Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stephens County holds first readings, public hearings on land-use and subdivision ordinance changes
Summary
The Stephens County Board of Commissioners held public hearings and first readings on updates to the county Land Use Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, including new minimum lot-width provisions, panhandle/flag-lot rules and a definition for minor subdivisions; no final votes were taken.
The Stephens County Board of Commissioners held the first reading and public hearing for revisions to the county Land Use Ordinance and the first reading and public hearing for changes to the Subdivision Ordinance.
County staff presented proposed changes that would set minimum track/lot-width requirements across zoning districts, add definitions for flag and panhandle lots, and add a provision detailing how such lots may be implemented “in accordance with the Stephens County land use policies.” Staff also described a new definition for a “minor subdivision” in the Subdivision Ordinance that would allow up to four subdivisions of a parent parcel within a 12‑month period before plat review is required.
Members of the public raised concerns about the proposed widths. Mike Elrod, a resident of 1038 Hardy Road in Martin, said raising agricultural residential frontage requirements to 200 feet would increase development costs and could make affordable housing projects more expensive. “When you're 200 foot road frontage instead of 100 foot, you're now grading double your cost,” Elrod said. Sherry Jeffers, who said she owns a 19‑acre tract on Holiness Church Road, said construction costs and steep terrain make wide frontage requirements burdensome for property owners and asked the board to reconsider the 200‑foot standard. Stacy Pulliam of Mountain View Road asked staff to clarify which zones would be affected; staff confirmed the 200‑foot figure applies to agriculturally zoned properties while residential single‑family districts were proposed at 50 feet.
County staff and several commissioners said the proposed minimums are intended to address safety and sight‑distance concerns caused by many narrow driveway access points and to guide future subdivision appearance and roadway access as growth continues. Commissioner Oglesby said 30 feet is too small and endorsed setting higher minimums but suggested matching standards used by neighboring counties rather than immediately adopting a 200‑foot requirement in all agricultural categories.
On the Subdivision Ordinance, staff noted changes including removal of some exemptions (so divisions previously exempt in certain circumstances will now require plat submission), a new definition of easement, and a change extending the required lead time for plat submission to the planning commission from 15 to 30 days to meet advertising requirements. The planning commission previously reviewed the draft and recommended approval.
Both public hearings were closed after testimony. No final action was taken; the matters will return for a second and final reading, at which the board may adopt, amend or reject the proposed ordinances.
