New Kent subdivision ordinance amendment squeaks by with 3-2 favorable vote

New Kent supervisors took nearly an hour in mulling over a recommendation to amend the classification of minor and major subdivisions and increase the minimum growth area for open space or cluster subdivisions. In the end, a 3-2 favorable vote squeaked by on the new amendments.

County leaders gathered Monday night for a public hearing on changing the county’s subdivision ordinance.

Director of Community Development Matthew Smolnik presented the proposal to supervisors, reiterating comments made at a Nov. 21 meeting of the county’s planning commission. At that meeting, Smolnik pitched his department’s plan to help address the booming population in the locality and to divert growth, all while maintaining New Kent’s rural culture.

“Right now by definition, you can have two minor subdivisions side by side even though they look like one big subdivision,” Smolnik said to supervisors, reemphasizing a point made at the planning commission’s meeting. “We have worked with the schools and with public safety on this issue and we believe this is one of our best resolutions.”

Smolnik’s pitch revolved around the definition of minor and major subdivision, outlining that a minor subdivision would be considered seven lots or fewer (down from 20) and major lots classified as eight or more lots (originally 21 or more).

“Under the new changes, 259 property owners will be impacted,” the director continued. “That is 2.5 percent of the county’s population that will be affected. Meanwhile, the other 97.5 percent [of the population] will be impacted if taxes are raised to support schools, fire and EMS, and other services.”

The second part of the proposal centered around acreage needed for the lots. That number would swell from the current 30 to 75 acres, with at least half (37.5) to be designated for open space.

Smolnik’s presentation received feedback from citizens during the public comment period, both in favor and against the recommendation.

“I do not like the change from 30 to 75 acres,” said Isabel White Jarvis. “I have been a lifelong resident here in New Kent and I should not be penalized for not developing my land. I don’t understand how you are going to penalize us for keeping our land rural.”

“I’m in favor of this proposal,” Paul Willard commented. “The growth of the county will impact our services and I think the board is doing the right thing to look to the future. We have an opportunity to be in front of [the population growth] and this is a smart decision that will have a positive effect on the county.”

With the closing of the public hearing, supervisors tackled the ordinance with an array of opinions.

“The people on my end of the county feel like Mrs. White (Jarvis),” said District 5 supervisor Ray Davis. “They feel like all the businesses are popping up on the west end of the county and they are the ones suffering from it.”

“Looking right now we have 1,300 lots in Brickshire and 1,900 on the books,” commented District 1 leader Thomas Evelyn.

According to Smolnik, there are currently 7,000 lots available that have been approved in the county but not built on. He also reminded the board of supervisors that the planning commission sent a 7-3-1 favorable vote for the changes.

Still, the proposed amendment didn’t sit well with District 4 representative and supervisors’ chairman Ron Stiers.

“I can’t support this,” Stiers said adamantly. “It all comes back to people having personal property rights. If I inherited a piece of land that was handed down to me from a previous generation, would I want the government to tell me what to do with it?

“I have weighed it both ways and I just can’t support this,” the chairman concluded.

Supervisors continued debating before taking a recess for Smolnik to gather some additional information on acreage sizes. When he returned and provided the data, Davis begin to talk about ways to compromise.

“With these other jurisdictions, I can see us lowering the number of lots to around six for a minor subdivision and seven or more for a major subdivision and keep the acreage at 30,” Davis commented.

Supervisors sat quietly for about five minutes before District 3 supervisor Patricia Paige broke the silence. Paige made the motion to adopt the proposed amendment without any modifications. After taking a brief minute to comprehend the motion, ayes were rendered by Paige, Evelyn, and District 2 supervisor Tommy Tiller. Stiers and Davis cast dissenting votes.

While the ordinance passed with a 3-2 vote, Davis’ comment during discussion summed up the board’s dealings with the ordinance.

“We worked on this two years ago, and we changed this ordinance then. I wouldn’t be surprised if it came back.”