Paulding committee tables Whataburger stream-buffer variance after staff concerns

Paulding County Planning and Zoning Committee members voted to table an application from Whataburger Restaurants LLC that sought to encroach into a 75-foot impervious stream buffer to accommodate a dual-lane drive-through for a proposed restaurant at 5464 Windy Bagwell Parkway.

Civil engineer Jamal Ragland, representing Whataburger, said the redevelopment would convert a vacant former Hooters site into a 1.2-acre restaurant lot with parking, landscaping and a dual-lane drive-through. Ragland said the current site already encroached into the impervious buffer and that the proposal would remove about 2,000 square feet of existing impervious surface while seeking a small additional encroachment to accommodate queuing and delivery access.

Catherine Fox, the City of Hiram’s environmental consultant for stormwater and wastewater, recommended denial pending additional information. Fox said the ordinance governing variances was adopted in 2006 and sets narrow grounds for approval: a preexisting site shape or topography that prevents development, extreme hardship if strict adherence would make development impossible, and documentation of unusual hardship. She told the committee that the application lacked at least one required alternative design and did not yet fully document mitigation measures. Fox said mitigation elements and green infrastructure requirements for redevelopment projects had not been adequately addressed and recommended the committee deny the variance until outstanding items were resolved.

Ragland responded that project designers had met several times with Fox on mitigation ideas, including rain gardens, and that they had used a smallest building prototype and considered utilities and curb cuts that constrain the site. He also said the lot shares a curb cut with an adjacent Huey Louie’s restaurant and that a corner on the site is a “pinch point” for delivery and queuing operations.

After discussion, Chair Anne Littman moved to table the application for one month for further review; George Jones seconded the motion. The committee approved the tabling on a unanimous voice vote. The committee and staff indicated they expect the applicant to return with more complete civil drawings, mitigation details, and at least one alternative site or design to show whether the requested encroachment is necessary under the ordinance criteria.

The record shows a staff recommendation for denial and one letter in opposition had been received before the meeting. The tabling preserves the committee’s ability to evaluate alternative layouts and mitigation measures before making a formal determination on the requested encroachment.