Subdivision ordinance may not exist

A much touted subdivision ordinance that states that a new subdivision cannot tag on to an existing subdivision may not exist. The alleged ordinance has been used to deny homebuilders access to existing subdivision roads.

District 3 supervisor Keith Taylor brought up the issue after lot buyers in a subdivision laid out by John Porter were denied access to Jesse Drive that courses through a subdivision. The drive joins Farley Road in a much disputed area where erosion control has been a big issue with existing homeowners.

Taylor said he was trying to find a

2006 development where the developer wanted to tag on to a subdivision to do a development behind it.

“My thoughts every since then, I’ve told everybody you can’t tag on to a subdivision. We turned down a few over the years. Then it comes up to a subdivision in District 2 that the county allowed to tag on to South Slayden Farms,” Taylor said.

“Fast forward, we asked to look at the minutes on Kathleen Road (page 22, 2006 – April 17, 2006). Warren Callicutt wanted to widen Kathleen Road. May 8, 2006, the minutes allowed Callicutt to use a 40-foot easement. June 12, 2006, Callicutt asked to reconsider entering Kathleen Road. The board denied access via Kathleen Road. It should have said you can’t tag on to another subdivision, but this specifies Kathleen Drive.”

“My minutes reads it is Kathleen Drive only,” said board attorney Amanda Whaley Smith. “But the board misunderstood and it was never put in place to deny to tag on to a subdivision.”

Taylor continued. “Kathleen was denied,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean other roads,” said District 2 supervisor Johnny Walker.

“There’s nothing in the minutes that states you can’t. I think this is the board’s position,” Taylor said.

“You’ve been relying on …” Smith said.

“This brings us to the end of Jesse Drive,” Taylor said. “He (the lot owner) asked for one drive one house. Now he (John Porter) has four lots sold. Porter threatened to sue because the board allowed other tag ons.

“I need something to hang our hat on to say this will stand up in court or not.”

Taylor said he does not think Porter’s claim will stand up in court because the county (Board of Supervisors) never saw Porter’s subdivision plat.

“People will have more traffic coming through,” Taylor said.

Walker said people who were allowed to drive through South Slayden Road tore the subdivision road up.

“Taxpayers had to pay for the repair,” Taylor said. “We can fix it in the future by changing our ordinances.

District 1 supervisor Charles Terry said the situation in 2006 was different than now.

“I was not here,” he said.

Smith said to change an ordinance, the county has to hold a public hearing and take certain steps.

“Once it (the subdivision road) gets the final lift, it becomes a county road,” Terry said.

That means the county has to repair any damages to the road that will take place when heavy trucks bring in loads over the subdivision road to build the homes and drives in the subdivision that tags on.

Taylor mentioned the situation of a cul-de-sac.

“If we allow people to tag on, we’ve got to have it in an ordinance, whether you can or not,” Taylor said.

“What are you going to do in the meantime?” Walker asked.

“The question is people who live out there, what do we tell them?” Taylor asked.

Smith said the order is implied it covers only Kathleen Drive.

“The attorney we had at the time did not advise us it was only for Kathleen Drive,” Taylor said.

Jean Marksberry, who lives on Jesse Drive asked to speak.

She considered a request by a person in 2023 to restrict a C- 2 zoning for use by Mark Utley that was discussed earlier in the meeting.

“Mr. Taylor said, if I was going to buy a property they should have looked into it.

“I am throwing your words right back to you. July 2023. These other places you used it as an ordinance to deny other people. Mr. Porter threatens to sue.

“My concern is we have a man who is going to sue you and you back down. That’s even a bigger concern than building on to Jesse Drive. You used it a couple of years ago on another subdivision. At the time we were told it was one lot, one house. Then you say it’s a private drive, not a county road.”

Smith said legally it is not an ordinance.

“But we know it’s been applied to individuals,” Smith said. “I researched it and could not find a board order. That’s problematic.”

“You can’t change the past, what was done by the previous board,” Walker said. “We’ve got to start to do it the right way.”

“I think Mr. Porter has destroyed the land in Marshall County,” Marksberry said. “It’s a very sad situation, what he has been allowed to do.”

“All we can say is I made a bad decision before. In the future it is going to be different,” Terry said.

Smith said with the subdivision in question, Porter’s subdivision property came out as an easement that a road could be built there.

“I thought we had the right to tell him, you have an easement to one dwelling,” Taylor said.