Elbert County planning commission recommends approval of Shrag rezoning for 39.87-acre parcel

The Elbert County Planning Commission voted 8–1 to recommend approval of a rezoning request (case RZ2025007) that would rezone a roughly 39.87-acre parcel at County Road 5 from Agriculture to Agriculture-Residential (AR), a change that would allow future division into 10-acre minimum lots. The recommendation sends the application to the Board of County Commissioners, which is scheduled to hear the case on Dec. 17.

Kelsey Lam, planner with the Elbert County Planning Department, introduced the item as “case number RZ2025007,” described the site and the applicant team, and summarized referral comments. Lam said referral agencies including Public Works, Public Health, the Elizabeth Fire Protection District and the Division of Water Resources raised no formal objections; the Division of Water Resources noted an adequate water supply if the applicant proceeds with land division.

Camille Courtney, the applicant’s representative, and owner Janelle Shrag attended to answer questions. Courtney told the commission the applicant had no prepared remarks and was available to respond to commissioner inquiries. Shrag described a localized ponding event from several years ago, saying the low spot “is kind of a pond when we get excessive rain,” and advised the commission to consider that topography during platting and drainage review.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant about access and easement maintenance. Lam said the existing private easement will continue to serve the two residences that currently use it; additional lots proposed as part of a future land division would be accessed from County Road 5 via a new easement along the property’s west boundary. Lam also explained that the parcel’s surveyed size (39.87 acres) falls within the 10% variation allowed in the subdivision regulations and that the 39.87 figure would be used for future division calculations.

Several commissioners raised procedural and packet-related concerns. Commissioner Diana Edstrom requested written documentation of any waiver that allowed Public Works to decline traffic or drainage reports, saying, “If you’re going to waive a document, it needs to be in writing signed by the CDS director.” Staff replied that waivers have been used previously at Public Works’ and the CDS director’s discretion and offered to include formal waiver documentation in the BOCC packet if the commission wished.

Edstrom and others also identified technical corrections needed to the rezoning exhibit and related documents (for example, correcting the legal description, completing owner contact details, and adding missing city/state/ZIP information for adjoining owners). Staff said those items were noted and would be required to comply with county standards prior to recordation as part of the recommended conditions of approval.

Staff noted three written public comments in opposition to the application; the letters raised concerns about the private easement/road, potential impacts to rural character, and access. The commission acknowledged the comments during its review but proceeded with a recommendation of approval subject to conditions.

A commissioner moved that the commission recommend approval of case RZ-20225-00007 to the Board of County Commissioners “subject to the following conditions as recommended in the staff report.” The motion was seconded and passed on a roll-call vote: Dee Shotgrace — yes; John Gresham — yes; Nicole Hunt — yes; Kyle Donardo — yes; Dan McCallen — yes; Diana Edstrom — no; Ken Madson — yes; Robert Pitic — yes; Kevin Kirkwood — yes. The chair announced the result as eight votes in favor and one opposed.

The recommended conditions include: (1) the reszone exhibit must comply with county standards prior to recordation; (2) any posted sign must be removed within one week of conclusion of the hearings or the applicant is subject to removal fees; (3) the reszone will not take effect until all fees are paid, conditions of approval are met and the exhibit is recorded; and (4) recordation of all appropriate documentation must occur within 180 days of BOCC approval. The applicant’s BOCC hearing was scheduled for Dec. 17; staff and the applicant will provide corrected exhibits and, if requested by the commission, formal written documentation of any waived traffic or drainage reports for the BOCC packet.

The planning commission closed the public hearing and adjourned the meeting.