Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elbert County commissioners continue Running Creek RV Storage hearing after traffic safety concerns
Summary
The Elbert County Board of County Commissioners continued a land-use hearing for Running Creek RV Storage (EDZ2024-3548) to July 9 after commissioners and the applicant sought time to resolve conflicting traffic recommendations about left‑turn and accel/decel lane requirements near nearby schools.
The Elbert County Board of County Commissioners on June 11 continued a public hearing for Running Creek RV Storage (EDZ2024-3548) to July 9 at 1 p.m. after extended discussion about traffic safety and required roadway improvements.
County planning staff said the Running Creek site is a roughly 50-acre parcel off County Road 13 with an approximate 22-acre development footprint. The hearing was continued from May 28 so the applicant and staff could respond to new referral letters; the latest submissions included a county Public Works letter and an external traffic consultant letter that appear to conflict on whether full movement access, a left‑turn lane and accel/decel lanes are required at the project access.
Why it matters: commissioners said the safety of drivers and students at nearby schools hinges on a clear, data‑driven traffic plan. Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant for evidence — including traffic counts and sight‑distance analysis — before committing to conditions that could materially increase the project’s cost or require additional right‑of‑way or easements.
Commissioner Schroeder said the new traffic consultant letter was “a little convoluted” and that he did not see “hard evidence” mandating turn‑lane work. Schroeder added that, in his view, a left‑turn lane would be a desirable safety improvement but not necessarily a mandated requirement. The applicant’s consulting representative said the two new letters “are just contradicting those two without any new support for why a left turn would be needed.”
Commissioner Boak noted that safety concerns outweigh cost considerations: “Citizen safety…I'll choose someone's life,” he said.
The applicant asked for time to work with county staff to clarify whether additional land, easements or an approved design would be required and to develop cost estimates. After a short recess and further discussion, the applicant requested a 30‑day continuation to coordinate a proposed design with staff. The board set the next hearing for July 9 at 1 p.m.
Formal actions taken during the item included a motion to open the land‑use hearing, a motion to continue the matter to July 9 at 1 p.m., and a motion to close the public hearing. The board voted in favor of the continuance and to close the hearing.
The county and applicant will work to resolve whether a left‑turn lane and accel/decel lanes are required, whether additional easements or right‑of‑way will be needed, and to produce final access design drawings for staff review before the July 9 hearing.
