Chilton County commissioners present revised subdivision rules; key changes would carve out individual landowners from developers

Commissioner Perkins introduced a package of proposed changes to Chilton County’s subdivision regulations during a public meeting, saying the revisions aim to separate individual property owners from commercial developers and to clarify when county standards apply.

The changes would define “developer” (dated in the text as 02/01/2022) as “an individual or company that acquires land in order to transform it for a more useful or valuable purpose such as residential, commercial, or industrial use,” create three subdivision categories (major subdivision, private subdivision and administrative subdivision), reduce an acreage threshold for exemptions from 10 acres to 3 acres, and add specific design standards for mobile‑home, recreational‑vehicle (RV) and tiny‑home parks.

The revisions are intended to preserve private property rights while placing clearer requirements on developments that seek county maintenance of infrastructure or that subdivide land for sale, Commissioner Perkins said. “These changes more extensively protect the rights of individuals by giving them a more complete authority over their personal property,” he said.

Why it matters: the draft narrows the set of transactions that trigger full subdivision review. Under the proposed rules, a landowner dividing a parcel along an existing public road who can meet frontage and health‑department lot‑size rules could use an abbreviated administrative subdivision process rather than the full subdivision review now applied to many small divisions. Conversely, a developer who builds roads to county specifications with the intent that the county accept them into the maintenance system would still be governed by the major‑subdivision rules.

Key provisions and examples

• Developer definition and subdivision categories: The draft distinguishes an individual landowner who splits a parcel from a developer undertaking larger planned subdivisions. Perkins said the distinction addresses a recurring problem in Chilton County where private roads constructed by developers were later presented to the county for adoption into the county maintenance system.

• Acreage and exemptions: The draft changes an existing exemption threshold from 10 acres to 3 acres: “the division of land parcels greater [than] 3 acres or greater … is exempt,” Perkins said. Administrative subdivisions remain available for divisions of parcels that meet 60 feet of road frontage on an existing public road and do not require new streets or utility extensions; those administrative lots would be a minimum half acre (21,780 square feet) as stated in the proposal and the county’s reference to the health department requirement.

• Private subdivisions and private roads: The proposed private‑subdivision category covers divisions that create a private access road and do not seek county maintenance. Private roads would be required to meet minimum safety specifications (a 24‑foot right‑of‑way with a 20‑foot paved surface is cited for some road types) to allow EMS and fire access. Deeds and plats for private subdivisions must include a recorded covenant stating the streets are not part of the county maintenance system.

• Family transfer exclusion: The draft extends the list of immediate family members that qualify for an exclusion beyond spouse and child to include parents, siblings (including step and adopted), grandparents, grandchildren and their spouses, and aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews. Perkins said cousins are not expressly listed but could be considered through the commission’s variance process.

• Mobile‑home, RV and tiny‑home parks: The draft creates separate standards for parks that remain under unified ownership and those where individual lots are sold. If individual lots are to be sold, the development must go through the subdivision review process. Other points: - Mobile‑home park density: maximum of 3 sites per acre. - RV park density: with public sanitary sewer, up to 12 sites per acre; without sewer, up to 6 sites per acre. - Traffic studies: required for developments of 50 or more sites or units. - Internal roads: minimum 24 feet (two‑way) or 20 feet (one‑way) and must provide safe travel for residents and emergency responders; internal roads remain private unless formally accepted by the county. - Site standards: RV pads called out as concrete or asphalt, each pad about 1,600 square feet; parking standards and minimum setbacks (30 feet from exterior property line or jurisdictional wetland) are specified.

• Storm shelters: The draft originally required storm shelters “sufficient size to accommodate all the residents” and constructed per FEMA/ICC guidance (cited as FEMA 361 and ICC 500). Commissioners and residents pushed back on a mandatory commercial‑grade shelter requirement. Perkins said the county sought to avoid assuming liability for private facilities and that the language would be revised; the commission agreed to consider wording that “recommends” or “strongly recommends” a shelter rather than imposing a binding, county‑mandated specification.

Public questions and staff follow‑up

Residents at the meeting asked whether the proposal would affect land already on non‑county roads and whether lot‑size minimums could match health‑department standards (the state allows one‑third of an acre in many cases). Commissioner Perkins said exemptions would leave many landowners unaffected (for example, owners whose lots already front an existing county road and meet frontage requirements). He also said the commission had discussed aligning minimums with the health department’s one‑third acre standard but had used half acres in the draft because of simpler arithmetic and additional health‑department concerns in some locations; the commission will revisit that minimum.

Perkins said the commission would consult the county attorney (referred to as Ben) about liability language on storm shelters and would revise the draft language ahead of upcoming community town halls. He invited residents to an informal town‑hall series the commission plans to hold in multiple Chilton County communities, including Jemison, Maplesville, Thornton and Clanton.

What was not decided

No formal vote or adoption of the draft regulations occurred at the meeting. Commissioners collected public comments, asked staff and legal counsel to review specific items (storm‑shelter language, minimum lot size tied to the health department), and scheduled further outreach and revision. No amendments were adopted on the record, and no formal motions or roll‑call votes were recorded in the transcript.

Quotes (selected)

“These changes more extensively protect the rights of individuals by giving them a more complete authority over their personal property,” Commissioner Perkins said when introducing the draft.

“If you tell me I gotta put it in it, then it doesn’t work, then you’re liable,” Commissioner Perkins said in discussing why the county must be cautious about mandatory storm‑shelter specifications.

Jason Clerk, a Clanton resident, asked why the draft used a half‑acre minimum for some divisions rather than the health department’s one‑third‑acre standard. Perkins said the commission would consider the change and would revisit the minimum based on health‑department guidance.

Ending

The commission did not vote at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff and legal counsel to draft revised language for items flagged during public comment (notably storm‑shelter wording and the minimum lot size) and to carry the discussion into planned town halls across Chilton County. The commission’s next outreach meeting was described by commissioners as an informal town hall in Jemison (date to be posted by county staff).