Elbert County delays Running Creek RV Storage decision over traffic-turn-lane questions

The Elbert County Board of County Commissioners on June 11 continued the land use hearing for Running Creek RV Storage (EDZ2024‑3548) to July 9 at 1 p.m., citing unresolved traffic‑access issues and the need for the applicant and county staff to confirm whether left‑turn and acceleration/deceleration lanes are required.

County staff said the site is a roughly 50‑acre parcel off County Road 13, zoned agricultural with an A‑E overlay, with an object footprint of about 22 acres. The hearing had been continued from May 28 for additional information; county staff said the new materials included a traffic clarification letter and an additional letter from Public Works.

The applicant’s consultant told the commissioners the new referral letters contradict earlier engineering and county approval letters without presenting new technical justification. Commissioners and an applicant representative exchanged views about sight distance, proximity to nearby schools and whether a traffic count had been conducted. One commissioner noted, “a traffic count was never conducted, to my knowledge,” and raised safety concerns; another said the recommendation appeared to be advisory rather than mandatory.

The applicant asked for time to work with staff on a design and cost estimate. The applicant proposed a 30‑day continuance to coordinate with county staff to determine whether additional right‑of‑way or easements would be required and to produce an approved design. The commission made a motion to continue the public hearing to July 9 at 1 p.m.; the motion carried with all commissioners voting in favor. The commission then closed the public hearing on the Running Creek item.

Next steps: the applicant will work with Elbert County staff on traffic‑access design details and any necessary easement/right‑of‑way, then return to the board on July 9. The county record contains multiple referral letters from Public Works and the county’s engineering reviewer; the applicant and commissioners specifically requested clarification on whether both a left‑turn lane and acceleration/deceleration movements (described in the record as “full‑movement access / turn lane” and “accel/decel”) are required.