Paulding panel approves fourth home off private Canter Creek Path with maintenance agreement

At a Paulding County Planning and Zoning Committee meeting, members voted unanimously to allow a fourth residential home to be built off the private Canter Creek Path, contingent on a signed maintenance agreement among all homeowners before a certificate of occupancy is issued. The application was filed by Bradley and Elizabeth Keane for property at 330 Canter Creek Path.

The committee’s action matters because county development rules limit the number of residences served by private easements and require committee approval for additional homes beyond three. Committee Chair and Community Development Director Anne Littman said the body could only consider the fourth home because the public notice advertised only that request.

Bradley Keane, the applicant and landowner, told the committee he owns 17.2 acres and had planned to split the parcel to build on a 10.09-acre tract and possibly sell a 6.13-acre tract. He said the plat showed two tracts and acknowledged Canter Creek Path already serves three houses. Keane said he and the other property owners had an informal agreement to contribute toward maintenance, adding, “we all, at 1 point, agreed to pay $500 a year to upkeep it.”

Planning staff and committee members questioned whether an easement maintenance agreement was recorded. George Jones, director of Paulding County Department of Transportation, recommended that the homeowners record a formal agreement so future owners would have legal recourse. Jones moved approval with the stipulation that “a maintenance agreement be created and signed by all the homeowners on the Canter Creek Path before a CO is issued for the Fourth house.” The motion was seconded by Ms. Pollard and approved unanimously.

Committee member Ella Hendricks, sitting in for the county attorney, clarified that the committee could not approve a fifth lot at this meeting because the application had been advertised only for a fourth home; she said a future application or a revised advertisement would be required to consider additional lots. Planning and zoning staff confirmed the applicant could return later for a fifth lot under the county’s regulations if desired.

Discussion noted the private nature of the path: committee members reminded the applicant that roads shown with a blue path sign are not public roads and that the county does not intend to pave private easements. Keane said he and the other homeowners were aware of their maintenance responsibilities and had an informal arrangement in place.

The committee separated discussion from decision: members asked questions about the plat, the existing number of houses on the easement, and the need for a recorded maintenance agreement (directed action). The formal decision approved the fourth home with the maintenance-agreement condition. No amendments to the condition were recorded.

The committee did not take up any request to approve a fifth lot at this meeting; staff advised the applicant to revise and re-advertise the application if they wished to seek approval for additional lots.

The public hearing for the item included comments from Chris Robinson of planning and zoning, who confirmed the submitted plat showed two additional lots (a fourth and a fifth) and that staff had not caught that when the application was filed. No members of the public spoke in opposition. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote of the three committee members present.