Planners table ordinance changes

Hurry up and wait was the theme of last Thursday’s Orange County Planning Commission public hearing on a proposed change to the subdivision ordinance. The board of supervisors set the draft language for public hearing during its Jan. 24 meeting, after having not publicly discussed it since the fall, only to have the commissioners throw on the brakes following the public hearing.

“We’re in too big of a hurry now,” said District 3 Commissioner Donald Brooks. “Why don’t we slow ourselves down and work to create an ordinance that could be the model for the state of Virginia?”

The county adopted the current land division portion of the subdivision ordinance in 2008, as a way of controlling how growth in the agricultural regions. That provision limits the division of parcels to once every four years. The proposed amendment to that ordinance, which was the subject of Thursday’s public hearing, would scrap the timed phasing element and limit parcels to five total divisions.

Having heard many competing ideas on division rights during the public hearing, Brooks quickly moved that the commission table the matter until after it hears a second division plan proposed by the board of supervisors at its last regular meeting. At that meeting the board released a plan that, instead of limiting agriculturally zoned parcels to five divisions, parcels could be subdivided once per year.

“I want to do it all in one package,” said District 2 Commissioner Walter Smith.

Nearly 20 speakers commented on the purpose and necessity of division rights and on the sanctity of rural land, but not one person spoke out in support of the proposed five division rights-per-parcel plan, with some still supporting the current ordinance. 

“The long-term [planning] goal of Orange County is to stay rural,” said former District 3 Commissioner Steve Satterfield. “The county has reserved growth for the towns and Route 3…The proposed ordinance would reward those that have land division interests more than those that don’t. The current subdivision ordinance is the only action I’m aware of that actively keeps rural areas rural.”

Somerset resident and former District 1 Commissioner Bill Speiden used Loudoun County as an example of what can happen if a county doesn’t employ an effective plan for dividing land.

“In one year Loudoun County had to build 22 new schools due to the population increase,” he said. “Along with that explosion came increase tax loads on the county elderly and farmers, causing many to move elsewhere…As we are all planners one way or another—I would caution you that planners like to solve problems. Often a planner will solve a problem you did not know you had, in a way you do not understand.”

Dan Holmes of the Piedmont Environmental Council and former District 4 Supervisor Teri Pace commented on the effect the potential loss of the timed phasing provision would have on property values in the county.

“Home values would suffer if, overnight, up to 2,500 new lots were dumped on the county,” said Holmes.

The timed phasing element of the current subdivision ordinance, though, could be the main impetus behind the county’s recent work to find an alternative. Orange County’s 2008 adoption of the one-division-right-every-four-years plan led to lawsuits from several residents, but only the suit of Diane and Jimmy Strong of Barboursville remains on the books.

“What you did in 2008 was not what the county wanted,” said Diane Strong. “You knew it wasn’t right and you kept postponing and postponing [our lawsuit]. Now you have a problem.”

Her husband told the commissioners that it was misleading to buy into a county with a certain division plan, only to have that plan changed later.

“I didn’t like the old [subdivision plan], not the one you have now and not the one brought up tonight,” said Jimmy Strong. “Why am I the bad guy because I want to divide my land based on the division rights that were in place when I bought it.”

One speaker, Steve Barbee, was almost apologetic to the commission in his comments, telling the commissioners that he did not envy their decision on the matter, but cautioned against setting division restrictions that would impact a parcel forever.

“Forever is a long time,” said Barbee. “It’s not my right to tell someone what to do with their land in the future. I don’t know what Orange County will be like 50 or 100 years from now.”

Locust Grove businessman Kenny Dotson spent the first 10 seconds of his allotted time lamenting that he only had three minutes to speak. In those three minutes Dotson gave the commission plenty to think about, but was unique among the speakers in his suggesting the five division rights would affect the future value of a parcel.

“Land is only worth what you can do with it,” said Dotson. “This plan devalues land. When it’s time for a reassessment, is the assessor going to pull all the deeds in the county and see how many division rights are left? Lot sizes are limited to two-acres, but if a 10-acre parcel is part of a parent track that’s been divided five times, it’s the same as a two-acre lot.”

The planning commission will hold a public hearing for the one-in-one division plan March 15 and then suggested it would discuss the merits of the competing plans.