The county's Planning Director, Matthew Hoagland, presented four proposed amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Board approved those amendments during their July 11, 2024 meeting.
Those changes included:
Increasing the minimum size for new subdivision lots served by well and septic systems from the current size of 30,000 square feet to a new size of 65,000 square feet (roughly 1.5 acres).
- Increasing new lot minimums in watershed areas from one acre to 65,000 square feet.
- Increasing the road frontage width of cul-de-sac lots from 20 feet to a new standard of 26 feet as measured along the chord.
- Finally, creating a new width requirement for cul-de-sac lots of 175 feet at the building site while exempting new lots above two (2) acres from width rules.
- In approving the changes, the Planning Board issued the following consistency statement in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. 160D-604(d):
“We find that this Subdivision Ordinance amendment is consistent with the following Alamance County Land Development Plan’s Land Use and Agriculture policy recommendations:
- Recommendation 2.1 encourages increasing base lot size requirements and improving open space preservation in new development.
- Recommendation 3 encourages reducing development pressure in rural and agricultural areas.”
Mr. Hoagland gave a brief presentation and history of this issue and how the proposed changes would function. He noted that the public hearing notice had run twice in the local newspaper as required by state law.
Vice-Chair Carter, seconded by Commissioner Lashley, moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried without opposition.
The following speakers were heard from the floor:
Chris Faust, a septic and utility contractor/developer, spoke against the Planning Board's proposed recommendations.
Jeff Allred, a landowner, said making the lots bigger did nothing to make housing more affordable. He said restricting lot sizes does not make housing more affordable.
Jeff Throneberg, Alamance-Caswell Home Builders Association President, spoke against the proposed recommendations. He said he had provided previous data on average house prices to the Planning Board. He said increasing the lot sizes would cost a homebuyer an extra $400 per month. He asked the Board to meet and have conversations with developers and builders before they made a decision.
Sandy Ellington-Graves, a realtor, provided background from the Planning Board Subcommittee during her time as a Planning Board member. She explained this debate arose after the failed Snow Camp Zoning Plan. She said after the failed plan, there was a suggestion to increase the minimum lot size from 30,000 to 5 acres. Ms. Ellington-Graves said the primary focus was stopping development in the county's rural parts. She mentioned that she had shared a full report from the subcommittee to the entire Planning Board, and the conclusion and general agreement was that a minimum of one acre was a gracious plenty. She said the increase in the lot size was an added financial burden to affordable housing. She supported a one acre lot size.
Nolan Kirkman, a licensed engineer, suggested that the proposed changes were grossly overscaled. He said a better approach to preserving rural land, promoting prosperity for landowners, preserving tax base potential, and keeping a low tax rate was employing dense development with proper view shed and buffer regulations.
Ken Walker, Mebane realtor, spoke against the recommendations.
Henry Vines, a farmer and Planning Board Member, spoke that the recommended changes would not restrict the amount he could sell his land. He said farmers were subsidizing all of the houses being built. Mr. Vines said the farmers were trying to preserve the rural part of the county. He said that he supported the amendments and the two acres. He said the Planning Board agreed on 1.5 acres. Mr. Vines asked the Board to approve the recommendations.
Dwight Eperson, a real estate agent and land developer, opposed the recommendations. He said the average new homeowner could not afford the larger lots. Mr. Eperson commented that the economy was already struggling, and this was not practical at this time.
Todd Lambert, a professional engineer, suggested the current Planning Board recommendations were their own personal agenda. He said he did not believe that they solved a problem. He mentioned that the proposed changes were a burden on the county. Mr. Lambert asked the Board not to approve the recommendations.
No other speakers were heard from the floor. Vice-Chair Carter, seconded by Commissioner Lashley, moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried without opposition.
Commissioner Turner suggested having the Planning Department and the Planning Board take another comprehensive look and recommendations. He suggested bringing it back in 30 days.
The Board took no action.