Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haralson County work session stalls as commissioners and staff seek a single authoritative subdivision ordinance
Summary
At a Haralson County work session, participants debated conflicting published versions of a 2024 subdivision ordinance and argued over whether the "minor subdivision" definition should require a 5‑acre minimum or instead use existing zoning minimums; attorneys will be asked to identify the authoritative text before redlining resumes.
Haralson County — Participants in a county work session spent most of the meeting trying to reconcile multiple versions of the county's subdivision ordinance and debating how the code should define a "minor subdivision," including whether to keep a fixed 5‑acre minimum or rely on current zoning standards.
The discussion began after Speaker 1 identified a redlined draft prepared by attorneys and noted a version dated 05/30/2025. "I'd like to formally introduce everybody to our newest family member, Clay Lovern," Speaker 1 said, then moved the group toward reviewing the definitions. Speaker 2 pressed the substantive issue: the draft's minor subdivision language requiring "minimum lot area of at least 5 acres," Speaker 2 argued, would exclude parcels already zoned for smaller lot sizes.
"My biggest correction on that I think should say ... minimum lot area at present zoning, not at least 5 acres," Speaker 2 said, describing how a strict 5‑acre rule could prevent otherwise eligible splits on parcels zoned R1, R2 or R3. Speaker 2 added that unless that change is made, they "won't vote for any changes in the whole thing." Speaker 1 acknowledged the implementation challenge and said they were concerned about remapping the county.
Other participants raised practical and historical concerns. Speaker 5 and Speaker 2 cited a prior case in which roughly 480 acres were divided into many lots, saying permissive administrative splits can create unsustainable demands for infrastructure. Speakers discussed grandfathering existing lots and an administrative pathway for small splits versus formal rezoning, and whether the minor subdivision ordinance's lot limits should be 20 lots (the current text) or reduced to 10.
A second, parallel problem emerged: multiple competing versions of the ordinance are circulating. Speakers said they saw a 2024 version that appears to have been adopted by the board, a separate redlined version produced for this review, and a third version purportedly on Municode. "There's three versions, there's four versions," Speaker 2 said, emphasizing that staff and the board must determine which text is the official, adopted ordinance before editing.
No formal motions or votes took place. Instead, members agreed to pause line‑by‑line redlining until attorneys confirm which document is authoritative and to reconvene after staff and counsel reconcile the versions. Speaker 3 volunteered to coordinate meetings with staff and the attorney to develop recommended edits.
The work session ended with an agreement to obtain the definitive adopted text (the version participants recall was approved in January 2024) and to resume drafting once counsel and staff have clarified the authoritative code version.
