Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table proposed easement ordinance changes after builders, residents offer conflicting views
Summary
The board heard competing testimony on a draft amendment to easement rules that would curb a method developers used to get 2-acre lots via connection to paved roads. Commissioners voted to table the amendment to June 24 to allow staff work and wording changes.
Meriwether County commissioners held a public hearing May 20 on proposed changes to the county’s subdivision easement rules designed to prevent developers from using easement connections to bypass minimum lot-size standards for dirt-road frontage.
Legal staff drafted ordinance language to tighten rules after planners flagged instances where properties with only dirt-road access were being subdivided to 2-acre lots by linking to a paved road through a recorded easement—an approach that allowed developers to avoid a 5-acre minimum for dirt-road subdivisions. The draft would limit the number of lots that can be served by an easement and require recorded perpetual maintenance agreements for private easements.
Builders and developers, represented in public testimony by a local builder, urged the commission to work with industry to preserve feasible development options. The developer described examples of successful “estate-lot average” or easement-served neighborhoods—narrow lots with shared gravel drives—that produced desirable homes on smaller parcels while preserving affordability.
Opponents said the proposed adjustments were needed to stop what staff characterized as a method to circumvent lot-size protections tied to different road classes. County staff also noted the draft needed a small correction: a clause that read “2 of the lots” should read “one or more lots” to obtain the intended limit on easement-served subdivisions.
After discussion, commissioners voted to table the ordinance amendment until the June 24, 2025 regular meeting to allow staff—and the county attorney—to make clarifying edits and to provide more detail on a proposed mandatory perpetual maintenance agreement and enforcement mechanism. The board specifically declined to impose a temporary moratorium on new easement-recordings while it considers the ordinance changes.
