Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elbert County neighbors raise access and traffic concerns as owner proposes four 10-acre lots
Summary
At an Elbert County community meeting, property owner Eric Jensen outlined a plan to split a 40-acre parcel into four 10-acre lots; neighbors and a county planner questioned whether existing easements provide legal access and whether local roads can handle additional traffic. No formal application has yet been filed.
Eric Jensen, a Franktown-area property owner, told neighbors at an Elbert County community meeting that he plans to subdivide roughly 40 acres into four 10-acre lots, saying water rights are adjudicated and each lot would have its own well and septic system.
The proposal prompted questions about legal access. Kevin Shanks, a planner who identified himself as “the director of planning and landscape architecture with THK,” told Jensen the county’s development rules require an applicant to prove legal access for a subdivision and cautioned that “when you go to a subdivision and you’re trying to use an existing driveway easement, that’s where the problem is.” Shanks said attorneys on different sides have given conflicting opinions on the easement’s scope.
Neighbor Toby Cromwell, who said he serves on Russellville’s homeowners board, voiced traffic and safety concerns, saying the neighborhood already sees speeding and heavy construction traffic and warning the plan could open a “Pandora’s Box” for more development. “We have a traffic problem in Russellville on Tomichi,” Cromwell said, adding that residents want to see proof — including any Douglas County traffic warrants or studies — before accepting additional development.
Jensen said he previously withdrew an 18-lot application and that the current plan removes properties that raised prior access questions. He told the meeting that “we’ve got three major attorneys who have reviewed our access, and have assured me that we have legal access,” while acknowledging that other attorneys disagree and that the dispute may need legal resolution.
An Elbert County staff member explained that the meeting was an informational, required community meeting for a rezoning pre-application and that no formal application has been submitted. The staff member said a rezoning (if filed) would be referred to Douglas County, reviewed by Elbert County Public Works and engineering staff, and would proceed to public hearings before the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners with mailed notices and a site placard.
Residents repeatedly asked to see documentation: they said they had not received the Douglas County traffic study or the referenced county letter and requested that Jensen provide those materials as part of any formal filing. One resident characterized Jensen’s traffic estimates as approximate: “that’s probably, I don’t know, 30 to 40 trucks a week,” a phrasing the article attributes as a resident’s estimate rather than a verified count.
The meeting ended with participants and staff agreeing that legal access through the easement is the central unresolved issue and that filing a formal application would trigger county review, intergovernmental referrals and public notice that would allow neighbors to examine supporting documents.
The applicant has not filed a formal rezoning application; if and when he does, Elbert County staff said the application will undergo technical review and public hearings before any decision is made.
