Cherokee County planners present 2050 growth projections and tools to steer development

Cherokee County planning staff told the Board of Commissioners on Sept. 16 that the county will likely meet projected housing demand by 2050, but officials must decide where that development occurs.

Ethan Van Steenberg, senior planner, summarized five population models and corresponding housing estimates and said even the most conservative projection would yield a county population in the mid-300,000s while the high-end model would put the county near 466,000. "In summary, what that means is we're going to meet our housing needs. Pretty much regardless of the projection, we will meet our housing needs," Van Steenberg said.

The presentation translated those population scenarios into housing units: the county currently has about 109,000 housing units; buildout under current zoning would allow roughly 160,700 units. Using permit history and recent growth trends produces housing estimates clustered around 160,000–168,000 units, Van Steenberg said.

Why it matters: commissioners said their concern is not whether housing will be built but where. Van Steenberg's maps and charts showed that under recent trends roughly 43% of future new housing could come from rural development (turning farmland into single-family lots), with only about 8% from multifamily and roughly 30% from city centers. He argued that market forces, lending practices and the relative ease of building on greenfield sites favor sprawl unless local policy changes the financial calculus.

Tools discussed

- Impact fees: Van Steenberg noted Georgia law prevents counties from using impact fees as an explicit growth-control mechanism; impact fees nonetheless influence development by shifting some infrastructure cost to new development but can increase housing costs.

- Growth boundaries and intergovernmental agreements: staff described existing growth-boundary agreements with cities as a way to coordinate where utilities and higher densities are encouraged.

- Conservation subdivisions: these preserve open space and reduce road infrastructure needs, which can lower long-term maintenance costs for the county but have only a modest effect on affordable housing.

- Selective downzoning and upzoning: staff characterized selective downzoning (e.g., increasing minimum lot sizes in rural AG districts) as a blunt tool that raises development cost and can reduce unit counts; conversely, targeted upzoning in areas with infrastructure can encourage infill housing. Van Steenberg cautioned that downzoning without offsetting upzoning risks underbuilding relative to population needs.

- Infrastructure management: county staff proposed coordinating with water and sewer providers to limit extension of sewer/water beyond agreed urban service boundaries to slow greenfield development. Commissioners noted the county does not directly control all health- and utility-related standards and would need cooperation from the state Department of Public Health and local water-sewer authorities.

- Transfer of development rights (TDR): Van Steenberg outlined a TDR program to allow developers to buy additional density "receiving" rights in urban areas by purchasing development rights from rural "sending" parcels placed in conservation. He said TDR can conserve farmland while enabling denser development near cores, but implementation requires detailed rules on sending/receiving areas, ratios and whether the conservation is permanent or term-limited.

Key points of debate

Several commissioners expressed skepticism about relying on TDRs to permanently protect farmland, noting that permanency can be legally contested and that judges or future policy changes could alter restrictions. One commissioner suggested time-limited conservation easements (for example 25–99 years) to balance landowner compensation and future flexibility. Another commissioner argued TDR demand could concentrate growth in already-dense corridors and worsen local infrastructure strain, saying "someone would want to buy rights from somewhere off Highway 20 and build some high density development on 92 and then add more density to it. I just don't see that working at all." (Speaker identified in transcript as a commissioner; name not specified.)

Fiscal tradeoffs and housing affordability

Commissioners also discussed the county's reliance, in part, on growth-driven revenue. One commissioner warned that sharply slowing growth without alternative revenue could raise taxes on existing residents because the county has used new growth to pay for expanded services. Others noted that limiting housing supply tends to raise prices, which works against affordable-housing goals unless the county sets aside a guaranteed share of development for affordability — for example by carving affordable units out of an agreed annual permit total.

Next steps and public engagement

Staff asked the board for policy direction on which tools to explore further and recommended using the county's future land use map and small-area plans to specify where denser development is appropriate. Multiple commissioners said the upcoming review of the future land use map, beginning in February, offers a practical route for implementing more specific character-area policies and for negotiating shared targets with city partners. The board requested the presentation be circulated to commissioners and considered posting it on the county website.

Ending

The board took no formal action on Sept. 16; staff said they would return with more detailed options and cost estimates if the board directed the planning department to pursue specific tools.