Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Service authority to study water/sewer hookup rule after Forge Road landowner's appeal
Summary
Meg Payne, a Forge Road landowner, told the James City County Service Authority board that a newly applied hookup rule would require her to install public water and sewer—effective cost she estimated at “over a million dollars”—to split a 50‑acre parcel into two 25‑acre lots.
Meg Payne, a Forge Road property owner, told the James City County Service Authority board that a recently amended JCSA regulation would force her to connect a remote 50‑acre parcel to public water and sewer before she could split it into two 25‑acre lots.
Payne said the requirement would force “over a million dollars” of infrastructure onto the family and create a long‑term maintenance liability for the authority. “When enforcing a regulation is not in the best interest of the county, shouldn't the board or general manager have some discretion to provide an exception?” she asked.
Why it matters: The regulation applies near the Primary Service Area (PSA) boundary and can change the feasibility of very low‑density, agricultural lot splits. Residents and supervisors warned that forcing hookups at the PSA edge could drive up costs for landowners and the authority and might encourage higher‑density rezoning if owners seek alternatives.
Board and staff reaction: During board discussion several supervisors noted the parcel sits at the PSA edge and raised measurement questions tied to the regulation's 1,000‑foot standard. One supervisor suggested measuring the threshold from the main road (Route 60) or a fire station rather than the nearest hookup to avoid unintended coverage of outlying farmland.
A staff representative told the board a written report would be useful. “I think I can provide such a report by your next board meeting if that's okay,” the staff member said, offering to return with precise impacts and options for the property and for the county as a whole.
Next steps: The board did not take formal regulatory action at the meeting. Supervisors directed staff to prepare a report analyzing the specific impacts of modifying the rule for the Payne property and to identify where changes might create broader effects elsewhere in the county, including any unintended consequences for other properties near the PSA boundary.
Ending: Board members emphasized they were not committing to a rule change but wanted a factual report to guide any future policy choice. The staff report is expected to be presented at the board’s next meeting.
