Henry County government leaders do not believe that people in other parts of Georgia should be deciding how development guidelines are set here.
That was the message send by the Henry County Board of Commissioners in a vote at its January 7 regular meeting to approve a resolution in support of local governments regulating their own building design standards for residential locations. The action came in response to House Bill 302, which came out of last year’s session of the Georgia General Assembly and would prohibit local governments from enacting design standards for single-family or multi-family residential structures.
That legislation is currently stalled at the Capitol, county attorney Patrick Jaugstetter told the board, pointing out that such matters have typically leaned in favor of local control or “home rule” as it is often called. He surmised that this action was probably created in large part due to lobbying efforts at the state level.
The commissioners were of one accord in their opposition to any overreach from legislators to dictate how they serve their constituents.
“We don’t want to give someone in Savannah permission to tell us how to build houses here in Henry County. Our needs are different, our infrastructure is different and our communities are different,” said Vivian Thomas. “This is a very strong message that we have to send to the Capitol to stop this bill. This is a very heavy movement and it can be very costly to the growth and development here in Henry County.”
Her comments were echoed by board chair June Wood.
“At the ACCG legislative conference, this was a very hot topic that many counties throughout the state were concerned about and they are very concerned about the elimination of Home Rule for building designs for their communities,” said Wood. “We don’t want any violation of Home Rule as it pertains to our local design standards. No one knows more about the community than we do locally. This message has been elevated at all levels and will continue to be elevated.”
Jaugstetter, who presented the item, said that the county will transmit the resolution to the General Assembly.
In other business, the board tabled a proposed ordinance amendment which staff said would clarity the requirement for a second entrance to a single-family residential subdivision with more than 50 lots.
Chief planner Stacey Jordan-Rudeseal said that there is a perceived conflict in the unified land development code, which calls for two entrances, described as “continuously open points of ingress/egress from the existing street system,” when more than 50 lots. The international fire code has a threshold of 30 lots for a second point of fire vehicle access.
The fire code allows for an additional emergency access point that is not open to the general public after 30 lots are constructed in a single development. The proposed amendment contained the additional phrase “notwithstanding any conflicting code requirement including, without limitation, any contained within the international fire code or appendix thereof.”
A few concerns were expressed by commissioners during the half-hour or more of discussion on the matter, which led to the decision to table the item for a future date.
