Accomack planning commission recommends ordinance changes on subdivision definition, notice rules and approval time frames

The Accomack County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve two linked ordinance amendments: one to the county subdivision code and one to the county zoning code.

Amendment 1 — subdivision definition and cluster lots: Staff told the commission the existing subdivision definition created a loophole by focusing on certain small “split” events and had made it harder for staff to see every subdivided plat recorded at the courthouse. The proposed change broadens the definition (staff said it will close the current split loophole) and copies the county’s cluster‑lot language into the section so that creating a cluster lot requires a survey and recorded documentation before the plat is accepted. Staff described the cluster‑lot approach as an established planning tool that can preserve open space by allowing smaller dwelling lots in return for protected common open space; staff said cluster lots generally appear in more rural/agricultural contexts and noted that cluster lots still require survey, utility and stormwater details on the recorded plat.

Amendment 2 — notice timing and approval validity: The second amendment clarifies how long certain approvals are valid and sets a site‑plan validity consistent with state code. Staff noted the zoning ordinance did not previously specify how long an approved site plan remains valid; state law indicates five years, and staff recommended adding a five‑year validity period to the county ordinance to remove ambiguity. The amendment also clarifies public‑notice timing for both newspaper and mailed notices. State law requires a first newspaper notice no more than 28 days before a hearing and a second notice no less than seven days before the hearing; staff recommended that the commission ask the Board to set a county practice that adjacent‑property notices be issued well before the meeting. Commissioners discussed that because the county’s local newspaper publishes weekly, and rural mail delivery is sometimes slow, a longer mailing window is prudent. The commission asked staff to recommend a single, clear mailing deadline; commissioners settled on recommending insertion of a 14‑day mailing window into the ordinance language so adjacent owners receive mailed notice at least 14 days before the hearing.

Actions and next steps: The Planning Commission voted to recommend the two ordinance amendments to the Board of Supervisors, including the correction to the mailed‑notice timeline on line 584 (change from five days to 14 days). The commission recorded a formal recommendation motion and a second; the measure passed on voice vote. Staff said it will forward the commission’s recommendation packet (draft ordinance language and the commission’s edits) to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration.

Context and staff notes: Staff said the draft language incorporates comments from the county attorney and that the final packet provided to commissioners incorporated those edits. Staff also reminded the commission of the practical constraints created by weekly newspaper publication and recommended the county retain explicit notice windows in its ordinance so administrative practice matches the procedural due‑process expectations set by state law.

The commission’s recommendations will now be delivered to the Board of Supervisors for action; staff noted the county’s administrative practice is to mail adjacent‑property notices and place newspaper ads at the same time so the county typically meets or exceeds the notice windows spelled out in state law and the proposed ordinance language.