The Paulding County Planning Commission voted to deny application 2025-25-Z, a request from Nepo Road Properties LLC to rezone roughly 43 acres from agricultural (A-1) to R-1 rural residential and to grant multiple variances, including narrower lot widths, reduced building lines and side setbacks, a reduced number of yard trees, and permission for a hanging subdivision sign.

Applicant representative explained that a Level II soil study revealed problematic soils that required reconfiguring lots to reach adequate septic soils, producing several narrow, elongated lots. The applicant said a subsequent Level III study would follow and that, if approved, the developer intended to build the houses themselves and was willing to consider modest changes such as increasing minimum house size to ease design constraints. The applicant also confirmed the development would be in a mandatory sewer basin and therefore subject to sewer-related fees.

Commission discussion focused on whether upholding the R-1 standards or granting variances would undermine the district’s intent for larger lots, how the proposed lot layout would interact with wetlands and stream buffers, potential road access and turning-lane requirements near a nearby collector (NEBO), and the cumulative impact of several tracked developments on the local school system. A planning commissioner noted NEBO Elementary is at about 94% capacity, the nearby middle school is about 85% and Paulding County High is at 118% capacity, and said additional developments would likely increase student numbers.

Following that discussion, Commissioner Wicks moved to deny application 2025-25-Z and all listed variances; Commissioner Callahan seconded. The chair called the vote and the planning commission approved the motion to deny. The commission directed that the matter be returned to community development so the applicant may determine next steps, including whether to pursue reconsideration before the Board of Commissioners.

The denial preserves the county’s adopted R-1 standards in this instance rather than allowing the developer’s proposed variances to accommodate soils-driven design constraints. The transcript records the vote outcome as recorded by the chair; it does not supply a detailed named roll-call of yes/no votes in the meeting text.