Northumberland supervisors authorize review of county land, set sale framework and special fund for water access

The Northumberland County Board of Supervisors on July 23 directed county planning and economic development officials to study a group of county-owned parcels and report back with recommendations, and approved putting proceeds from any property sales into a special fund for water access and recreational facilities.

Supervisors said the County Administrator and Economic Development Commission had identified several small parcels that the county is unlikely to use and recommended they be offered for sale. The board voted to instruct the Planning Commission and the Economic Development Commission to investigate those properties, explore alternatives (including state or adjacent‑owner purchases), and produce a strategy for subdividing or otherwise optimizing holdings before sale.

Why it matters: the board’s action aims to create local match funding for grants and to concentrate county resources on sites with greater public benefit. Board members and EDC representatives said proceeds could be used as matching dollars for infrastructure and recreation grants; to that end supervisors approved a motion to deposit “any and all monies received from the sale of Northumberland County property” into a special fund to be distributed by the Board for water access or recreational projects.

County staff and the Planning Commission presented parcel-level details during the discussion. Key properties mentioned included: - Tax map 8, Lot 83 (described as a small, landlocked former gravel pit between Bells Cove Road and Lodge Road). The parcel is roughly 1.5 acres with an assessed value of about $5,000; staff said it has no road frontage and contains marshy lowland that limits county use. - The “poorhouse tract” (24 Double Circle 109), a largely wooded 140-acre parcel along Dodlett Road with historical resources. Staff reported historical society records indicate at least one cemetery and possible building foundations on the tract; its assessed value was listed near $297,300. Planning staff recommended holding this parcel for interpretation or limited public use and consulting the Virginia Department of Historic Resources before any land disturbance. - 48 Double Circle 133 (about 17.51 acres east of Damron Marsh, assessed around $272,600). Staff said much of the parcel appears to be marsh or lowland and that the adjacent Damron Marsh Natural Area Preserve could make the tract a candidate for state acquisition under natural‑areas or conservation programs. - 53 Double Circle 11A (roughly 6.355 acres near Indian Creek and Bloodpoint Road; assessed ~ $15,900). Staff suggested a surrounding landowner or the Indian Creek subdivision might have interest in purchasing to consolidate lots and remove an interior “donut” hole in their holdings.

Economic Development Commission members and planning staff urged a coordinated approach: align county property strategy with the Northern Neck National Heritage draft plan and the county comprehensive plan, and evaluate grant eligibility, possible subdivision/zoning changes and marketability before listing. EDC members also flagged other sites (for example, a disused sheriff’s office building and several parcels at Bremer Beach) that may need investment, reconfiguration or disposal. The EDC urged the board to consider replatting or rezoning larger tracts so smaller, saleable parcels can be offered at higher per‑acre value.

Board actions and next steps: supervisors voted to (1) create a special fund to receive proceeds from any property sales for water access or recreational projects, and (2) authorize the Planning Commission and EDC to study the identified parcels and return with a recommended plan for sale, conservation or reuse. The board asked staff to check state interest in parcels adjacent to Damron Marsh and to contact neighboring owners of the Indian Creek parcel about possible purchase. The board also asked staff to coordinate with the Northern Neck Planning District Commission on heritage‑plan alignment and to consult the Department of Historic Resources about the poorhouse tract before any land disturbance.

Context and caveats: staff repeatedly cautioned that some parcels are constrained by marshland, steep topography, lack of road frontage, or possible historic cemeteries — conditions that limit county use and affect marketability. Several supervisors and EDC members said detailed surveying, topo and wetland delineations, and clear title/lot‑line checks will be needed before a sale. The board preserved discretion: the poorhouse tract was discussed as a candidate for retention or interpretation rather than sale, pending historic‑resource review.

The planning and EDC study was authorized by vote; the board instructed staff to return recommended sales approaches, potential buyers or state partners, and any suggested replatting or zoning changes for the board to consider in a subsequent meeting.