By Heather Michon
Correspondent
In a major revision to county zoning, the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors voted to eliminate rural cluster subdivisions as a by-right use in A-1 zoning districts at its meeting on Wednesday night (Nov. 20).
Rural cluster subdivisions have become ubiquitous in the local landscape since they were first approved in the early 2000s. Sycamore Square, Village Oaks, Colonial Circle, Villages at Nahor, and Island Hill are among the 15 communities approved since 2004.
While these subdivisions must follow strict zoning guidelines, as long as they adhere to them, neither the Planning Commission nor the Board of Supervisors can prevent them from proceeding.
Under Virginia law, counties must allow rural cluster subdivisions if population growth is 10 percent or higher between censuses. Fluvanna County’s growth dipped below 10 percent between 2010 and 2020 – the first decline since 1980. As a result, the Planning Commission recently voted 5-0 to recommend supervisors remove the option from county ordinances.
County Attorney Daniel Whitten said the change would not impact two projects currently in the pipeline. However, future developers would have far fewer options.
By-right use in A-1 zoning areas would be limited to families who subdivided their property to close relatives or minor subdivisions of five homes or fewer. Any projects larger than five homes would first need to be rezoned as R-1, R-2, or R-4.
Each zoning category would impose different rules regarding density and open space. R-1 and R-1 also require developers to use municipal water and sewer, a luxury unavailable in much of the county.
Public hearing
Some residents who spoke during the public hearing supported the change.
“Fluvanna citizens have for decades reaffirmed their undying desire to maintain Fluvanna’s rural character,” said Suzy Morris. “Once rural character is destroyed or lost, it cannot be recovered,” she added.
Pat Beers Block, who lives in the Island Hill subdivision, disagreed. One major aspect of rural clusters is a requirement to preserve 75 percent of the land as open space, a provision that is designed to minimize the impact on local habitats. “It ensures that property is better developed.”
Local land-use attorney Nicole Scro said that, in working with clients earlier this year, she realized that when the county had first approved rural cluster subdivisions, they had “eliminated the major conventional subdivision.” Combined with the removal of rural cluster subdivisions, this would leave landowners with limited options for development.
Scro requested the supervisors give any of those who had already spent significant time and money assessing a property but still needed to do the paperwork for a rural cluster be given 30 days to submit their applications.
Big government
Rivanna Supervisor Tony O’Brien was the lone board member who opposed the change.
“You guys know I’m a big fan of property rights,” he said. “In the abstract, the idea of essentially removing the ability to do something that they could do smacks of big Government.”
“I think there’s a big difference between big government and no government at all,” argued Mike Goad (Fork Union).
By-right use excluded local government oversight and prevented citizens from having a say over who might move in next door. “That doesn’t feel like a representative democracy to me at the local level.”
Tim Hodge (Palmyra) said he was in favor of removing the “exclusionary clause” that had eliminated the option for major subdivisions, arguing that this would create a “secondary path” for projects greater than five units. Restoring the option included a special use permit provision that gave them robust oversight over new projects.
As a closing argument, O’Brien said the county was once again sending a message that “we don’t really want your business here. They’ll hear that loud and clear,” he said.
Goad made the motion to eliminate rural cluster subdivisions and denied a request by O’Brien to amend the motion to include a three-month moratorium before the changes take effect.
The motion passed 4-1, with O’Brien casting the sole “no” vote.
Later, Hodge renewed his effort to eliminate the exclusion clause by making a motion to send it to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The motion failed on a 3-2 vote.
“It’s a zombie motion,” Hodge said. “It’ll come up again.”
