In 1992, the Hart County Commission contracted with the Georgia Mountains Regional Development Center (GMRDC) for preparation of a Comprehensive Plan. Aside from the basic need for a plan to guide growth and development, the requirement of a plan by the Georgia General Assembly (pursuant to the Georgia Planning Act of 1989) to receive certain future state grants provided a major impetus for the local governments to embark on a comprehensive planning process.
The Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide the basic data and analysis required in the "minimum planning standards" and the maintenance of "qualified local government" status as established by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The minimum planning standards include the following elements: population, housing, economic development, natural and historic resources, community facilities and services, and land use. In addition, the state standards require an implementation segment to the plan. The format of the Comprehensive Plan text parallels the minimum planning standards by devoting a chapter to each required plan element, with separate chapters for the natural and historic resources element.
A "Comprehensive Plan," known also by other names such as general plan, development plan, master plan, policy plan, and growth management plan, has several characteristics. It is a physical plan intended to guide the physical development of a community by describing how, why, when and where to build or preserve the community. The plan is also long range, in that it considers a horizon of twenty years. It is utopian in the sense that it is a picture of what the community desires to become, but it is also realistic with regard to anticipated social, economic and political constraints. The plan is also comprehensive because it covers the entire County geographically, encompasses all the functions that make a community work, and considers the interrelationships of functions. A Comprehensive Plan is a statement of policy, covering future directions desired by the community in each plan element, and it is a guide to decision making for the elected and appointed local government officials and other members of the citizenry.
Comprehensive planning is also a continuous process. Formulation of this text and maps is not the ultimate objective; the use of the plan is what is important, and a Comprehensive Plan is only as good as the measures used to implement the plan. No single document can pose solutions to all community needs, and the Comprehensive Plan must be a flexible, continuous and changing activity that is periodically updated based on changing conditions, the shifting of resources, and the alteration of goals.
In addition to providing a general organization of the local community interests, the Comprehensive plan serves the following purposes and functions:
The Comprehensive Plan represents a focusing of planning thought and effort - an attempt to identify and analyze the complex forces, relationships, and dynamics of growth in order that they can be shaped and directed in accordance with recognized community goals and aspirations. It is a realistic appraisal of what the community is now, a normative and futuristic blueprint of what the community wants to be, and a specific set of programs for achieving community desires.
The plan is based on the foundation that if a community knows where it wants to go, it possesses better prospects of getting there. The plan attempts to recognize the relationships between diverse development goals and objectives and establishes a meaningful basis for the resolution of conflicts. A comprehensive plan functions as a master yardstick for evaluating all significant future development proposals. The plan is intended to provide the essential background and perspective for decision-making in respect to regulations, land subdivisions, public investments, and capital improvement programs. The comprehensive plan also provides guidance to businessmen, investors and developers regarding the development of policies and the future direction and intensity of growth. For the community at large, the plan (if properly implemented) assures that land use conflicts will be resolved if not avoided, that misuses of land will not occur, that traffic congestion will be minimized or averted, that community facilities will be located in areas where people can best use them, and that the community's growth will take place in an orderly, rational manner.
In accordance with the desire to achieve a broad base of citizen support for the Comprehensive Plan and a goal oriented planning approach, the local elected officials appointed a planning advisory committee consisting
of county residents. The GMRDC planning staff met with the advisory committee numerous times and received valuable input concerning the various plan elements of the comprehensive plan.
In accordance with minimum procedural requirements, an initial public hearing was held by the Hart County Commission, on July 28, 1992 behalf of all participating governments, the purpose of which was to advise the citizens of the county and cities on the process to be followed in preparing the plan, as well as to solicit advance comments on community needs, desires, aspirations and issues. Upon completion of the draft plan, an informational open house and a second public hearing were held in accordance with plan procedural requirements on June 12, 1995.
To ensure adequate input, a community survey form was prepared and distributed to about 10,000 households in the county. The community survey form and survey results are provided in Appendix A. Results of the survey are discussed below.
There were 870 survey responses, 577 (66.3%) of which were from respondents in the Reed Creek and Hartwell voting precincts. Less than 60 responses each were received from the Bio, Bowersville, Cokesbury and Goldmine voting precincts. Less than one-fifth (17.4%) of the respondents resided in municipalities. A total of 17 Bowersville residents responded to the survey, while a lesser number of Canon and Royston residents also submitted the survey form. There were 114 respondents, or 13.2% of the total respondents, who were residents of the City of Hartwell.
In response to the question "What brought you to Hart County?", more than one-third indicated "family", followed by "retirement". Several questions in the community survey related to land use. By overwhelming margins, respondents favored protection of water resources, prime farmland, historic/archaeological properties, and trees during the site development process. Regarding land use restrictions, regulation of auto salvage yards was favored by a ten to one margin, and regulation of mobile homes was favored by more than a three to one margin. A majority of the respondents also favored controlling development around Lake Hartwell. Only a slight majority (53%) responded affirmatively to the question "Should growth in Hart County be controlled?".
Regarding general and economic development, Lake Hartwell and the county's open and forested areas were viewed by respondents as positive factors of life in Hart County. Shopping facilities and employment opportunities (or lack thereof) were the only factors in the survey question viewed negatively (in a majority).
Survey results indicate that respondents are, by and large, satisfied with the vast majority of local government services provided. Those services which received more "dissatisfied" than "satisfied" responses were parking facilities (presumably, the lack of sufficient vehicle parking in Hartwell's central business district), planning (417 of 820 dissatisfied), and economic development (413 of 825 dissatisfied). Highways and roads received only a slightly higher number of satisfied than dissatisfied responses (444 to 376). The library had the least number of dissatisfied responses (46), followed by emergency medical services (71) and then fire services (101).
Although respondents favored development and operation of an animal shelter, only a slight minority supported a special purpose sales tax to fund an animal shelter. Respondents favored use of special purpose sales taxes only for solid waste/garbage service, road and bridges, and (by a margin of one response) hospital renovation. Unification of Hart County and Hartwell governments was favored by nearly 100 (444 "yes" to 347 "no"). Both city and unincorporated County respondents favored consolidation.
The respondents residing within the Town of Bowersville generally were consistent with those of the county as a whole. Significant differences, however, were that Bowersville's residents viewed shopping facilities and employment opportunities positively (they were negative factors in the total county results), and that money management, tax assessment and planning were all viewed with dissatisfaction. Bowersville's residents overwhelmingly disfavored Hart County - Hartwell consolidation, and they supported use of special purpose sales taxes only to fund roads and bridges.
The community survey also requested that respondents indicate what they believed should be the first priority in the comprehensive plan. Approximately 575 persons responded to this question, most with two or three listed priorities. Written responses to this question were tabulated into the following generalized categories. Not every written response was included in these generalized categories.
PRIORITY |
# RESPONSES |
PRIORITY |
# RESPONSES |
| Economic Development |
112 |
Animal Shelter |
26 |
| Planning/Zoning/Land Use |
90 |
City/County Consolidation |
21 |
| Water/Sewer Services |
84 |
Public Safety |
15 |
| Taxation/Administration |
68 |
Education 15 |
|
| Solid Waste/Recycling /Landfill |
52 |
Natural Gas |
15 |
| Roads/Bridges |
46 |
Building Code |
11 |
| Preserve Natural Resources/Existing Character |
36 |
Parking |
4 |
| Health/Hospital |
36 |
Housing |
2 |
Source:Hart County Community Survey, 1993. Tabulations and Classifications by GMRDC 1993.
More detailed analysis of survey results are provided as they relate to specific plan elements and components.
Hart County is located in northeast Georgia adjacent to South Carolina. Hartwell, the county seat, is located approximately 115 miles from Atlanta. The Town of Bowersville is located in the western portion of the County. Map 1-1 shows the location of Hart County in relation to other counties in the state. Map 1-2 shows Hart County's relationship to the
Georgia Mountains region. Base maps for Hart County and Bowersville are provided as Map 1-3 and 1-4, respectively.
Insert Map 1-1: Hart County Location
Insert Map 1-2: Georgia Mountains Region
Insert Map 1-3 Hart County Detail
Insert Map 1-4 Bowersville, GA
