Page County planning commission weighs limits to unusual 25-acre by-right division

Page County''s Planning Commission devoted most of its meeting to whether and how to constrain the county''s atypical "25-acre" by-right division, a policy several speakers said accelerates parcelization and can be combined with other exceptions to produce many small lots over time.

Staff presenter (referred to in the meeting as Mr. Hahn/Josh) told commissioners the county currently recognizes four exceptions to the local definition of "subdivide": boundary-line adjustments (BLAs), the 25-acre division, non-family divisions and family divisions. He said prior efforts to eliminate the 25-acre exception failed and proposed three alternatives for commissioners to consider: keep the 25-acre rule but add a short delay on subsequent non-family divisions and require road-maintenance agreements; cap the number of 25-acre divisions a parent parcel can exercise in a rolling five-year window; or create a new "minor rural subdivision" category that would allow a small number of rural lots under simpler standards while preserving an open-space/parent-parcel requirement.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents said the choice affects farmland conservation, property values and county services. Public commenters described real-world landowner pressures—medical bills, market downturns and restrictions from easements—that motivate land sales, while commissioners warned that unplanned, piecemeal divisions can strain roads, stormwater management and future county budgets.

Public comment and key perspectives

Bernie Miller, a District 1 landowner, said many landowners do not plan to subdivide until necessary and urged the commission to keep protections that preserve property value, citing past losses from easements and a Norfolk Southern derailment that damaged his fence and took years to repair. He said, "Please protect my property value too." (Bernie Miller, public comment.)

David Reed, another resident, framed some proposed restrictions as a potential taking of existing property rights if the county reduces landowners''s ability to subdivide. "When subdivision ordinances are changed to reduce the ability to subdivide," he said, "you're actually committing a taking of someone's rights that they currently have in their property." (David Reed, public comment.)

Staff options and administration

Staff described Option 1 as a mild change that would leave the 25-acre rule in place but bar immediate non-family divisions on any lot created under the 25-acre exception for five years and require road-maintenance agreements for by-right divisions. "No limit on 25 acre divisions. However, non family divisions would not be allowed for any parcels subject to 25 acre divisions until 5 years have passed," staff said, explaining how the measure would slow rapid divisions without removing the 25-acre option.

Option 2 would cap the number of 25-acre divisions from a parent parcel in any rolling five-year window (staff used three as an illustrative example). Option 3 would create a new minor rural-subdivision pathway (staff suggested up to five lots in the example) with fewer technical standards than full Class A/B subdivisions but with health-department and entrance-approval requirements and open-space protections.

Commissioners raised implementation questions and trade-offs: rolling caps may slow the pace but not the eventual total number of lots; a new minor subdivision category could supplant Class A/B subdivisions if not designed carefully; and administrative complexity could make some options hard to enforce given current county parcel-record inconsistencies.

Legal questions and next steps

Commissioners directed staff to consult the county attorney on whether the county can lawfully increase the family-division timing beyond the current practice (five years before/after ownership) or permit an opt-in 15-year covenant. Staff agreed to return draft ordinance language at a future meeting and requested written input from residents who testified. Several commissioners also asked staff to research examples in neighboring jurisdictions (Augusta, Shenandoah counties) and to consider incentive-based alternatives such as conservation easements or transfer-of-development-rights programs; staff noted those programs typically require clearly defined development rights and receiving-area infrastructure such as public water and sewer.

Outcome and follow-up

No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. The commission adopted an amended agenda at the start of the session to allow staff time to finish minutes, heard public comments, and asked staff to pursue legal guidance and draft language for the commission to review. Commissioners invited members of the public to put suggestions in writing so staff can include them in future drafts. The commission then moved to other items and adjourned.

Sources and attribution

This article is based entirely on remarks at the Page County Planning Commission meeting. Direct quotes and attributions come from participants recorded in the meeting transcript, including Bernie Miller and David Reed (public commenters) and the staff presentation (Mr. Hahn/Josh).