Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elbert County staff propose construction standards amendments and developer fee schedule; commissioners ask for further review
Summary
County engineer Dale Gillum presented proposed amendments to construction standards, including a developer fee schedule, street-lane design criteria, culvert maintenance language and pavement tables. Commissioners asked for more review of turn-lane criteria and suggested splitting fees from regulatory changes for faster adoption.
Dale Gillum, engineer for Elbert County, presented a set of discussion proposals to amend the county’s construction standards and specifications, including a new fee schedule for land developers, proposed street-lane design criteria, clearer culvert ownership rules for private driveways, and a pavement-section table for asphalt and roads.
Gillum said the proposed fee schedule draws on current competitive fees used by surrounding counties and is intended to recover engineering-review and plan-review costs, including consultant fees when the county contracts outside review. He said those fees could help recoup previously absorbed costs.
Commissioner questions focused on the fiscal impact and on proposed street-lane design criteria. When asked about annual budget impact, a county official estimated the fees could recover “a few $100,000 a year” (described as “2 to 3 [hundred thousand]” in the meeting). Commissioner Schroeder said the lane-design proposal warrants further review so it would not be prohibitive for smaller developments.
County staff noted the proposed traffic-count thresholds for turn lanes would apply to only a small number of county roads; staff identified County Road 13 and County Road 166 as the only two roads in the county meeting the traffic volumes that would trigger turn-lane requirements under the draft criteria.
On culverts, the proposed language clarifies that property owners are responsible for culvert maintenance through the driveway, while the county public-works department remains responsible for ditching to and from the culvert. Staff said the county has not previously enforced culvert maintenance with code enforcement at scale; the amendment would supply clearer expectations and a reference on driveway permits.
Gillum also presented a pavement-section table that sets minimum construction standards for private and public roads; the goal is to reduce calls about roads built without engineering standards.
Several commissioners suggested splitting the fee schedule from the broader regulatory amendments so fees could be adopted more quickly while the regulations receive further study. Commissioners directed staff to hold follow-up discussions and to consider a work-study session to refine lane-design language and finalize fee implementation.
Ending — Staff will continue discussions with commissioners, consider separating fee adoption from regulatory changes, and schedule further review or a work-study session before any formal adoption.
