Giles County resident urges action after developer allegedly markets unapproved subdivision; county attorney says proof needed before legal steps

Dustin Kittle, who identified himself as representing "a group of concerned Giles County residents," told the Giles County Regional Planning Commission that a purported subdivision project — referred to in the hearing record variously as "Creo Ranch," "Creole Ranch" and "Exrio Ranch" — is being marketed and that prospective buyers have been asked to put down deposits despite the property not having completed county review.

Kittle said he has provided a legal memorandum and public-record evidence to county officials and offered to give the county attorney a copy of a recorded easement he said raises questions about whether the marketing seeks to evade subdivision-review rules. "They're taking deposits on that, for prospective sales," Kittle said. "These entities are making money off Giles County land." He urged the commission to act, suggesting a cease-and-desist letter as one option and warning that allowing the activity to continue could "snowball" into many affected buyers and additional liability for the county.

County Attorney Mr. Williams told the commission he had met with Kittle, with counsel for the purported developer and with other local officials. "I think whatever is going on up there, if it gets to the point of being a development, it needs to come before this commission," he said, adding that the county's legal authority to act hinges on proof that sales or transfers tied to an unapproved subdivision are occurring. "Before the county takes off on litigating anything or filing lawsuits, then we need to have the proof to make sure that we're going forward in good faith," he said.

Williams outlined enforcement tools available to the county — including the possibility of enjoining sales or securing removal of unapproved improvements — and noted there are also criminal penalties for transferring lots in an unrecorded subdivision. He cautioned commissioners that litigation would likely be expensive and met with vigorous defense and possible counterclaims, and said county staff should bring admissible evidence, such as recorded plats, deeds or transaction records, before the county pursues formal legal action.

Members discussed a proposed "notice to developers" front sheet intended to clarify submission and signature requirements and to inform promoters that activities inconsistent with county subdivision standards could prompt legal or administrative responses. The commission also confirmed that proposed updates to the Regional Planning Commission standards will be posted for public review ahead of a May 5 meeting.

Procedural actions during the meeting included a motion to suspend the rules to allow Kittle an additional two minutes to finish his comments; that motion was moved by a commission member and seconded in the record and carried. The commission also approved a consent item related to subdivision signatures and code paperwork; the vote was recorded verbally as "Aye" with no roll-call tally in the hearing record.

The planning commission did not announce any immediate litigation against the developer during the meeting; county staff and Mr. Williams said the next steps depend on whether the commission or members can present admissible evidence showing illegal transfers or sales.