Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Elbert County commissioners discuss tighter “open space” definition; staff to return with options
Loading...
Summary
At an April 14 work session, Elbert County commissioners reviewed draft subdivision definitions for "open space," debated whether active uses and buffers should count, raised concerns about maintenance and costs, and directed staff to bring county-specific language limiting active uses and clarifying enforcement.
Elbert County commissioners on April 14 discussed proposed revisions to subdivision rules that would more clearly define "open space" and set limits on how those areas may be used.
Jennifer, the staff presenter, reviewed the county's current subdivision and zoning definitions and compared examples from Jefferson, Douglas and other counties. The materials showed a range of approaches—some jurisdictions treat open space as land preserved by easement or dedication, others also distinguish between "natural," "open," and "recreational" areas.
"What do you want open space to mean?" Lance, a member of the county's planning/legal staff, asked the board, arguing that a clear definition should guide any subsequent rules, enforcement and funding. Commissioners pressed staff on whether the county intended to allow active recreation—such as ball fields or courts—within open-space requirements or to reserve active facilities for separately defined parks.
The board also debated ownership and maintenance. The chair noted that under current practice many open-space parcels are maintained by metro districts and HOAs rather than the county, saying, "We're not enforcing anything. We're not maintaining them. This is just defining what those open spaces are." Several commissioners warned that developers historically have dedicated gullies, flood plains and otherwise unusable land to satisfy open-space requirements, producing areas of limited public value.
Members discussed potential partnerships and funding options. Commissioners suggested outreach to the Town of Elizabeth and existing parks-and-recreation districts as alternatives to creating a county-run parks department. Staff and commissioners cited neighboring counties' programs, where dedicated taxes help fund large-scale open-space acquisition and maintenance.
Safety and use conflicts were raised for motorized vehicles on trails. Commissioners asked whether e-bikes or louder motorized bikes should be allowed and whether such uses should be categorized as "active" and therefore limited or specified in the ordinance.
No formal action or vote occurred. The board asked Jennifer and Lance to return with draft, Elbert County–specific definitions that: distinguish passive from active uses; omit irrelevant references (for example, lakes and beaches); address whether buffers count toward open-space requirements and under what conditions; and propose numerical limits or categories for active uses for further discussion.
The session ended with the board asking staff to bring proposed language back for review at a future work session.
