Ordinance changes to special provisions in cluster subdivisions, floor plans, passed by New Kent boards

New Kent’s Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approved ordinance changes to special provisions for open space or cluster subdivisions and “minimal final floor area” of residential dwellings at a special joint meeting and public hearing on May 18.

Opening discussion targeted ordinance changes for Section 91-127 that focused on open spaces and cluster subdivisions. At issue was discussion on minimum acreage that would be required to execute the cluster subdivision . The proposal returned to the planning commission after supervisors ended in a deadlock 2-2 vote, resulting in the ordinance being rejected. Supervisors agreed during the April work session to reconsider the proposal at the joint meeting.

During the public hearing, Mark Daniel said his initial understanding of the change puzzled him whether it really benefited New Kent.

“I don’t know if this is good or bad,” he said. “But if it is good enough to reconsider, it should be a good thing for the county.”

“I think 50 acres is just too much,” said county resident Isabel White. “I think only the rich could afford that much.

“I’d like to see it at 20 or 30,” she continued. “I have lived here all my life. We just didn’t come here, so that number [50] is way too high.”

After the public hearing closed, District 5 supervisor Ray Davis commented about the current 10-acre allotment.

“You’re not gaining anything by the cluster if it’s only 10 acres,” he said, mentioning how five of those acres would have to be allocated to free space. “I agree with it needs to be larger, but how large, I don’t know.”

Questions posed to county community development director Matthew Smolnik revolved around the difference in the number of parcels gained through proposed numbers. Other inquiries targeted why the issue was brought up in the first place. Smolnik answered, saying that supervisors had asked staff to review the possibilities of increasing the minimum size.

“But why change it?” District 4 representative Ron Stiers interjected. “Where is the outcry? Where are the complaints?”

District 5 Planning Commissioner Edward Pollard offered comments and a solution to the proposal.

“It all comes down to size and who you want to help out in this situation,” he said, referring to both homeowners and developers. “I suggest we meet in the middle at 30 [acres].”

“If we make it too small, it will take away New Kent’s rural character,” chimed in Commissioner Richard Kontny. “I think that number can work and it can always be changed later.”

Commissioners passed the change with a favorable recommendation 8-0-1 to county supervisors with 30 acres as the minimum size. Supervisors approved the ordinance amendment 4-1, with Stiers casting the lone dissenting vote.

In another joint public hearing, commissioners and supervisors had no problem removing a minimal requirement of square feet for a home in residential areas.

Smolnik said that television shows focusing on “tiny houses” initiated his staff to look into the issue and recognized state law does not require a minimum square footage for homes. Because of that and legal ramifications, staff asked for the amendment. The county community development director also said that despite the size of the home, it would have to be constructed to building code, a notion that was confirmed by building official Clarence Jackson.

“It will still be called a ‘single-home dwelling’ no matter how big it is,” commented Smolnik. “This is for residential areas and does not apply to covenants set out by Homeowners Associations (HOAs) for minimum house size.”

Commissioners approved the matter 8-0-1, with county supervisors approving the ordinance change unanimously.