Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elbert County planning commissioners clash with consultant draft, plan redlines and extra work sessions ordered
Summary
Commissioners criticized the consultant's comprehensive‑plan draft as 'tone‑deaf' and agreed to produce redlines, hold multiple work sessions in June, and ask staff to compile edits for Kimley Horn; debate focused on preservation vs. growth, EDZ overlay allowances, and recognition of ~9,000 entitled building sites.
The Elbert County Planning Commission spent the bulk of its meeting in a work session on the county comprehensive plan, with several commissioners sharply criticizing the consultant draft and debating how best to revise it.
Chairman Kevin Kirkwood said he rewrote chapters 1–4 to emphasize the county’s rural character and preservation priorities. Multiple commissioners praised elements of that rewrite and said the consultant, referred to repeatedly as Kimley Horn, had produced wording that did not reflect community survey results and steering‑committee feedback.
Commissioners debated process options: some urged redlining the consultant’s chapters and sending a compiled set of edits back to Kimley Horn; others supported using the chair’s rewrite as an alternative model or a supplemental document. Staff cautioned that large textual replacements would increase consultant workload, cost and schedule risk and reminded the commission that a Department of Local Affairs (DOA) grant partially funds the project and ties to a reimbursement schedule.
Substantive questions included whether existing overlays already allow desired commercial development (staff confirmed the Economic Development Zone overlay permits commercial/industrial uses on qualifying high‑frequency roads), how to provide workforce‑supportable housing for teachers, emergency responders and other public‑service workers, and how to account for roughly 9,000 building sites that are already entitled and will affect growth trajectories.
The commission agreed on process steps: (1) staff will compile commissioners’ redlines and suggested edits (including the chair’s rewrite and other commissioner comments) into a consolidated packet; (2) the commission will hold additional, more frequent work sessions (hybrid options discussed) in late May and June to resolve differences chapter‑by‑chapter; and (3) staff will coordinate with the consultant on scope and schedule, mindful of grant timelines and potential additional consultant costs if wholesale rewrites are required.
No final plan was approved; commissioners tasked staff with producing a redline packet for review and scheduled multiple follow‑up work sessions to continue the review process.
Next steps: staff to compile edits and distribute redlines to commissioners and the consultant; commissioners planned hybrid in‑person/virtual work sessions in June to finalize direction before consultant revisions.
