Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Modification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners signal support for longer cul‑de‑sac for Bighorn Ridge, subject to engineering and fire review
Summary
Applicants seeking a modification to Elbert County’s cul‑de‑sac length requirement for the 80‑acre Bighorn Ridge subdivision asked the board for direction; county engineering and the local fire district expressed no objection, and commissioners indicated they would be amenable to allowing the modification to proceed to plat review.
Elbert County commissioners on June 11 discussed a request to modify the county’s subdivision standard limiting cul‑de‑sac length for the Bighorn Ridge plat, an 80‑acre property proposed for seven lots. The applicants asked the board for direction rather than final approval; county staff said the county engineer and Public Works had no objection to the requested modification, and the Elizabeth Fire Protection District had submitted a letter of support.
County staff explained the regulation at issue: Elbert County Subdivision Regulations, Article 11.B.4(b), restricts local roads leading to a cul‑de‑sac that provide access to lots between 1 and 20 acres to a maximum length (the regulation text was read into the record). The applicants requested a modification to permit a road length of approximately 2,700 feet to serve seven larger lots; staff emphasized that the modification authority exists in the regulations but cautioned that a modification should not be granted if it would be detrimental to the public good or impair the regulations’ intent.
Grace Erickson, the applicant representative from Providence Consulting, appeared with owner Gary Hanson and project engineer Kevin Roth and described the proposal as a low‑density agricultural‑residential layout requiring a longer access road to accommodate larger lot depths. Erickson told the board that the county engineer and fire district review letters recommending approval, and advised the board that the plat itself would still be subject to standard plat review and must return to the planning commission and board for final plat approval.
Commissioners asked questions about the potential need for additional access or other departmental requirements. Commissioners generally signaled they were comfortable giving the applicant direction to proceed with preparing a plat that reflects needed engineering and fire protections; staff reiterated that final plat approval would follow the county’s normal review process.
Next steps: the applicants will prepare a plat and any required construction drawings to submit for review; the plat will return to the planning commission and then to the board for a formal determination. The requested modification was not granted as a final action at the June 11 meeting.
