Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Clair County to consider 15,000‑sq‑ft minimum lot proposal after work‑session debate
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a draft of subdivision regulations that would set a 15,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size in unincorporated St. Clair County, include grandfathering for two named subdivisions and an administrative variance process; commissioners agreed to place the draft on Tuesday's agenda for possible action.
The St. Clair County Commission on Thursday agreed to place a draft of new subdivision regulations — including a proposed 15,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size — on the agenda for its regular meeting next Tuesday, after a work‑session debate that split commissioners and drew concerned public comment.
The draft, presented by county staff, would set lots at a minimum of 15,000 square feet, require compliance with health‑department standards, and include a savings (grandfather) clause that explicitly names Lakemont Village on 231 and Mill Creek Crossings on Robes Mill Pond Road as exempt. The draft also creates an administrative request-and‑variance process and a 90‑day window for developments already underway to apply for relief, with staff saying that window could be expanded if needed.
"We keep trying to tweak that thing till it's where we can get it through the commission in a proper format," the commission chair said during the session, urging commissioners to move the item to the next meeting. County Engineer Clay Phillips provided technical details and said health‑department approval will be a gating requirement for lots that rely on on‑site sewage systems.
Opponents at the meeting and several public commenters warned the change would raise development costs and reduce housing affordability. A realtor who identified herself during public comment said the measure "would directly impact my livelihood" and the livelihoods of other local agents and builders. Another commenter warned the proposal could exclude many first‑time homebuyers.
Supporters of a larger minimum argued the rule would slow sprawl and preserve rural character. One commissioner told colleagues that deliberately slowing growth "from a fiscal and from a quality of life" perspective "is not all bad."
Commissioners stressed that the draft is not final. Staff said the document is intended to be a living ordinance that can be amended; the draft retains administrative variance language so unusual sites can be considered case by case. Commissioners also said they will revisit the 90‑day savings window if needed and that the county would continue to review traffic and engineering impacts before approval.
The commission did not vote on final adoption at Thursday's work session; the item was added to the Tuesday meeting agenda so commissioners can take formal action then or table it for more study.
