Council rejects annexation for 122.64-acre Ever After Phase Two after residents cite traffic and connectivity concerns

Newman City — The Newman City Council declined to approve the annexation and rezoning request known as Annex 2025-02, a 122.64-acre proposal by NCTI LLC and the Pulte Group to add 235 single-family homes adjacent to the previously approved Ever After Phase One.

Developer attorney Chuck Connerly told the council the project is intended as a continuation of phase one and would include three housing “pods” — a ranch product, a traditional product and an estate product — with proposed sales prices ranging from $460,000 to $690,000 and an average list price of about $575,000. Connerly said the developer agreed to a 10% rental cap, a hardship exception for owner-occupants, and a commitment not to submit a land-disturbance permit for phase two until Nov. 1, 2027. He also said the developer has agreed to contribute $1.7 million toward transportation improvements identified in the regional review process.

Several residents urged the council to reject the request. Bob Ziefle, a longtime resident, said the combined developments would create “perpetual gridlock” along Greentop Road and nearby corridors and argued the only clear beneficiaries of the annexation were the property owner and the developer. Neighbor and Heritage Hills resident Mr. Banta described current congestion and said adding hundreds of homes would worsen emergency access and daily traffic on a short two-lane corridor.

The city’s staff packet included the Planning Commission report, which recommended approval with conditions and listed mitigation steps from a DRI (Development of Regional Impact) notice of decision. Staff summaries in the packet estimated added annual expenditures of roughly $384,521 and projected annual municipal revenue of $224,448 for the development; the police department projected a rise in service calls and an estimated two‑year added cost of about $22,500. The school system flagged capacity concerns—North Side Elementary at an estimated 77% capacity, Madras Middle 88% and Newnan High 85%—if the project were built at the proposed density.

Supporters of the project, including developers and some council members, framed the annexation as part of a region-wide housing shortage and a logical extension of an existing subdivision. Connerly argued that concentrating growth adjacent to existing development is consistent with regional planning and that the developer had already secured easements and contributed funds to enable Newnan Utilities to serve the site.

After public comment and council discussion about connectivity, precedent for annexing “islands,” transportation mitigation and fiscal impacts, a motion to annex the property failed. Council members who opposed the measure said they were not obligated to annex and voiced concern about growth management and infrastructure readiness; proponents said the project would add needed single-family housing and funds toward transportation solutions.

The council’s failure to annex leaves the status of Annex 2025-02 unchanged; staff and the developer indicated the project could still be pursued through county approval channels under existing agreements but that utility and intergovernmental arrangements could differ. The Planning Commission report and the DRI notice of decision remain part of the record. The council clerk recorded the planning commission report as accepted earlier in the meeting but later rejected the annexation motion, and staff classified the annexation item as moot after the failed motion.

What’s next: Council members said the discussion underscores the need for clearer comprehensive-plan direction about where and how the city wants to grow. The developer and county representatives may pursue other procedural routes; the city’s report and the DRI conditions continue to specify required mitigation if the project moves forward outside city jurisdiction.