Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Lot Size topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
King George planning commission urges supervisors to reject proposed lot-size increases, supports restoring subdivision access rules
Summary
The Planning Commission voted to forward zoning amendments to supervisors with an unfavorable recommendation, backing restoration of internal-road/access language while opposing proposed increases to minimum agricultural lot sizes; residents warned of property-value losses and rezoning before a new comprehensive plan.
The King George County Planning Commission voted to forward proposed ordinance amendments to the Board of Supervisors with an unfavorable recommendation after extensive public comment and internal debate over proposed increases to minimum lot sizes in agricultural zoning districts.
Residents told the commission the proposed changes — which staff described as raising A1 minimum lots from 10 to 20 acres, A2 from 2 to 5 acres, and A3 from 1 to 3 acres — would limit family subdivisions and reduce land values. "It's cart before the horse," Gary Butler told the commission, urging members to wait for a comprehensive plan update before rezoning.
Planning staff said the Board of Supervisors has allocated money for a comprehensive-plan update and aims to issue a consultant RFP in January, with a goal of a spring kickoff. Staff also explained the package includes edits to subdivision access rules (section 10-3-6) and clarifying family subdivision language so existing family-subdivision acreage requirements would not change.
Commission debate centered on separating two distinct issues: fixing an omission that removed a requirement for major subdivisions to use internal roads, and larger policy choices about blanket lot-size upsizing. Several commissioners said they favor restoring the internal access requirement removed in error but were wary of increasing minimum lot sizes countywide "in the middle of a reassessment" and without clearer evidence of need. Commissioner Nicely said changing lot sizes would "pull the rug out" from landowners' long-term plans and raised concerns about nonconforming lots and enforcement.
After discussion the commission settled on a recommendation that supports the access/ingress-egress language but opposes the proposed density changes. Chair called a roll-call vote and the motion to forward the amendments to the Board of Supervisors with an unfavorable recommendation — including language describing reasons for disapproval — carried on a unanimous vote of those present.
What happens next: the Planning Commission's unfavorable recommendation and the record of public comment will go to the Board of Supervisors for its decision. The commission noted the Board retains final authority over zoning changes and may act differently than the recommendation.
Documents and context: the record includes staff materials and a committee review (ZOTAC) that reportedly voted 6–1 against the lot-size upsizing. Residents cited internal staff school-student metrics and cost estimates; staff tied the zoning conversation to the upcoming comprehensive-plan process.
