Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews proposed subdivision ordinance changes for private roads and family lots
Summary
Staff presented draft amendments to Fluvanna County's subdivision ordinance to clarify private-road access, require 50-foot easements and 20-foot travel ways, and tighten family-subdivision access rules; commissioners asked for clearer language on 'where practicable,' grandfathering and exceptions.
Jason Fortune, the county subdivision agent, presented draft changes to the subdivision ordinance aimed at reducing unintended fragmentation of parcels where private roads and public roads intersect. Fortune told the Planning Commission the current code requires lots within subdivisions served by a private road to access a public road even when they front on it, and caps lots on private roads built below VDOT standards at five parcels with a 10-acre minimum. He said that private-road provisions currently supersede typical minimum lot-size rules, which has led developers to split projects into multiple subdivisions to comply.
The draft amendments would require any private road not constructed to VDOT standards — including in family subdivisions — to be located in a recorded right of way or easement at least 50 feet wide and to provide all-weather access for ordinary passenger vehicles. Fortune also proposed raising the minimum travel-way width in the ordinance table from 14 feet to 20 feet and clarifying that road maintenance agreements for newly established subdivisions must be filed with deeds.
On family subdivisions, staff proposed amending the access standard (19‑3‑3(b)) to require all lots to have a permanent access easement to a public road not less than 50 feet in width and to specify that, where practicable, lots should share the same easement rather than have separate driveway entrances. Commissioners questioned whether the phrase “where practicable” applies to both clauses and asked staff to clean up the punctuation and drafting to avoid ambiguity.
Commissioners raised additional policy questions: whether the county should require owners to hold property for a set period (models discussed included three to five years used by neighboring localities) before qualifying for a family subdivision, and how existing unrecorded prescriptive easements would be treated. Staff said a prescriptive easement that is not recorded would not satisfy a new plat requirement for a 50-foot easement, and owners would likely need to secure and record the easement to create new lots.
Fortune told the commission he would return with clarified language and examples showing how the changes would apply in rural preservation versus rural residential zoning categories. Several commissioners also asked staff to include clear guidance on grandfathering or exceptions so property owners and applicants can understand whether existing arrangements will be affected.
Next steps: staff will refine the draft text to address the drafting questions raised and provide additional zoning-specific examples for the commission to review at a future meeting.
