Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Dawson County keeps five-year limit as board approves growth-management changes

Dawson County Board of Commissioners · September 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Dawson County Board of Commissioners approved growth-management text amendments on Sept. 18, 2025, but voted to retain the five-year restriction in Section 133-115 that limits consecutive minor subdivisions. Community Development Director Richard Osborne said residents raised concerns about rapid, repeated subdividing.

The Dawson County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 18 approved proposed text amendments to the county’s Growth Management chapter but explicitly left intact the five-year restriction in Section 133-115 that limits consecutive minor subdivisions. The motion passed 3-0 (Stowers/Turkett).

Community Development Director Richard Osborne told the board there had been community concern about “too [much] subdividing in a quick timeframe” and outlined that the rural subdivision option would not be added while the five-year waiting period would remain. Chairman Billy Thurmond opened the public hearing, heard no public speakers and closed it before the vote.

The retained Section 133-115 language, as recorded in the minutes, states the intent to prohibit “chain” subdivisions designed to avoid major-subdivision requirements and defines a minor subdivision as creating up to four new lots from the original parent parcel, with no more than four lots created from the parent tract within a five-year period. The section also cross-references the county’s plat checklist and the Georgia Plat Act (O.C.G.A. § 15-6-67).

Commissioners thanked staff and citizens who provided input through a community survey. The board’s action was framed as preserving the county’s existing safeguards while approving other, unspecified text edits to the growth-management code. The motion was recorded as Stowers/Turkett and carried unanimously.