Planning commission advances 10th UDO amendment package after narrowing change triggers

The Paulding County Planning Commission held a required public hearing on proposed text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (10th edition) covering administrative definitions, base districts, supplemental use standards, dimensional standards, off-street parking, planning commission procedures and the UDO amendment appendix. After discussion and a public-comment period with no speakers, the commission voted 5-0-1 to recommend the package with edits removing two specific change triggers in the plan-review rules.

Why it matters: The amendments adjust allowed uses, definitions and development thresholds across multiple zoning districts and clarify when plan changes must return to the commission — changes that affect future site plans, permitting and the regulatory review process countywide.

Key changes presented by planning staff included adding definitions for cannabidiol (CBD) oil retailers, flex buildings and mobile food vending as a home-occupation-type use. Staff proposed moving CBD oil retailers into the special-use-permit category in several business districts (B-1, B-2, planned shopping centers) rather than making them automatically permitted uses. The package also proposed allowing flex buildings in B-2, e-commerce retail, and I-1 light industrial districts.

Staff recommended increasing minimum side-yard setbacks to 12 feet in several residential districts (for example, R-3 and open space residential development where previously lower values applied) to address stormwater and equipment access concerns. Parking requirements were adjusted to add categories for CBD retailers and flex buildings and to reduce amenity-area parking from 2 spaces per 10 dwelling units to 2 spaces per 20 dwelling units.

On vehicle-related rules, staff proposed changing the mobile/food-vending vehicle size standard from a 1-ton capacity limit to a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 16,000 pounds, and adding a requirement that mobile vendors comply with the Office of Environmental Health for sinks and other sanitary requirements.

A substantial portion of the hearing focused on clarifying what constitutes a "major change" that must return a project to the planning commission during plan review. Staff proposed specific triggers for residential projects, such as deleting or altering an approval stipulation, changing a specifically approved housing type, increasing the number of lots by 50 or by 10% (whichever is less), increasing density by 10% or more, relocating active amenities, and increases in traffic that would trigger a Traffic Impact Analysis. For nonresidential projects, staff proposed similar triggers and added any change generating 20% or more additional trips in a peak hour (for example, conversion from a fast-casual restaurant to a fast-food restaurant with drive-through). Staff also recommended extending the performance time frame for special use permits from 12 months to three years to match rezoning performance rules.

Commissioners debated several details and asked staff to tighten ambiguous language. The commission removed subparagraph 4 (the proposed separate increase-in-density line) to avoid redundancy with the increase-in-count threshold and also struck the phrase allowing the director to specify other triggers (subparagraph 7) because commissioners feared that open-ended discretion would invite disputes. The final motion approved the package with those deletions (striking 2-80-100.02.a.4 and 2-80-100.02.a.7 and the corresponding nonresidential 7), and the motion passed 5-0-1.

During the hearing, a commissioner raised firefighter and safety-related ideas (for example, recommending additional interior strobe-type smoke detectors in R-55 units and discussion of sprinkler access), but staff noted that R-55-specific changes were not advertised and would be considered in a future amendment cycle. Staff agreed to consider those proposals in a subsequent text amendment rather than adding them to the current advertised package.

Formal action: Commissioner Steele moved to approve the UDO text amendments as presented, striking the specified subsections; Commissioner Leggett seconded. Motion passed 5-0-1. The recommended amendments will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for consideration.

Discussion vs. decision: The public hearing provided opportunity for input (none recorded). The Planning Commission’s vote is a recommendation that advances the text amendments to the Board of Commissioners; the Board will take the final legislative action.

Ending: Staff and commissioners noted that additional refinements (for example, clarifying thresholds, merging overlapping triggers and specifying easement requirements to align with increased setbacks) could be handled in follow-up edits. The package will proceed to the Board of Commissioners according to the county’s ordinance-adoption process.