Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Parish re‑subdivision request for Bank Road parcel amid buildability and precedent concerns
Summary
The board denied SE 25-08-01, a request by Chris Parish to divide a commercial-general parcel on Bank Road into two lots, citing concentrated easements, setback and drainfield constraints, and the risk of creating unbuildable lots and an undesirable county precedent. Planning commission materials and VDH comments were reviewed; vote tally not specified in the transcript.
The Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors voted to deny a special exception (SC number 25-08-01) that would have allowed a re‑subdivision of a commercial parcel on Bank Road owned by Chris Parish.
Staff explained the parcel (tax map 28-63) contains several recorded easements—septic, storm drainage and ingress/egress—and that planning‑commission review requested additional documentation: a letter from a soils scientist, a revised plat showing building restriction lines and a 50‑foot access/driveway on the plat, and engineering review of potential access through a drainage easement. The planning commission later recommended approval conditioned on submission of revised plats and supporting engineer letters.
Applicant Chris Parish told the board he had consulted neighbors and said several property owners supported the application. He argued the split could produce two taxable parcels and potentially support small commercial uses. Parish acknowledged the process to modify deeds and obtain permits would be difficult but said he had interest from a potential buyer for one of the lots.
At the public hearing, Michael Brown Sr. voiced no objection, but Karen Hunt (Jackson District) presented a detailed critique citing county ordinance 147-40 and 170‑45 provisions: she said the proposed subdivision appeared to concentrate easements and stream‑protection areas in a way that could render proposed lots impractical or unbuildable without deed modifications and detailed site plan work. She urged caution about equity for other lot owners and the long‑term design quality of the general commercial district.
Board members expressed concern that, given setbacks, conservation and drainage easements, and deed restrictions, the proposed lot configuration might not leave adequate buildable area and could set a precedent for further fragmenting scarce commercial parcels. After deliberation a motion to deny SC 25‑08‑01 was made and seconded; the board voted to deny the request. The transcript records a voice vote but does not include a numerical tally.
The denial leaves the owner the option to pursue further engineering, plat revisions or other remedies, but the board declined to grant the special exception without clearer evidence that the re‑subdivision could result in viable, lawfully buildable lots.
