Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Depot Road Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Paulding planning commission denies Depot Road subdivision and all requested variances
Summary
The commission voted to deny a developer’s request to rezone roughly 43 acres for a 28‑lot subdivision and to deny all variances, citing soils, infrastructure and school‑capacity concerns; vote recorded as 4‑2‑1.
The Paulding County Planning Commission voted to deny an application from Depot Road Properties LLC that sought rezoning of about 43 acres for a proposed 28‑lot subdivision and several variances.
Dwayne Eaton, representing Depot Road Properties, told the commission the proposal would yield 27 one‑acre lots plus a 3.5‑acre remainder for farm‑type uses; a level‑2 soils study forced a redesign that prompted requests to reduce frontage, building lines and side setbacks on multiple lots. Eaton said he and his brother intend to build the homes and that they agreed to four staff stipulations but need three primary variances to make the project financially viable.
Staff and commissioners flagged several technical and community concerns, including the need for turning lanes and sidewalks near the local school, wet‑weather springs and stream buffers on the site, and cumulative student enrollment effects. An education official reported that NEBO Elementary is at 94% capacity, South Paulding Middle School is at 85% and Paulding County High School is at 118% capacity, and said ongoing and pending developments in the area could add additional student demand.
After extended discussion and several procedural options (approve R‑1 without variances, approve with selected variances, or deny), Commissioner Wicks moved to deny application 2025‑25‑Z and all listed variances. The motion carried by voice vote recorded in the meeting as 4 yes, 2 no, 1 abstain. Staff will return the matter to Community Development to advise the applicant of next steps and permit pathways.
Resident speakers urged the commission to preserve rural character and raised infrastructure and watershed concerns; the applicant said he would discuss landscaping and possible entrance relocation to mitigate neighbor impacts but maintained that variances 1–3 are essential for the project’s feasibility.
