Union County Land Use Board opens review of minor-subdivision rules; staff to research parent-parcel date and options

Union Countys Land Use Board on Feb. 24 spent the bulk of its meeting reviewing potential changes to the countys minor-subdivision rules, including whether to reduce the threshold that separates "minor" from "major" subdivisions and whether to reset the parent-parcel cutoff date now set as Feb. 14, 1978.

Planning staff explained that, under the countys Unified Development Ordinance, a minor subdivision creates no more than eight lots from a parent tract (the 1978 parent-parcel rule is used to limit how many times a parcel can be subdivided without triggering a major review). Staff told the board that minor subdivisions are processed in a single step (survey/plat and review by a few county departments) and that major subdivisions require pre-application, sketch and preliminary plans, construction documents, performance guarantees and multiple agency reviews, which substantially increase time and cost.

Board members and several public commenters discussed competing goals. Some members and farmers urged preserving rural character and warned that lowering the minor/major threshold or relaxing open-space rules could fragment farms and stress wells. "Once more people come in, there are more cars on the road," public commenter Thomas Perry said, adding concerns about water availability.

By contrast, builders and realtors warned that lowering the threshold or adding procedural burdens for small, family-driven divisions risks pricing out first-time buyers and favoring large national developers. Michelle Evans, president of the Union County Association of Realtors, said moving the threshold from eight to four or five could increase approval times from about a month to many months and add tens of thousands of dollars in costs, making small family transfers and local buildersprojects less feasible. "That piece right there alone goes to the affordability piece," Evans said.

Participants also examined the 30% open-space provision for properties in the countys rural land-use designation, adopted under the 2050 plan to preserve rural character; board members and builders noted that the open-space requirement applied to major subdivisions can reduce the acreage available for buildable lots and raise per-unit land costs.

Board members discussed possible alternatives, including a family-subdivision rule that would allow a limited number of transfers to relatives with ownership- or time-based conditions, an aggregation rule to prevent serial small divisions from circumventing thresholds (Evans pointed to Chatham Countys aggregation approach), and a middle-tier review category between minor and major for projects that require more review than a single-plate minor but less than a full major subdivision.

Staff was directed to return with research including: how other comparable counties handle parent-parcel dates and family subdivisions, the effects of changing the minor/major threshold on local builders and affordability, examples of an aggregation rule, and options around the 30% open-space requirement. The board asked staff to bring costs, timeline estimates and examples of how a middle-tier process might work. Members signaled willingness to hold a stakeholder work session including farmers, local builders and realtors.

Next steps: Staff will prepare comparative research and ordinance options and return to the board for further consideration; the board indicated interest in a targeted work session to engage stakeholders.