Union County staff proposes resetting 1978 cutoff for minor subdivisions; board schedules stakeholder work session

Union County planning staff on Tuesday proposed amending the county development ordinance to replace a fixed Feb. 14, 1978 parent-parcel cutoff that determines eligibility for minor subdivisions, saying the change would ease generational transfers of family land without automatically requiring major-subdivision infrastructure.

The proposed edit would replace references to the 1978 parent-parcel date with a new definition of “lot of record” tied to a modern adoption date and a periodic reset (staff used five years as a discussion example). Planning staff presented the change as a tool to prevent families from being forced into the county’s major-subdivision process simply because prior splits dating to 1978 had already produced eight lots on an original parent parcel.

Mister Jensen, a planning staff presenter, told the board the current rule treats a parent parcel created on Feb. 14, 1978, as the permanent cap for how many lots can be cut as a minor subdivision. “The issue here is that we see a lot of folks...bumping up on that 8 lot total,” Jensen said, and described situations in which grandchildren or small local builders are pushed into major-subdivision requirements — such as road construction, tree protection and other infrastructure — that Jensen said were never intended for family transfers of one or two lots.

Under current county rules discussed at the meeting, a minor subdivision allows up to eight lots out of the parent tract defined on the 1978 date. State-exempt lots of 10 acres or larger do not count toward that total. Jensen proposed replacing the specific 1978 cutoff with a definition of “lot of record” that would reference an adopted date and then reset that date on a periodic basis (staff used five years as a working example). Jensen said the reset interval could be set at five, 10 or another period the board chose.

Residents and small builders at the meeting urged a targeted fix rather than changes that would raise costs or remove options for small-scale construction. Russell Tanner, who identified himself as a small local builder, said the reset was “needed, desperately because you’re stuck in that 1978 thing right now,” and asked the board not to reduce the present eight-lot allowance. Mike McGee, a lifelong county resident who said he had recently completed a minor subdivision for grandchildren, warned that forcing more projects into major-subdivision procedures would raise engineering and compliance costs: “My engineering costs would have went through the roof,” McGee said, adding he had been able to obtain seven perk approvals on a 38-acre tract under the current rule.

Several speakers and board members also raised the county’s separate private-drive rule, which currently limits lots served by a private drive to two lots per parent parcel, and noted that many family tracts are landlocked or have only narrow 20-foot access easements. Jensen confirmed staff’s working description that a private-drive access easement is typically 20 feet. Board members said that private-drive access and spacing may need a separate, more complex review because changing that rule affects safety, access and road-construction expectations.

Attorney Jonathan Meek, representing a small builder and local purchasers, described a recent case in which a parcel unexpectedly required a major-subdivision process after title history was reviewed. “We went from being somebody who had bought a piece of property that thought we were gonna be able to do the 1 acre lots… to needing to do a major subdivision,” Meek said, describing added time and costs, including tree-bond payments and multiple agency referrals.

Board members noted competing goals: easing family transfers and small-scale building while protecting farmland preservation efforts and preventing loopholes that could be used to subdivide large tracts into many small lots over time. One member observed that minor subdivisions across the county historically have produced a substantial number of lots each year, and another warned a reset could, if poorly designed, cumulatively allow many more lots over decades.

Rather than adopt an ordinance change at Tuesday’s meeting, the board directed staff to schedule a focused work session with planning staff and interested stakeholders — including small builders, landowners and farmland-preservation committees — to develop specific options and language. The board indicated that options to consider include keeping the eight-lot cap, raising it (for example to 10), lowering it, or adopting a periodic reset interval (five or 10 years were discussed in the meeting as examples). Staff said they would prepare materials and invite participants.

No formal ordinance amendment or vote was taken at the meeting. The board instructed staff to return with recommendations after the stakeholder meeting and additional study.

Why this matters: The county’s 1978 parent-parcel cutoff currently determines whether lot splits are treated as minor or major subdivisions, a classification that can substantially change the cost and time required for a family or small developer to create lots. Any change could affect rural landowners’ ability to transfer parcels to heirs, the cost structure for small builders, and the county’s farmland-preservation goals.

Next steps: Planning staff will set a special work session with a limited agenda to focus primarily on (1) the parent-parcel date/reset definition and (2) private-drive access rules; staff will invite builders, landowners, legal counsel and farmland-preservation representatives to participate and will return to the board with draft ordinance language and options.