Planning commission finalizes VDOT entrance language, asks staff to send subdivision amendment to board

The Page County Planning Commission reviewed a draft amendment to the subdivision and land‑division ordinance that would require VDOT entrance review and extend the county’s existing 50‑foot right‑of‑way requirement to apply to 25‑acre divisions. After extended discussion the commission reached consensus to send the amendment to the Board of Supervisors and to provide a summary letter explaining the planning commission’s rationale and the optional functional‑right‑of‑way concept for the board’s consideration.

Staff said most of the redlined language in the draft was tied to requiring VDOT approval for entrances and to clarifying when that approval must be obtained. The commission read current code language aloud and said the intent of the amendment is to restore how the county historically interpreted the requirement: that VDOT approval be obtained prior to establishment of the entrance rather than only before construction. Josh Hahn, the zoning administrator, read the existing code passage aloud and noted the amendment seeks clearer language.

Commissioners debated whether to preserve a uniform 50‑foot reserved right‑of‑way or to allow a narrower, engineered “functional right‑of‑way” on smaller divisions. Tyler Austin of Racy Engineering explained VDOT subdivision street design guidance and said the minimum functional entrance for a single lane is about 16 feet while a two‑lane arrangement typically requires roughly 46 feet of width. “The only case in my opinion is when it was 1 or 2 lots. But what always happens is that 1 or 2 lots turns into 6 or 7 in 10 years,” Austin said, explaining why many commissioners favored reserving 50 feet now to avoid future constraints on road construction and VDOT acceptance.

Commissioners also discussed implementation and enforcement practicalities. Several members said a functional‑right‑of‑way approach would require additional standards, thresholds, and definitions (for example, how many remaining development unit rights a parcel carries) before VDOT or the county could reliably approve narrower rights‑of‑way. Commissioners asked staff to draft a concise letter to the Board of Supervisors explaining the planning commission’s position and to attach an optional definition and standards for a functional right‑of‑way if the board wants to consider that approach later.

Outcome and next steps: the commission asked staff to send the draft amendment to the Board of Supervisors as written, accompanied by a planning‑commission letter summarizing discussion and offering an optional functional right‑of‑way definition for the board’s consideration. Staff said it will prepare the letter and, where requested, include the VDOT origin letter that prompted the amendment. Several commissioners said they would inform their board liaisons before the board meeting. No public hearing was required at the planning‑commission level because the draft text was not changed at the work session.