Elbert County work session wrestles with how to define 'open space' and cash-in-lieu rules

Elbert County commissioners spent a March 24 work session asking staff to clarify what the county means by “open space,” how that definition should differ from buffer tracts, and whether current cash-in-lieu thresholds and formulas treat small land divisions fairly.

Jennifer, a county planning staff member, told the board she provided copies of the county’s subdivision and zoning definitions plus a 2007 resolution and said, “what is open space,” to underscore that multiple documents currently use the term but do not always answer practical questions about permitted uses. Staff and commissioners agreed that the existing language can be too broad and therefore hard to apply to disputes about signage, trails or motorized recreation.

The board focused on two linked issues: first, whether the county should adopt a single, tighter definition of open space (and a separate definition for buffers), and second, how the county applies its dedication and cash-in-lieu rules. As staff explained, current rules require subdivisions under 80 acres to pay cash in lieu rather than offer land dedication; for larger projects developers often may choose land or cash. Staff provided concrete examples: “A recent 40 acre project…their cash in lieu amount was about $60,000,” and another near the 80-acre threshold that created seven lots had “cash in lieu … right at $200,000.”

Commissioners raised competing priorities. One urged protecting wildlife corridors and keeping large tracts in a “natural state” for habitat and passage, while others emphasized that dedicating land to outside entities creates long-term maintenance obligations the county must be prepared to fund. A commissioner suggested retaining ownership of some key parcels so the county can control their management; another noted the county’s current cash-in-lieu fees are often sitting unused and recommended pursuing active park or trail projects funded by those fees.

Staff flagged several technical issues the board will need to resolve: whether the 80-acre threshold remains appropriate, whether lot-size breakpoints (the transcript references a 10-acre lot-size distinction) should change, what formula should be used to compute cash-in-lieu (staff described a 10% incremental-value approach and minimums per lot), and whether deferred payment mechanisms (pay at sale of first lot or at each lot sale) are administratively feasible given county tracking constraints.

The discussion also referenced a local dispute—Brittany Ridge—where roughly an 83-acre HOA open-space tract has split homeowners over motorbike use; staff said current county regulations do not clearly rule for or against that use. Staff recommended starting with a clear baseline definition, then allowing subdivision- or PD-level exceptions where appropriate, and pledged to gather model language and regulatory examples from Douglas, Jefferson and other counties for the board’s review.

The session produced no formal motions or votes. Staff said it will deliver examples and a short, prioritized package of proposed definitions and options for the board to consider at a future work session.