Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge caution as Stephens County proposes much larger minimum frontage for many zones
Summary
At a first-reading public hearing, multiple residents told the Stephens County Board of Commissioners that raising minimum tract/right-of-way widths (in some agricultural districts from 30 to 200 feet) could raise development costs and worsen affordable-housing prospects; commissioners said they will consider narrower alternatives before final vote.
At a public hearing on proposed edits to the Stephens County Land Use Ordinance, staff described a package of changes that would add definitions for flag and panhandle lots and substantially increase required track/tract width at rights-of-way across several zoning districts.
“As we move forward, we’re looking at all of the expenses that come along with it,” said Mike Elrod, a local resident, arguing the proposed 200-foot requirement for agricultural residential parcels would increase road and frontage costs and “your affordable housing just keeps going up and up.” Another landowner, Sherry Jeffers, said she owns a 119-acre tract with more than 4,000 feet of frontage and called a 200-foot standard “a little bit extreme,” citing estimates of hundreds of dollars per linear foot for road development.
Staff explained the change responds to a lack of consistent lot-width rules and to safety concerns from stacked driveways and poor line-of-sight; staff said agricultural zones were targeted for larger minimum widths while residential single-family would be proposed at 150 feet. Commissioners indicated they did not intend to finalize that full 200-foot standard for all agricultural categories and asked staff to return with revised wording for the second and final reading.
The hearing record also included questions about how panhandle/flag lots would be handled and clarifications that some exemptions were being removed from subdivision review. The board did not vote on the ordinance tonight; staff said recommended edits and alternatives will be included at the next reading.
