Chesterfield County planning committee reviews proposed subdivision rules, sets follow‑up

Chesterfield County’s Planning and Zoning Committee spent its Feb. 9 meeting reviewing proposed revisions to the subdivision and land development chapters of the county zoning ordinance, focusing on how the county classifies small‑scale splits, road and septic constraints, and record‑keeping to prevent repeated small parcel divisions.

Derek, the staff presenter, opened the briefing, saying, “I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I'm glad to be talking about some changes to our ordinance.” He outlined a proposed structure that would treat subdivisions in three tiers — minor, a mid tier and major — and said minor subdivisions would generally cover up to 15 lots within a 10‑year period while anything larger would require major‑subdivision infrastructure such as paved roads and engineered stormwater systems.

The proposal would allow minor subdivisions to avoid full roadway paving provided certain standards are met, but Derek cautioned that “the difference in minor subdivision and major subdivision is the civil work which includes building of roads.” He told the committee that shared private driveways should be tightly limited, proposing that a shared private driveway serve a maximum of three residential lots and that private roads on deeds include a required disclosure that the roadway is not eligible for state or county maintenance.

Committee members questioned how the rules would apply to lots with existing road frontage and to family transfers. Derek said the draft treats interior or flag lots differently from lots with road frontage and confirmed a narrow exemption for inherited transfers to close a loophole that previously allowed repeated splitting. He described the 10‑year rule as a tool to prevent a parent tract from being subdivided incrementally to avoid major‑subdivision requirements.

Members also discussed technical constraints that influence lot sizing, including septic and drain‑field requirements on clay versus sand soils, and whether the county should increase minimum lot sizes in some areas. Derek said regional partners (PDCOG) and county reviewers helped develop road and drainage specifications included in the draft.

The committee debated access standards, with staff proposing an improved access easement of 66 feet for development access in some scenarios while acknowledging single‑family emergency access would continue to require widths (staff cited a 30‑foot minimum for emergency vehicles). Members expressed concern for homeowners whose private driveways might be repurposed as development access and emphasized that maintenance responsibility for private or shared drives would remain with owners or an HOA, not the county or DOT.

The draft also would require deed language for lots served by private local roads stating that the road "is private, is not constructed to present standards of the State Department of Transportation, thus is not eligible for state maintenance or county maintenance, and neither have any liability to provide maintenance or improvements." Staff described ongoing work to flag suspect repetitive splits in the county GIS so recording or assessor processes can be reviewed before subdivisions are finalized.

No final ordinance votes were taken. The committee asked members to submit written questions to staff so staff can prepare answers ahead of a scheduled follow‑up meeting; the committee set the next working session for Feb. 23 at 9:00 a.m. to continue reviewing remaining sections before forwarding material to full council for first reading.