Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends approval of Shaw rezone with contingencies after neighborhood concerns
Summary
After debate over notices, packet completeness and referral comments, the commission recommended approval of the Shaw rezone (40-acre parcel from A to AR) to the Board of County Commissioners with conditions requiring complete packet materials and resolved affidavits.
The Elbert County Planning Commission on April 1 voted to recommend approval of the Shaw rezone, case RZ-2024-2571, to the Board of County Commissioners — subject to contingencies that staff supply required missing packet documents and corrected notice affidavits.
Planner Danny Klebanner presented the Shaw request on behalf of applicant Tracy Aaron and property owner Dane Shaw. The proposal would rezone a 40.0-acre parcel at 25715 County Road 5 in unincorporated Elbert County from Agriculture to Agriculture Residential (AR), showing conceptual 10-acre lots on the rezone exhibit. The planning department’s staff report recommended approval with conditions.
Public comment included several nearby residents who opposed additional subdivision in the area, citing road maintenance and safety concerns along County Road 5 and the cumulative effect of multiple nearby subdivisions. Joel Pepper and Dee Valdez Pepper, who own adjacent property, said the area historically consisted of 40-acre parcels and warned that multiple smaller lots could strain the unpaved road and local water supplies.
Commissioners spent extended time on packet completeness and noticing. Commissioner Nicole Hunt and others noted missing or blank pages in the digital packet, an absent newspaper-publication affidavit in the electronic materials, and apparent discrepancies between assessor ownership records and the applicant’s mailed-notification list. Planning staff said some documents (title commitment, newspaper affidavit and certain referral letters) were on file but not attached to the distributed packet; staff offered to supply them for the BOCC packet and to correct affidavits where necessary.
After deliberation the commission approved a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners with the condition that staff supply the missing items and correct the notice affidavit issues. Commissioners recorded votes with several members spelling out that their approval was contingent on the complete packet and corrected notice documentation being provided to the BOCC.
