Currituck planning board removes special-use permit trigger for many small subdivisions
August 14, 2025 | Currituck County, North Carolina
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Currituck County Planning Board on Aug. 12 approved a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance that removes the automatic special-use permit requirement for Type 1 preliminary plats tied solely to an 85% public-facility capacity trigger and adopts staff-recommended counting rules for parent parcels.
The change, identified as PB 25-15, alters Chapter 2 to stop requiring a concurrent special-use permit for Type 1 preliminary plats (subdivisions creating 20 or fewer lots) when one or more public facilities are at or above 85 percent of capacity. Planning staff said the change responds to Board of Commissioners direction from recent work sessions and clarified how the ordinance should count lots against the 20-lot threshold.
Why it matters: The amendment moves many small subdivision approvals from a public hearing and special-use permit process to administrative review by the county Technical Review Committee (TRC), unless other triggers apply. That changes which projects go before the Board of Commissioners and shortens the review path for qualifying small subdivisions.
Planning staff described three ways the ordinance could count lots toward the 20-lot threshold. “Its complicated,” a planning staff member said while walking the board through the options. The board approved staff option 2, which counts lots created from a parent parcel and includes minor lots created within five years and major-subdivision lots created within 10 years of the major-subdivision approval date. Under that approach, a parcel that was part of earlier major subdivision activity would reset after 10 years and could again qualify as a Type 1 if the new proposal creates 20 or fewer lots.
Staff identified the parent-parcel benchmark as April 2, 1989, the countys adoption date of its first Unified Development Ordinance; historically the county had referenced that date in practice but had not defined it in code. Staff noted that, before the Moyock-area elementary school opens, the high school was near the 85 percent threshold and would otherwise have triggered many Type 1 plats to require special-use review.
A planning staff member said the amendment keeps core subdivision standards for roads, drainage and design in place and that applicants would still be required to meet ordinance standards. “Thats where they have to meet the ordinance and they have to show they meet the other four findings,” the staff member said, enumerating the special-use findings that apply to Type 2 plats (for example, consistency with the land-use plan and not exceeding the countys ability to provide adequate public-school facilities).
The board asked whether the TRC and the Board of Education would be involved in administrative reviews. “Thats correct. It will not go to the commissioners. It will not be a special-use permit. It will be a Technical Review Committee decision,” the planning staff member said, and confirmed the school system receives notice of TRC submittals.
Several board members asked whether the change would encourage developers to phase larger projects into multiple smaller applications. Planning staff said option 2 is intended to reduce the incentive to circumvent review by splitting projects and provides a ten-year reset for major-subdivision counts. A board member said, “It makes a lot more sense when youre explaining it,” after staff described how minor and major lots would be counted.
Action: Board member (Board member who moved the motion) moved to approve PB 25-15 with staff option 2 (item 5 in the staff packet); a second was offered and the motion passed by voice vote. The board found the amendment consistent with the Imagine Currituck 2040 vision plan and applicable UDO goals and policies.
What changed in practice: Type 1 preliminary plats (20 or fewer lots) will generally be reviewed administratively by the TRC rather than processed as a special-use permit triggered only by the countys 85 percent-capacity threshold for public facilities. The adopted counting rule ties lot aggregation to the parent-parcel framework with a five-year lookback for minor lots and a ten-year lookback for major-subdivision lots.
Next steps: The amendment text approved by the board will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for final action per the countys UDO amendment procedure. Staff said they will update ordinance language to add a clear definition of "parent parcel" and to implement the option 2 counting rules adopted by the board.
Ending note: The board and staff emphasized that removing the automatic special-use permit trigger does not alter subdivision design standards, school-notification procedures, or the countys authority to require additional studies (for example, a traffic study) where site conditions warrant them.
The change, identified as PB 25-15, alters Chapter 2 to stop requiring a concurrent special-use permit for Type 1 preliminary plats (subdivisions creating 20 or fewer lots) when one or more public facilities are at or above 85 percent of capacity. Planning staff said the change responds to Board of Commissioners direction from recent work sessions and clarified how the ordinance should count lots against the 20-lot threshold.
Why it matters: The amendment moves many small subdivision approvals from a public hearing and special-use permit process to administrative review by the county Technical Review Committee (TRC), unless other triggers apply. That changes which projects go before the Board of Commissioners and shortens the review path for qualifying small subdivisions.
Planning staff described three ways the ordinance could count lots toward the 20-lot threshold. “Its complicated,” a planning staff member said while walking the board through the options. The board approved staff option 2, which counts lots created from a parent parcel and includes minor lots created within five years and major-subdivision lots created within 10 years of the major-subdivision approval date. Under that approach, a parcel that was part of earlier major subdivision activity would reset after 10 years and could again qualify as a Type 1 if the new proposal creates 20 or fewer lots.
Staff identified the parent-parcel benchmark as April 2, 1989, the countys adoption date of its first Unified Development Ordinance; historically the county had referenced that date in practice but had not defined it in code. Staff noted that, before the Moyock-area elementary school opens, the high school was near the 85 percent threshold and would otherwise have triggered many Type 1 plats to require special-use review.
A planning staff member said the amendment keeps core subdivision standards for roads, drainage and design in place and that applicants would still be required to meet ordinance standards. “Thats where they have to meet the ordinance and they have to show they meet the other four findings,” the staff member said, enumerating the special-use findings that apply to Type 2 plats (for example, consistency with the land-use plan and not exceeding the countys ability to provide adequate public-school facilities).
The board asked whether the TRC and the Board of Education would be involved in administrative reviews. “Thats correct. It will not go to the commissioners. It will not be a special-use permit. It will be a Technical Review Committee decision,” the planning staff member said, and confirmed the school system receives notice of TRC submittals.
Several board members asked whether the change would encourage developers to phase larger projects into multiple smaller applications. Planning staff said option 2 is intended to reduce the incentive to circumvent review by splitting projects and provides a ten-year reset for major-subdivision counts. A board member said, “It makes a lot more sense when youre explaining it,” after staff described how minor and major lots would be counted.
Action: Board member (Board member who moved the motion) moved to approve PB 25-15 with staff option 2 (item 5 in the staff packet); a second was offered and the motion passed by voice vote. The board found the amendment consistent with the Imagine Currituck 2040 vision plan and applicable UDO goals and policies.
What changed in practice: Type 1 preliminary plats (20 or fewer lots) will generally be reviewed administratively by the TRC rather than processed as a special-use permit triggered only by the countys 85 percent-capacity threshold for public facilities. The adopted counting rule ties lot aggregation to the parent-parcel framework with a five-year lookback for minor lots and a ten-year lookback for major-subdivision lots.
Next steps: The amendment text approved by the board will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for final action per the countys UDO amendment procedure. Staff said they will update ordinance language to add a clear definition of "parent parcel" and to implement the option 2 counting rules adopted by the board.
Ending note: The board and staff emphasized that removing the automatic special-use permit trigger does not alter subdivision design standards, school-notification procedures, or the countys authority to require additional studies (for example, a traffic study) where site conditions warrant them.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
Sponsors
Proudly supported by sponsors who keep North Carolina articles free in 2025
