Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds public hearing on family subdivision variance changes; residents urge relief for aging relatives
Summary
Planning staff presented a proposed ordinance change to relax certain five‑year ownership requirements for family subdivision variances; public commenters asked the board to adopt the change to allow immediate family housing for elderly relatives, but no final board vote is recorded in the transcript provided.
The Warren County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on proposed text amendments to Chapter 155 of the subdivision ordinance that would relax portions of the five‑year fee‑simple ownership requirement for family subdivision variance requests.
Planning staff said the amendments would align administrative criteria with the historic practice used by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors when granting family subdivision variances, and that an active subdivision variance application is currently on hold pending the change. Staff explained the amendment would relax specific consideration points in subsection 155‑18(b) to permit relief for personal or family need in some cases where previously a strictly physical hardship was required.
During public comment, Roland Barr said he had owned his property for two years and sought to subdivide to build a house for his 84‑year‑old mother. Barr said because a private access road prevented broader subdivision options, he needed the variance to proceed now: “waiting another 3 years is not really a tenable option for us,” he said, noting his mother had recently suffered a TIA and required medications. Chris McMahon, who identified himself with Cornerstone Construction, spoke in support and described the family importance of allowing elders to live near relatives.
Board members discussed historic practice of granting family subdivision variances with conditions (such as adding any unfulfilled portion of the five‑year restriction onto the grantee’s restriction period). The transcript shows discussion and a call for a motion but does not record a final vote on the ordinance amendment in the provided segments.
