Property owner seeks partial plat amendment at Sweetwater RV Park; county staff and engineer disagree on process

A property owner described a request to amend lot boundaries at the Sweetwater RV Park (Phase 8) so adjacent back property can be added to existing RV lots, and the Rich County Commission directed staff to clarify the proper legal process with planning, the county engineer and the county attorney.

Why it matters: The proposal would incorporate small rear parcels into existing RV lots so homeowners would not carry separate new parcels. The owner and HOA prefer a partial plat amendment that keeps the parcels under the same lot record so homeowners are subject to existing HOA rules; the county engineer had recommended vacating and recreating the subdivision, which the owner and recorder's office said is unnecessary and confusing for title companies.

Norman Leecum, representing the property owner and buyers, described long‑standing informal use of a pink area behind lots in Sweetwater RV Park. He said those residents had historically used the property for sheds and parking and asked to formalize the arrangement so the back area becomes part of each adjacent lot. "We were just trying to amend and he thought we were trying to vacate those lots," Leecum said of the engineer's comments.

County recorder staff said a partial plat amendment with updated legal descriptions and signatures from affected lot owners is the preferred approach in Rich County and would create a single parcel number for each amended lot. "As long as it is on the plat, I will accept it and make the necessary changes," the recorder said, adding that a separate deed‑based approach can confuse title companies and potentially strip HOA control from those areas.

The county engineer reviewed the submission and questioned whether the proposed amendment would meet current subdivision standards; he suggested a different approach (vacate and re‑subdivide), which recorder staff and the owner said would cause more work and expense. Commissioners noted inconsistent guidance: one staffer said the county ordinance passed last year indicates certain plan amendments do not go through Planning & Zoning, while another cited state code requiring P&Z review. The board asked staff to clarify which statutory and ordinance processes apply.

Commissioners did not adopt a final action at the meeting. Instead they directed staff to: confirm with the engineer and county planner whether the submission requires a partial plat amendment or a vacate/re‑subdivide; confirm whether Planning & Zoning must review and hold a public hearing; and return with a recommended procedural path that preserves HOA authority and minimizes title problems. Recorder staff said she can record the amendment once it includes the requested signatures and the legal description is corrected; she also offered to record both deeds and a plat if the commission prefers extra redundancy.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff and the engineer to reconcile the differing process interpretations and to report back for a decision. If Planning & Zoning review is required, staff indicated that a public hearing would follow once the process is clarified and signatures from the seven affected property owners are collected.