Floyd County holds public hearing on proposed land division ordinance; no vote, board to await water study

Carla, the county planner, presented a proposed overhaul of Floyd County’s subdivision rules — renamed in the draft as the Land Division Ordinance — at a public hearing that drew more than a dozen residents on concerns ranging from water supply to emergency services and tree canopy.

The proposed ordinance, Carla said, is intended to simplify small-scale divisions while limiting large, high‑density developments. "The new proposed land division ordinance is meant to make divisions with few new parcels easier and limit divisions with large numbers of parcels," she told the board during her presentation.

The revised code would, among other changes described by Carla, eliminate a requirement that a lot be "pre‑perked" for plat approval (Health Department approval would still be required before issuing a building permit), remove the routine requirement for a survey of the residual parcel in many cases, allow easements for shared septic systems, and permit the subdivision agent to approve plats up to six parcels (including residual), up from three. The draft also would allow private division roads built to ordinance standards but would limit those roads to serving no more than 10 new lots per intersection with a VDOT road and would cap most divisions served by private wells or private centralized water systems at 10 new lots (including the residual lot).

Public commenters voiced broad concerns. Several speakers urged the board to delay action until the county’s water‑supply study is released and thoroughly analyzed, saying additional divisions could lower groundwater levels and dry private wells. Tanya Vidovic described road degradation and traffic increases after subdivisions in other places she knows; Shirley Ann Burgess and others recounted experience with droughts and wells going dry; Eli Schwartz Grolla asked the board to wait for the March 25 water presentation; and multiple speakers said the county’s volunteer rescue and fire services would be strained by growth. Several residents urged that any major change be placed on the November ballot; County Attorney Durbin told the board he was not aware of a statutory mechanism to put a general subdivision ordinance to a countywide referendum and quoted the Code of Virginia’s restriction on referenda: "No referendum shall be placed on the ballot unless specifically authorized by statute or by charter." (Durbin suggested that because Floyd County does not have a charter, a general referendum on this ordinance is unlikely under state law.)

Other concerns raised during public comment included tree canopy and preservation (proposals to limit clear‑cutting), the effect of higher assessed values on long‑time landowners’ property taxes, and potential conflicts of interest from supervisors who work in real estate. Several speakers asked that the ordinance preserve farmland and rural character and requested stronger safeguards for emergency response access and road maintenance.

Board members and staff emphasized that no vote would be taken at the meeting. County staff and the board said they will review the water study and other materials before any adoption vote; the board also said any changes that increase restrictions would require republishing and another public hearing.

The public hearing opened with a summary of the ordinance’s multi‑year drafting process. Carla traced the work back to a seven‑person subcommittee convened in 2019, planning commission review in 2023, and repeated board workshops beginning January 2024. She said the rewrite aims both to reduce complexity and to discourage so‑called "mega‑developments" permitted under the older text. The draft’s renaming from "subdivision ordinance" to "land division ordinance" was explicitly intended to reduce confusion for landowners seeking small divisions.

Carla walked through specific technical changes that drew persistent public attention: elimination of mandatory pre‑perking for plat approval (Health Department signoff stays as part of the building permit process); allowing easements for septic drainfields where appropriate; new minimum lot‑depth logic tied to setback depth (Carla cited a common setback depth of about 175 feet as a practical example); reduced lot sizes in areas served by public or private centralized utilities where allowed; and the allowance of townhouse divisions on private centralized water systems in certain circumstances.

Several residents asked the board to preserve an explicit waiting period between successive divisions of the same parcel; public testimony said an earlier five‑year spacing helped slow speculative, repeated lot creation. Other residents recommended a tree‑protection requirement to limit clear‑cutting and asked for stronger fiscal and service‑capacity analysis so that if density increases the county is not left to cover road, school and emergency service shortfalls. A number of speakers urged recusal where supervisors had professional ties to real estate transactions; board members said they would consult the county attorney about ethics and recusal requirements as needed.

Carla and staff answered technical questions from the board on several items but repeatedly referred citizens to the upcoming water study and to additional public hearings if the draft’s restrictions are tightened. County Administrator (name not specified in the record) and County Attorney Durbin both reminded the audience that the draft, as posted, is not final and that changes increasing restrictions would trigger a new public hearing and republication.

What happens next: the board said it will take no formal action until staff has time to review the water‑supply report and to digest public comment. If the board proposes amendments that increase restrictions, a new public hearing will be scheduled; if changes reduce restrictions, the board indicated the currently advertised hearing would cover them. The planner offered to answer follow‑up questions from property owners and the board.

Ending

The matter remains under active review. The county planner urged property owners to send written comments and noted that staff will compile the public input and the water‑study findings to present proposed revisions before any adoption vote. The board closed the hearing without taking a vote.