Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Nebo Road topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Paulding commissioners hear opposition to proposed Nebo Road rezoning
Summary
Residents and planning staff clashed over a request to rezone roughly 43 acres on Nebo Road from A‑1 to R‑1 to allow 28 lots; the planning commission recommended denial (4–2–1) and public commenters urged the board to uphold the moratorium and existing rural character. The transcript does not record a final vote.
Raymond Phillips, a member of the public invited to speak during public participation, urged the Paulding County Board of Commissioners to deny a rezoning application for property on Nebo Road, saying the applicant purchased the land with full knowledge it was zoned A‑1 and that rezoning would “circumvent the intent of that moratorium” on higher‑density development.
The matter before the board (application referenced in the record as 20 25‑25‑Z by Nebo Road Property LLC) seeks to rezone approximately 43 acres from the A‑1 agricultural district to R‑1 rural residential to allow 28 lots. Planning staff told the board the application previously appeared before the planning commission, which recommended denial by a 4–2–1 vote. Staff said the applicant revised the site plan to remove most requested variances but still seeks three limited variances (road‑frontage on three cul‑de‑sac lots and a reduction in tree‑count requirement from three to one in the R‑1 district).
Planning staff (Mister Robinson) reported the property is in Land Lot 123/11290 in District 2, located north of Nebo Road east of Villa Rica Highway (State Route 61) in Post 2. Robinson said staff and the applicant met after the planning commission hearing and that the applicant modified the plan to eliminate most variances but retained three minimal exceptions.
Phillips told commissioners he opposed the rezoning because of infrastructure limits (roads and schools), the countywide R‑2 moratorium on higher density, and consistency with surrounding land uses. He also noted the Zoning Board of Appeals’ 4–2–1 denial recommendation and asked why the application had been tabled last month and then brought back for consideration, saying that delay created “unnecessary uncertainty.”
Todd Pownell, who later spoke during public comment on a related land‑use concern, also raised procedural questions about how board minutes recorded prior motions (see separate public comment). The transcript does not show a formal motion or final vote on the Nebo Road application during this meeting.
What happens next: The record presented in the meeting transcript includes staff analysis, the planning commission recommendation, and public comment but does not record a final board decision. The application remains on the record and will return to the board for action at a later time or in a subsequent recorded roll call that is not present in this transcript.
