Elbert County approves Shaw property rezoning despite resident traffic, notification concerns

The Elbert County Board of County Commissioners on May 7 approved a rezoning request for a 40.096-acre parcel at 25715 County Road 5, changing the property from agricultural to agricultural-residential (Case RZ2024-2571). The board voted to approve the application with the conditions recommended by staff and the Planning Commission.

The rezoning affects land owned by Dane Shaw; the application was presented by Tracy Aaron. Land use planner Danny Kilburn told the commissioners the Division of Water Resources reviewed the proposed water supply and deemed it adequate, and county public-works review estimated about 12 additional average daily vehicle trips from the proposal and did not identify road improvements as required for the two additional lots. Planning staff said the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions, and those conditions were added to the board’s packet.

The decision follows an extended public-referral process and a community meeting that drew nine residents. Opponents told the board the area has seen substantial traffic increases in recent years and questioned whether the county’s quarter-mile (1,320-foot) notification radius is sufficient for rural subdivisions. Dee Valdez Pepper, who lives at 25134 County Road 5, said the road is narrow and was damaged in recent floods, and asked, “At what point will the road be improved?” Several other residents raised related concerns about aquifer impacts and the cumulative effect of multiple subdivisions in the area.

Residents also argued potential subdivision of nearby 40‑acre parcels into 10‑acre lots has put pressure on local infrastructure. A speaker representing Kelly Air Park said increasing residential density near the airpark could produce more noise complaints and place operational pressure on the airport, which the speaker noted operates under Federal Aviation Administration rules.

County staff and the applicant responded that notice procedures followed the county’s requirements using a current radius report, that referral comments from Monty Hankins and other public-works staff did not identify required road upgrades for the two additional lots, and that a recent referral review did not require a formal traffic study given the low number of lots proposed. Kilburn summarized the Planning Commission vote in favor as 4–2; planning conditions included updating the title commitment and signposting affidavits and ensuring required exhibits were recorded.

The board’s motion to approve RZ2024-2571 carried after a vote; the motion was moved from the dais, seconded and approved with one recorded no vote. The rezoning will not become effective until fees are paid, conditions of approval are met and the rezone exhibit is recorded, per the staff report.

The board’s staff said they are reviewing notification radius and public‑meeting timing guidelines for rural projects; Commissioner Boyle told residents the county is considering changes to expand notice distances and improve timing of community meetings for larger developments.

Record-keeping and conditions attached to the approval include removal of public-hearing signs within seven days of the board decision and fulfillment of the Planning Commission’s previously listed conditions. The transcript did not specify a single definitive deadline for recording the rezone exhibit for this case.