Page County planners review sliding-scale alternative to 25‑acre subdivision rule

Page County Planning Commission members spent the bulk of the work session briefing each other on the subdivision subcommittee’s review of the county’s 25‑acre division rule and a proposed sliding‑scale approach from the Berkeley Group.

Subcommittee lead Jared Berner told the commission the group, formed in August 2023, met roughly 15 times through August 2024 and examined neighboring ordinances, VDOT requirements and a Berkeley Group draft that would replace the current 25‑acre division and non‑family division rules with a tiered sliding scale of allowed divisions. Commissioner Susan Kyle and citizen stakeholder Tyler Austin served on the subcommittee alongside Berner, and Josh Hahn presented the committee’s materials at the meeting.

The subcommittee summarized factual findings and tradeoffs rather than endorsing a final prescription. Members showed maps and a parcel‑level dataset of divisions since 2020 and walked the commission through a 100‑acre hypothetical to illustrate long‑term outcomes under different rules. Under the current 25‑acre rule, the subcommittee’s example showed an initial set of 25‑acre divisions could be followed by non‑family divisions over time and potentially yield as many as 48 lots in about 15 years in an unrestricted scenario; the Berkeley Group sliding‑scale example showed fewer lots under a scenario intended to maximize agricultural preservation (the consultant’s example produced nine lots on the same parcel in its “maximum preservation” layout). The subcommittee said those model numbers are illustrative and that Page County would need to set its own acreage tiers and unit counts.

Members discussed how the proposal would handle clustering of lots and whether clustering should be limited to non‑prime soils. The subcommittee flagged two practical issues for further work: (1) how to communicate parcel‑level “development unit rights” to the public and staff (Berner noted Clark County’s online tool as a model), and (2) how VDOT’s road‑and‑driveway standards interact with subdivision access and minimum right‑of‑way widths. The committee’s materials recommend requiring VDOT approval for rights‑of‑way; staff and commissioners discussed minimum dimensions mentioned in the packet (40 feet was named as a likely minimum in some circumstances) and noted that VDOT could require larger widths in other situations.

The commission recorded that the Board of Supervisors returned a separate “band‑aid” amendment to the subdivision ordinance to the commission and asked for a joint meeting; the subcommittee said that joint meeting has not yet been scheduled. Several commissioners urged arranging a joint meeting or inviting Board Chairman Weekley to a commission session so the commission can get clearer direction before finalizing any replacement approach.

The subcommittee asked for commissioner feedback on whether to keep the 25‑acre rule, move to a 40‑acre threshold, adopt the Berkeley Group sliding scale with modified tiers, or use some other approach. Hahn told commissioners he will work with the subcommittee chair to prepare additional analyses and examples responsive to questions raised, and the group agreed to resume work after the commission has additional membership and clearer direction from the board.

What remains: the subcommittee recommended refining the sliding‑scale tier numbers, drafting language for clustering/climate‑and‑soils preferences if the county wants to protect prime agricultural soils, and specifying a public tool or record to show development‑unit rights for each parcel. The commission did not adopt any ordinance changes at the meeting.