Chesterfield County’s Planning and Zoning Committee on Oct. 10 opened a months‑long process to rewrite the county’s subdivision, mobile‑home park, RV park and campground rules, hearing a staff outline of proposed changes and asking staff to work with the Pee Dee Council of Governments (PD COG) on a draft to return in January. The meeting included routine votes to adopt the agenda and approve minutes; no ordinance changes were adopted.

County Director of Codes Derek Ooten summarized existing problems and proposed options the committee will consider, saying the county currently has “a temporary moratorium on subdivisions, mobile home parks, and RV parks while we reassess our ordinances.” He described recent examples of so‑called flag lots and narrow driveways that, in his view, expose safety and infrastructure risks: “This is not a coloring activity … this is a real true situation right here,” Ooten said, showing a recent site on Wire Road as an example.

The committee heard several recurring proposals and concerns. Staff recommended adding definitions and separate procedures for major and minor subdivisions, establishing a tiered review fee so reviews are cost‑based, increasing minimum lot size for new subdivisions above the current 10,000 square feet (about a quarter acre), tightening setback rules and requiring more centrally located green space and sidewalks in major subdivisions. Ooten said he and staff plan to meet regularly with PD COG and that a full draft of Chapters 155 (land usage) and 156 (zoning) is expected in January.

Why it matters: Committee members framed the rewrite as a response to development pressure — particularly in the county’s west end, where speakers said builders sometimes locate projects outside municipal limits to avoid local impact fees — and as an attempt to reduce public‑safety and fiscal impacts that high‑density, low‑lot‑size development can place on county services. Staff repeatedly emphasized the proposals would apply to subdivisions and large investor‑driven developments, not to owner‑occupied lots or inherited parcels that meet existing rules.

Key proposals and practical details discussed

- Major vs. minor subdivisions and fees: Staff proposed a two‑tier review (major/minor) so review fees reflect staff and consultant time; Ooten proposed $500 for major subdivision reviews and suggested $100 as a flat fee for very small, minimal reviews. Committee members said $500 likely underestimates staff and consultant costs and noted PD COG charges roughly $100 per hour for consultant work.

- Lot size and density: The committee discussed raising the minimum lot size for newly subdivided lots above the current 10,000 square feet; staff suggested a half‑acre minimum (0.5 acre) as one option, while some members raised higher or lower alternatives. Multiple speakers clarified that changes would apply prospectively to new subdivisions, not to existing, owner‑occupied lots or resulting inheritance unless those actions triggered the subdivision process.

- Flag lots, frontage and access: Members discussed restricting very long, narrow driveways and flag‑pole access lots to address emergency access and fire risk. Ideas included minimum road‑frontage dimensions for flag lots (examples discussed ranged from 40 feet to 66 feet) and requiring the flag portion to open to a wider width within a set distance from the road.

- Setbacks, green space and sidewalks: The committee discussed increasing side setbacks (currently 5 feet), clarifying different setbacks for primary dwellings versus accessory structures, and requiring centrally located green space and sidewalks in major subdivisions rather than allowing green space to be placed only at a site edge. A staff member noted current setbacks (5 feet side, 25 feet rear, 30 feet from right‑of‑way) and warned houses could be as close as 10 feet apart under existing minimums in certain configurations.

- Subdivision frequency limits and exceptions: Staff and members discussed limiting repeated subdivision of a parcel (the transcript referenced a current four‑times exemption before triggering subdivision review) and considered a time‑based limit (examples discussed: preventing further subdivision for 10–15 years after multiple splits). Members also emphasized exceptions for inheritance and owner‑occupant divisions, and that road frontage can affect exceptions.

- Infrastructure, consultants and impact fees: Committee members expressed concern that developers buying land outside municipalities (cited as the county’s west end and specific references to Pageland) avoid municipal impact fees (commenters cited figures of roughly $11,000–$13,000 per home) and shift long‑term service costs (fire, police, schools, roads) to the county. Staff said developers sometimes pay for higher‑end septic systems (mound or drip) to reduce lot footprints and achieve higher density.

Quotes from committee and staff

- “This is not a coloring activity … this is a real true situation right here,” Derek Ooten, Chesterfield County director of codes, said while showing a recent flag‑lot example on Wire Road.

- On timing, Ooten told the committee, “we plan on handing you a complete draft of chapters 155 and 156 … in January.”

Formal actions recorded at the meeting

- Committee adopted the meeting agenda by voice vote; the chair announced, “All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries.” (voice vote; names not recorded)

- Committee approved minutes from the June 30 meeting after a motion “by Mister Price” and a second; the chair announced the motion carried by voice vote. (mover specified as Mister Price; second and recorded votes not specified)

- Committee adjourned by voice vote at the meeting’s close. (voice vote; names not recorded)

What was not decided

No ordinance or text amendments were adopted at the Oct. 10 meeting. The discussion produced direction to staff — chiefly to refine options and to work with PD COG on a draft — but no final vote on the proposed lot‑size, fee, frontage or subdivision frequency changes.

Next steps and outlook

Committee members and staff agreed to continue the conversation in subsequent meetings and to work with PD COG to tighten the subdivision ordinance’s “loopholes.” Ooten said staff will return with a written draft of proposed changes to Chapters 155 and 156 for committee review in January. The committee did not set a specific date in the Oct. 10 discussion but indicated PD COG representatives will be invited to the next meeting to discuss draft language.

Ending: The Oct. 10 session focused on framing options and collecting committee input; substantive legal changes will require review of drafted ordinance language, further committee consideration and any requisite formal hearings before the county adopts revisions.