News
Subdivision issue draws heated comments
By Jody O'Hara, Staff Writer
Jul 23, 2010, 09:06

Passionate voices were raised at Monday’s meeting of the Stone County Board of Supervisors regarding subdivision requirements.

Wynn Alexander, of DeSoto Land and Timber, came before the board asking it to change the current Subdivision Order to make it easier to sell plots on currently-existing, paved county roads.

Alexander took a roundabout way of getting to his point, talking about the real estate market and the Stone County Utility Authority before arriving at his topic of discussion.

“Somebody asked me the other day if real estate sales were slow and I said, ‘No, not at all. It’s going to have to pick up a whole lot to get up to slow,’” Alexander said.

After making a point about the SCUA’s profitability, or lack thereof, he got down to the purpose of his visit; a hoped for amendment to the Stone County Subdivision Order.

“In 2006, the Board of Supervisors changed the subdivision regulations,” he said.

The 1980 order required developers to file a plat if they subdivided five plots, each of which was less than three acres.

When amended in 2006, that requirement was changed to require a plat if five plots were subdivided, any one of which was less than eight acres.

Alexander said under the 1980 order, a subdivision of just 15 acres could be platted, while the amended order could apply to any acreage.

Using an example of a 407-acre tract of land, Alexander said the owner could sell four 100-acre parcels and then sell the seven acres remaining and be required to file a subdivision plat for approval.

“Gentlemen, what I’m saying is that ’06 book that was published needs to be redone,” Alexander told the board. “That thing hasn’t been thought through very well.”

Board President Dale Bond said he had thought developers had had input into the 2006 amendment to the Subdivision Order.

“To my understanding there was a committee appointed of developers and a couple of Board of Supervisors members who came together and had a few, or several, meetings and agreed upon this regulation that they voted on and approved in ’06,” he said.

Alexander said he’d been part of that committee and had gone along in order for the committee to speak with one voice, but he felt the county had taken a beating and that was what he was in attendance Monday to rectify.

“It slowed down what you can do with property,” Alexander said.

Bond said the regulations were in place to protect all Stone County residents and to make sure the board was aware what was going on with development in the county.

“The eight acres is a safeguard, actually, for Stone County,” he said.

Alexander said the requirement puts an undue burden on a developer who owns property facing a paved road and wants to divide that into parcels, all of which would have access to the road.

At one point, Alexander seemed to refute his argument by saying he had a 20-acre parcel he wanted to divide into three. If there are not five parcels in the subdivision, no plat would be required to begin with, regardless of lot size.

A plat submitted for approval requires a filing fee and engineering reports while the county requires developers of subdivisions to put in a road which meets county specifications.

Alexander asked the board to make a motion and vote on an amendment which would exclude large tracts of land subdivided on an existing, blacktop county road.

Bond voiced a fear that a developer would then develop more lots in the area and leave the county holding the tab for putting in an acceptable, paved road.

Alexander said if more lots were, in fact, developed, the developer would have to submit a plat for any that were not on an existing road.

“The county road is already there and it’s already paved,” said District 1 Supervisor Clark Byrd, emphasizing the fact the amendment wouldn’t apply if a new road was required. “If it’s on an existing county road and that’s the only change, I don’t see where that would hurt anything.”

District 3 Supervisor Lance Pearson said he had talked with Alexander beforehand and, if the parcels were only on an existing road, he wouldn’t be opposed. At the same time, Pearson encouraged restraint.

“I think it needs to be sat down and discussed more before we jump into anything,” he said.

By the end of the conversation, it appeared the board would ask county engineer Jon Bond if he could write the exceptions requested by Alexander into an amendment and revisit the issue at a future meeting.

“All I look forward to is trying to improve Stone County and this is one small way I saw to do it,” Alexander said. “Peace be with you till we meet again.”

© Copyright 2005