand, so I feel like we’ll probably vote on it that night, but I guess it depends mostly on what the public comes up with and what they want. If they come up with some good arguments, we may have to work on it some more,” he said.
Kendrick said he initially was concerned about how the changes might affect property owners who want to give smaller parcels to family members, but those concerns have largely been resolved, and there’s nothing in the current draft ordinance that worries him.
“I found out since then that there would still be possibilities that you could do it for a kid of yours or something where you want to let them have a two-acre tract as long as it was approved through the Planning Commission. So that kind of settled that for me,” he said.
Interim Smith River District Supervisor Richard Cox, however, said he does not support the proposal in its current form.
Cox said the draft differs from the version originally discussed by the Planning Commission.
“It’s a new version. It was drafted in part by Mr. Overby and some other participants, and it’s just that – a draft,” he said.
Although Cox agrees with the goal of protecting property buyers, he believes the proposal goes beyond what was originally intended.
“It’s quite a complicated picture when you try to compare individual property rights and what they can do with their property versus the developer that wants to spend the money and come in and make a quick profit and leave the buyer holding the bag. That’s the sole intent of the ordinance to prevent something like that,” Cox said.
He said he would support some provisions discussed earlier in the process, but not the ordinance as currently written.
“I would be in favor of some of the provisions that had been discussed earlier that would apply, but I think we’ve overextended on this draft, which goes beyond the intent of what” it was “requested for. So, as it exists now, I would not be in favor of this ordinance as presented,” Cox said.
Among his concerns is a provision establishing the role of a subdivision agent, which Cox believes would require the county to hire another employee.
“I don’t see the need for a new employee. There are also some definitions in there that contradict some of the provisions of the article that they’ve written in. There’s some things in there I don’t believe we need to add in there, and it has a lot of discussion to come out concerning my issues that I think they also concern other members of the board,” he said.
Cox also cited the Planning Commission’s limited membership as a complication. The commission currently has two members, both appointed on Sept. 14.
“According to the Code, our local government has to have a Planning Commission even though it serves totally as an advisory commission. We are however receiving applications for volunteers to serve on that commission, and it may be just a short time in the future that we have a fully operating Planning Commission to aid us,” he said.
Under the circumstances, Cox said responsibilities that would ordinarily fall to the Planning Commission are being handled by the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisors Jonathan Wood, of the Peters Creek District, and Steve Marshall, of the Blue Ridge District, did not return calls for comment.
The proposed ordinance is available on the county’s website at co.patrick.va.us.
