Elbert County approves Shaw property rezoning amid residents' concerns about roads, water and notification

Elbert County commissioners on May 14 approved a request to rezone a 40.096-acre parcel at 25715 County Road 5 from Agricultural to Agricultural Residential (case RZ2024-2571), adopting staff-recommended conditions and the planning commission’s recommended findings.

County staff said the rezone would create two additional lots and that referrals to county departments and state agencies found no outstanding regulatory objections. The planning commission recommended approval, 4-2, with conditions that included adding a title commitment and updated sign-posting affidavits.

Danny Klebanner, a land use planner with Elbert County Community and Development Services, told the board the proposal met the six approval criteria in Albert County zoning regulations Article 3.C.4, including consistency with the county comprehensive plan and compatibility with surrounding uses. Klebanner said driveway access would meet Public Works standards and that the Division of Water Resources had deemed the proposed water supply adequate. Public-works staff estimated roughly 12 additional average daily vehicle trips from the two new lots.

Residents who live near the property told commissioners they opposed the rezone because of traffic and road-condition concerns, water availability, and inadequate notice. D Valdez Pepper, who said she lives on County Road 5, described what she called a sharp increase in traffic and asked, "At what point will the road be improved?" She said notice of previous subdivisions had not reached many neighbors and urged a larger notification radius for rural applications.

Joe Pepper, who said his property is catty-corner to the proposed parcel, asked about aquifer studies and cumulative water demand as nearby properties are subdivided. Ben Newart, who identified himself as a Kelly Airpark resident, said that subdividing larger parcels into smaller lots could increase complaints about airport noise and that precedent could affect the airport’s operations.

Tracy Aaron, the applicant’s representative, said the applicant followed the county’s notification procedures using a current radius report and that the landowner likely would keep the larger portion of the property and sell only the front 10-acre lot. Aaron told the board the delay in submitting the application related in part to preparing an augmentation plan and exhibits.

Commissioners discussed notification radius and rural notice practices; one commissioner said county staff are proposing guideline changes to increase notice distances for larger subdivisions. After discussion, a motion to approve RZ2024-2571 carried. The board voted in favor; one commissioner recorded a dissenting vote. The rezone will not become effective until conditions are met, associated fees are paid and the rezone exhibit is recorded.

Recordation and other conditions: the applicant must remove public-hearing signage within seven days of the board decision; the rezone is contingent on payment of fees and recording of the exhibit; and all required documentation must be recorded within the county’s prescribed timeframe.

The board closed the public hearing after the vote. Further county staff work on notice guidelines for rural projects and road standards was discussed for future policy work.