Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davie County adopts five‑acre rule, resends special‑permit policy and defers the rest of subdivision changes
Summary
After a lengthy presentation on proposed subdivision-code changes — buffers, parking minima, setbacks, public‑water hookups, open space, and performance guarantees — the board voted to rescind special permits, adopted a five‑acre rule, and deferred the remaining ordinance changes for staff to refine public‑water and other technical details.
The Davie County Board of Commissioners moved forward on a multi‑part package of subdivision‑regulation changes but split its actions: the board voted to rescind special‑permit procedures and approved a stand‑alone five‑acre rule while deferring the remainder of the proposed ordinance edits for additional work.
Staff presented a consolidated list of proposed changes to chapter 155/154 (zoning and subdivision codes). Major elements included a required Type‑C buffer around major subdivisions (10‑ft width with evergreen screening or equivalent berm/fence), minimum off‑street parking definitions (9×18‑ft stalls and a baseline requirement of six spaces for sample lots), a 40‑ft front setback with an alternate 30‑ft pattern option, a requirement that 30% of common open space be set aside for active recreation, an encouragement or requirement to connect to public water where lines and adequate fire flow exist, clustered‑mailbox design standards, a preference for underground utilities, and performance guarantees for infrastructure per state statute.
During public comment and commissioner questions the county’s fire marshal and utilities staff cautioned that the words “public water available” require technical definition — a short water line or a small service line does not always provide adequate fire flow or pressure. Utilities staff said the county will require hydraulic analysis and minimum line sizes/flows before requiring connection. Commissioners asked staff to clarify distances, thresholds and whether the subdivision rules would create unintended incentives for sprawl by extending water farther into rural areas.
The board acted on two discrete items at the meeting: it voted 4–1 to resend (rescind) the special‑permit language per staff recommendation, and it voted unanimously to adopt the proposed five‑acre threshold change as a stand‑alone amendment. The remainder of the proposed subdivision changes — including technical language on public‑water thresholds and parking/setback specifics — were deferred so staff can rewrite sections with clearer cross‑references to the county utilities ordinance and provide more precise, written definitions.
Commissioners directed staff to return the redlined language with explicit parameters (maximum equipment dimensions, definitions of accessible public water by pipe size/flow, and firmer screening requirements) before any final vote on the complete package.
