Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alamance County public hearing draws wide opposition to proposed 1.5-acre minimum lot size
Summary
At a Sept. 3 public hearing, planning staff presented changes to the subdivision ordinance that would raise minimum lot sizes from 30,000 to 65,000 square feet and tighten cul‑de‑sac width standards; dozens of builders, developers, farmers and residents testified, and commissioners asked staff for more study rather than adopting the changes immediately.
Planning staff on Tuesday presented four proposed amendments to Alamance County’s subdivision ordinance that would raise minimum lot sizes in unincorporated areas and add new cul‑de‑sac width requirements.
The changes proposed by the planning board would increase the minimum lot size for new lots served by wells and septic systems from 30,000 square feet to 65,000 square feet (about 1.5 acres), set the same 65,000‑square‑foot minimum for watershed balance lots, increase cul‑de‑sac frontage measured along the chord from 20 to 26 feet and add a building‑site width standard for cul‑de‑sac lots with exemptions for parcels of two acres or larger. Planning staff told the board the planning board issued a consistency statement under North Carolina statute 160D in support of the amendments.
Why it matters: Supporters say larger lots protect rural character, preserve farmland and reduce stormwater impacts; opponents say the minimums will make new single‑family homes significantly more expensive, reduce the supply of buildable lots and harm housing affordability in a county that has seen population growth in recent years.
Speakers representing builders, developers, realtors, engineers and farmers urged different approaches. ‘‘If we do this, we’re going to double the size of the lots and we’ve just shot ourselves in the foot for affordable housing,’’ said Chris Faust, a septic and water contractor who explained how lot price and mortgage costs would rise under the proposal. Jeff Thornburg, a local home builder and president of a builders association, presented cost estimates that he said showed a substantial monthly increase for buyers if the minimum lot size grows. Engineers and a former planning board chair suggested alternatives such as cluster subdivisions or geographically differentiated lot standards near municipalities to concentrate growth where utilities are available.
Planning staff responded that the draft ordinance would still allow cluster options and envisioned a special‑use pathway for developments that do not neatly fit the proposed conventional or cluster options. Commissioners asked technical questions about whether fire code required the cul‑de‑sac width change; staff said it did not and that the 26‑foot measurement reflected practical roadway and culvert installation considerations discussed by the planning board.
Board action: After more than a dozen public speakers, commissioners debated competing goals—rural preservation versus housing affordability—and did not vote to adopt the ordinance. Commissioner Turner suggested directing the planning department, in consultation with the planning board, to return to the board with a more refined proposal and additional analysis, a path the board accepted.
What’s next: The county will not adopt the changes today. Commissioners asked staff to study geographic‑specific solutions (smaller minimums nearer municipal boundaries, incentives for clustering), to provide additional fiscal and build‑yield analysis and to return with recommendations for further consideration.
Sources: Public hearing testimony and staff presentation at the Aug. 3 meeting of the Alamance County Board of Commissioners.
