Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Paulding planners deny Trayton rezoning request for Hiram site, cite comp‑plan mismatch
Summary
The Planning Commission voted to deny Trayton LLC’s rezoning request to build a 55+ community on 30.56 acres in the City of Hiram, citing the city’s future‑land‑use designation for commercial uses; the denial was 4–2–1 and will be forwarded to the City of Hiram for final action.
The Paulding County Planning Commission voted to deny a rezoning request by Trayton LLC (Traighton Homes) to rezone 30.56 acres inside the City of Hiram from R‑2 to R‑55 for an age‑restricted community, rejecting the application 4–2–1. The commission’s denial will be forwarded to the City of Hiram, which has final land‑use authority inside its limits.
Why it matters: the proposal called for up to 115 age‑restricted homes and two variance requests to reduce side setbacks from 8 to 5 feet and front setbacks from 20 to 15 feet. Staff recommended denial based on the City of Hiram’s future land‑use map, which designates the parcel for commercial use; the commission’s vote reflects that plan‑map conflict.
Kevin Moore, representing the applicant, said the company proposed a maximum of 115 age‑restricted homes (85 detached, 30 townhome‑style units) and argued the parcel’s limited frontage on U.S. 278 and neighboring commercial development made commercial use impractical. Moore described the product as a transition between commercial frontage and existing residential neighborhoods and said the applicant agreed with 11 stipulations staff would impose if the city approved rezoning.
The application generated multiple public safety and traffic concerns at the commission hearing. Resident Dakota Crider (recorded as Dakota Bridal) said Pace Road is a curvy, narrow local road where drivers often exceed the posted 25‑mph limit and that placing an entrance at the shown location would be dangerous. Crider presented an online petition with signatures opposing the rezoning and told the commission, “I don't want them to getting to get hit,” citing neighborhood safety and emergency‑service response times.
Commissioners asked the applicant about fire protection and sprinklers for the proposed houses; the applicant said the units would not be proposed as sprinkled and that the developer would investigate alarm options, including the bell‑type heat sensors discussed earlier in the meeting. Moore said he would “investigate that, and work with the city to see if there was alternatives,” for alarm and suppression approaches.
Commission discussion also focused on the requested variances, drainage between tightly spaced homes on a topographically challenging site, and whether the product should drop the townhome component and remain entirely detached. Moore said the developer could revise the plan if the setback variances were not approved and that the project could proceed in a modified form.
The motion to deny was made by Ellis Aston and seconded by Miss Fitzgerald; the motion passed 4 yes, 2 no, 1 abstain. Commissioners recorded the denial and directed that the file be forwarded to the City of Hiram for its final decision; the applicant is under contract for the property but does not yet own it.
