Archived story
As originally published
Habersham County’s Board of Commissioners unanimously adopted a new Unified Development Ordinance on July 20, replacing the county’s 1992 Comprehensive Land Development Ordinance after months of arguments over housing rules, rural lot sizes and safeguards for large projects. The 5-0 action establishes a new framework for development review and requires proposed data centers to seek special-use permits and submit substantially more supporting information.
The ordinance matters because it will shape what kinds of subdivisions, industrial uses and other projects can be considered across Habersham County—and how neighbors can weigh in. County officials had said the former four-district system could place incompatible uses near one another. For property owners and builders, the change brings different standards and review pathways; for residents worried about growth, water, roads and farmland, it offers a more defined process for scrutinizing a project’s scale and conditions.
The overhaul began as an exploratory effort: commissioners received an informational zoning and UDO presentation in January 2024 without taking action, then hired CPL four months later under a $97,800 contract to develop the code. An initial draft reached commissioners in September 2025. As the proposal moved toward adoption, the county temporarily paused certain larger residential preliminary plats and rezonings, while the Planning Commission and Board held hearings and town halls that prompted revisions to lot-size, family-subdivision and data-center provisions. AccessNorthGA reported that officials also planned a June 11 open house for owners to review mapping and speak with Planning Commission members; that report does not establish whether the event occurred.
Residents pressed officials on both the reach of the rules and the accuracy of the map. At the March hearing, commenters objected to or questioned a proposed 1,500-square-foot home minimum, lot sizes and expansion to nine zoning districts. At an April town hall, Jodie Bochat raised concerns about map discrepancies and whether conservation zoning would limit dividing her 14 acres among her children; Alice Venter proposed advisory committees for farmers, real-estate professionals and younger residents. Sally Roscoe later cited growth, infrastructure, water availability and agricultural land. Officials responded by revising the draft, including removing a Conservation Subdivision district, reducing some five-acre minimums to three acres and adding family-subdivision exemptions.
The Board’s approval and the strengthened data-center application requirements are completed acts. Earlier drafts and Planning Commission changes included a 1,500-square-foot subdivision minimum, industrial-use restrictions and data-center cooling, separation and sound-barrier provisions; staff later described some home-size requirements of about 1,400 square feet. The July approval record, however, does not establish whether those home-size provisions remained unchanged in the adopted code. Nor does it independently show that a revised zoning map was adopted alongside the ordinance, even though officials said in April that mapping corrections were still being made in response to public feedback.
Implementation is now the next public test. The July official minutes do not say when the ordinance takes effect or set a timetable for a final zoning map or parcel-by-parcel rollout. Residents, applicants and landowners will be watching for that map, the first proposals filed under the new code, or a later Board action interpreting or amending its terms. Until those details are established, the ordinance’s full practical effect on individual properties and future development remains undecided.