Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners split 3-2 on Lunsford/Platt lot split; board asks attorney to resolve conflict in subdivision exemptions
Summary
A county land-division request exposed conflicting language in Hart County—s subdivision exemptions (a 10-acre exemption versus a 24-month single-split rule). The board voted 3—2 to treat the recent three-acre split as exempt for now and directed the county attorney to draft clarified ordinance language.
A dispute over a three-acre lot split on a larger parcel led the Hart County Board of Commissioners to confront a conflict in the county—s subdivision ordinance. Commissioners said the county—s current ordinance contains both a 10-acre exemption and a separate 24-month restriction on repeat splits; the two provisions can lead to inconsistent treatment of land divisions.
The issue arose after a property owner recorded a three-acre parcel cut from a larger tract that otherwise exceeded 10 acres. County staff said the language in the ordinance left uncertainty whether the small split should be governed by the 24-month single-split rule or covered by the 10-acre exemption for large parcels. Commissioners discussed the policy intent (protecting agricultural land and avoiding piecemeal subdivision) and agreed the ordinance language must be clarified.
Action taken: the board voted 3—2 (motion and second recorded on the minutes) to treat the subdivision as exempt under the existing ordinance language while directing the county attorney to draft revised ordinance language to reconcile the conflict between "exemption 2" (division into parcels of 10 acres or more) and "exemption 3" (one division within a 24-month period). The motion passed with three in favor and two opposed; the record does not show individual vote names in the public minutes.
Why it matters: commissioners cited the county—s interest in protecting agricultural land and avoiding unintended precedents that would allow rapid, sequential lot splits to effectively subdivide large holdings without review. County staff and commissioners said the ambiguity has created inconsistent outcomes in prior cases and warrants a written ordinance correction.
Next steps: the board requested the county attorney prepare language to resolve the internal conflict in the ordinance and present a draft for consideration at the next meeting. The board also acknowledged the matter can be revisited and the ordinance formally amended with the normal readings and public-notice requirements.
Ending: The board agreed to take no final action on land-division policy at the meeting beyond the interim classification; staff and the attorney will return a proposed ordinance change for future formal action.
