Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors raise water, covenant and driveway concerns about proposed three‑lot Mount Vista subdivision
Summary
A three‑lot preliminary subdivision application in Mount Vista prompted neighbor concerns about restrictive covenants, well and septic feasibility, driveway placement and powerline easements. Staff said the County does not interpret or enforce private covenants and recommended requesting an updated plat showing wells and drainfields.
The Rockbridge County Planning Commission on May 13 reviewed a preliminary plat by applicant Giovani Cruze to divide an 11.693‑acre parcel in the Mount Vista area into three lots ranging from about 3.009 to 5.653 acres.
Secretary Christopher Slaydon said the proposal is a standard subdivision under the County’s Land Development Regulations and cited Sections 907.02‑10, 907.02‑12 and 909.01 that govern review and timelines for final plat filing. Slaydon said the applicant had provided a perc test submitted to the Health Department but noted the preliminary plat did not show proposed wells and drainfields.
Neighbors who live near the parcel spoke during the meeting’s public comment period. Becky Smith said she and others believe the parcel is subject to Mount Vista restrictive covenants and asked whether the new lots would remain covered by those covenants. “I live in the Mt. Vista subdivision,” Smith said, adding that she wanted clarity on whether the potential new lots would be subject to the same deed restrictions.
Slaydon and County Attorney John Dryden responded that restrictive covenants are private deed instruments and that the County does not interpret or enforce them. Dryden advised that deeds are public records filed with the Circuit Court, and private attorneys or title searches are the usual routes for determining covenant applicability.
Commissioner Anthony Subrizi and several neighbors raised technical and safety concerns: Subrizi noted the plat omission of well and drainfield locations (required under Section 907.02‑8), and Derek Leslie, whose property adjoins the parcel, asked that the proposed access driveway be moved farther from his property line to avoid runoff and to protect a tree near the proposed entrance. Stephanie Ito asked whether a traffic study or a stop sign at the Mooreland Blvd/Southwest View Drive intersection might be warranted; staff said those roads are state‑maintained and that VDOT would handle traffic control questions.
Slaydon said that an omission of well/drainfield locations could be treated as a plat deficiency and that staff could request an updated preliminary plat showing the required septic and water details; he added that the Health Department must sign off on wells and drainfields before building permits are issued. Commissioners agreed the public comments were helpful and directed staff to carry the questions and suggested clarifications forward in the review process.
No formal approval or denial of the subdivision occurred at the meeting; the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat, accepted public comments, and indicated staff should request or accept an updated plat that shows well and drainfield locations and address neighbor concerns before final filing.
