Madison County’s Board of Supervisors on a unanimous voice vote adopted amendments to the county’s site-plan and subdivision ordinances and passed a resolution formally designating the county’s approving agent to comply with state Senate Bill 974.

The actions follow a recommendation from the county Planning Commission, which voted to send Case ZOA-06-04-2025-2 to the Board of Supervisors for approval.

County planner Mr. Nichols told both bodies that the draft ordinance language was revised to align local code with the state statute and that the major change is placing final approving authority for administrative site-plan and subdivision reviews in the hands of a designated agent rather than the Planning Commission or governing body. He noted a few minor edits to change references from “Board of Supervisors” to “designated agent” and to reflect statutory language that names the zoning administrator in certain provisions.

Why it matters: the state law shortens review timelines, removes the Planning Commission’s approval role for routine administrative reviews and eliminates the requirement for a public-notice hearing on those ministerial site-plan and subdivision approvals. County speakers warned that removing the public-facing approval step and the prior avenue for proffers could shift some long-term infrastructure costs to local taxpayers.

What the ordinances and resolution do
- Move final approval of administrative site plans and subdivision plats to the county’s designated agent (the ordinance language references the zoning administrator/designee where required by the statute).
- Shorten the statutory review timeline: staff and commissioners confirmed the county has a 60-day period to act once a completed application and fee are submitted; timelines can be affected by required external-agency reviews (for example, VDOT and state review agencies) and by applicant revisions.
- Remove the requirement for a public-hearing notice for the ministerial site-plan/subdivision approvals covered by the statute.
- Establish, by resolution, an official designee to exercise the approval authority and allow further delegation within county staff.

County staff and commissioners emphasized process details. Mr. Nichols pointed to the ordinance sections that define a “completed application” (referenced in the draft as A5-1-1) and explained that the 60-day clock begins once a completed application and fee have been submitted to the designated agent. He also noted the draft incorporates the statutory allowance for the Planning Commission to serve as the designated agent for localities under the statute’s population threshold.

Planning Commission and board reactions
At the Planning Commission meeting, commission members asked whether the commission would still participate in reviews; commissioners were told they could provide input but that only the designated agent could issue approvals under the statute. One commissioner said the statute’s accelerated timelines would make it impractical for the Planning Commission to perform the formal approval role.

At the Board of Supervisors meeting, several supervisors expressed dismay that the change reduces a public-facing approval step. One board member said, “this senate bill, it taking the public out of the whole thing is what upsets me,” and another warned that loss of proffers could leave taxpayers to cover future infrastructure costs. Board members thanked Planning Commission staff for drafting ordinance language to address gaps and noted the county intends to monitor implementation and participate in a General Assembly work group mentioned during the meeting.

Formal actions and votes
Votes at a glance:
- Planning Commission: Case ZOA-06-04-2025-2 — recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors (motion made and seconded; vote: unanimous by raised hands).
- Board of Supervisors: Ordinance 2025-7 (site-plan component) — approved (motion made and seconded; vote: unanimous).
- Board of Supervisors: Ordinance 2025-8 (subdivision component) — approved (motion made and seconded; vote: unanimous).
- Board of Supervisors: Resolution 2025-14 (designation of the county’s approving agent) — approved (motion made and seconded; vote: unanimous).

Key limitations and next steps
- The county clarified that removing Planning Commission approval for ministerial reviews does not, under the ordinance as drafted, remove the commission’s role from other land-use actions such as rezonings or special-use permits.
- Staff said they will update the electronic ordinance text to reflect the final edits discussed in the meetings before publishing the enacted versions.
- Speakers noted the General Assembly has established a working group to review the law and consider potential changes; the meeting referenced a work-group timeline that would report back to the legislature in late 2025.

The board closed the meeting with instructions to finalize ordinance text and to proceed with implementation under the newly adopted resolution.