Board of Zoning Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This meeting will now come to order. At this time, may I ask you to please turn off your silence, all cell phones, and other electronic devices. This is a regular meeting of the Zoning Review Board of the City of Atlanta. My name is Sherry McGoy, Chair of the Board for tonight's meeting. This is a nine-member board appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. This board hears applications for rezoning and special use permits. At this time, I would like to introduce you to the members of the board. To my immediate right is Mr. Walter Slayton, Vice Chair of the Zoning Review Board. Other members of the Zoning Review Board present this evening are Ms. Carla Pennyman, Ms. Kimberly Alexander, Mr. Jim Cheeks, and Ms. Lauren Welsh. Members of the staff present tonight are Ms. Kiata Holmes, secretary to the board. The applications will be heard in the order listed on the printed agenda. I would like to acquaint you with some of the rules and procedures for the conduct of this meeting, which have been adopted by this board. The applicants will be allowed a total of 10 minutes to present their case. Since the burden of proof is upon the applicants to convince the board that the application should be approved, They may choose to reserve some of that time for rebuttal following an opponent's presentation. The opposition, likewise, is permitted a total of 10 minutes to present their position. It will behoove you to organize yourselves so that those who wish to speak may do so in the 10 minutes provided. The opposition is not permitted rebuttal time. Ms. Carla Penniman will be keeping track of the time and will inform the chair periodically of the time remaining for your presentation. If you wish to address the board tonight, please sign in on the sign-in sheet at the podium. please lean into the microphone to be heard. Before making your remarks, please state your name and address. This meeting is being recorded, therefore it is very important that you speak directly into the microphone. The Board will take two votes on each application. The first vote is on the findings of fact as presented by the staff. The second vote is for approval or denial of the application. It is the second vote that determines the Board's recommendation to the City Council. At the time of this hearing, each application has been regularly filed with the Office of Zoning and Development, which prepares the proposed ordinance for each application. The proposed ordinance has had its first reading by the City Council and has been referred to this board for a public hearing. Next, the Zoning Committee of the City Council votes on the proposed ordinance. Then the full council votes to adopt or deny the proposed ordinance. Finally, the mayor has eight days to approve or veto the ordinance. The Office of Zoning and Development has reviewed each application in conjunction with various affected agencies and departments, as well as with respect to the adopted comprehensive development plan as required by the city charter. The staff recommendations, findings of fact, and conclusions are here before us in written form. Further, each application has been regularly posted, regularly advertised, and notices mailed as required by the zoning ordinance. Comments from the Department of Public Works, the Atlanta School Board, and the County Health Department have been requested. The board must consider each application legally valid and is required to make a recommendation on each application. The rules of the council permit no demonstrations of any kind within council chambers. Please refrain from any applause or dialogue during or after presentations. All remarks should be addressed to the board. Please show the same respect to the person speaking that you would expect to receive yourself. The applications heard tonight will be considered by the Zoning Committee on June 22, 2026, and by the Atlanta City Council on July 6, 2026. I will now entertain a motion to adopt tonight's agenda.

Madam Chair, I move that this Board adopts tonight's agenda with the exception that we move the following cases to the front of the agenda for consideration of a possible deferral, filing, or continuance. Z-26-25, 1155 Hank Aaron Drive Southwest for a 30-day deferral until July. Z-26-26, 860 Fox Street, a 60-day deferral until August. U-26-08-4475 Roswell Road Northeast for a 30-day deferral until July.

It's been moved and probably seconded that we accept tonight's agenda with the exception of the applications that will be moved to the front of the agenda for consideration for possible deferral continuance or filing. Any questions or comments from the board? Hearing none, all in favor of adopting tonight's agenda, please say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes. Let me remind you again to please silence your electronic devices or turn them off. Ms. Holmes, could you please read the cases for possible deferral, continuance, or filings?

Z-2625, an ordinance by zoning committee to rezone from light industrial conditional beltline overlay to industrial mixed-use beltline overlay for properties located at 1155 Hank Aaron Drive Southwest, fronting 200.49 feet on the west side of Hank Aaron Drive, commencing at a half-inch rebar found at the intersection of the south right-of-way margin of Wayman Avenue and the northeast right-of-way margin of Bridge Avenue. Said rebar found being the point of beginning, depth varies, area 1.215 acres. Landlot 74, 14 Fisher Fulton County, Georgia. Owner and applicant, Terminal South, LLC. NPUV, Council District 4. Z2626, an ordinance by zoning committee to rezone from English Avenue Special Public Interest District Sub-Area 1, Beltline Overlay, Westside Affordable Workforce Housing Overlay to English Avenue Special Public Interest District Sub-Area 2, Beltline Overlay, Westside Affordable Workforce Housing Overlay. The property located at 860, 866, and 870 Fox Street Northwest. Fronting 131.69 feet on the south side of Fox Street, beginning at a point located at the intersection of the southerly right-of-way line of Fox Street and the westerly right-of-way line of Oliver Street. Said point being the point at the beginning. Depth 130.75 feet. Area 0.39 acres. Landlot 112. 14 Fish at Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, New Life Developments. Applicant, Reginald Mason. NPUL. Council District 3. U-2608, an ordinance by zoning committee for a special use permit for outdoor dining and eating and drinking establishment when any part of such use is located within 1,000 feet of property that is zoned as R1, R2, R2A, R3, R3A, R4, R4A, R4B, or R5 district or that is used as a residential use as a residential property pursuant to section 16110051L for property located at 4475 Roswell Road Northeast. pricing 117 feet on the east side of Roswell Road, beginning at a nail sign at the intersection of the northerly right-of-way of Dillbeck Place and easterly right-of-way of the line of Roswell Road. Depth 189 feet, area .966 acres, landline 95, 17 visual, Folsom County, Georgia. Owner of Dillbeck Enterprises 002 LLC, applicant Harrison J. Aiken, Kimberly Horn, NPUB, Council District 7.

Thank you, Ms. Holmes. Is there anyone present in opposition to any of the cases being considered for deferral? Please approach the podium. And this is not opposing the application itself, but opposing the deferral.

Okay.

So just to make you aware, you should return in which application is it? U26-08. U26-08. So that's a 30-day deferral. That will be July 9th. Thank you. Okay, anyone else present in opposition to the cases being considered for deferral? Okay. Any questions or comments from the board? Okay, I'm prepared to hear a motion or three motions.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-25, I move that this board defer taking action on this case for 30 days until our next regularly scheduled meeting in July. Second.

Second.

Motion's been made and probably seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-26, I move that this board defer taking action on this case for 60 days until our regularly scheduled meeting in August. Second.

Motion's been made and probably seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number U-26-08, I move that this board defer taking action on this case for 30 days until our next regularly scheduled meeting in July.

Second. Motion has been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Ms. Holmes, can you read the next case, please? Z-2623, an ordinance by the Zoning Committee to resolve from single-family residential to two-family residential... located at 963 Adeline Avenue Southwest, fronting 100 feet on the west side of Adeline Avenue, beginning at a point on the northwest corner of Adeline Avenue and Elbert Street, area 0.344 acres, land lot 10614, District Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, T.G. Housing, LLC. Applicant, David Serna, NPUV, Council, District 12.

Okay, please go ahead and assume you're speaking in support of the application. Okay, please remember to state your name and address, and you might want to lift that microphone up a little bit so you can be heard clearly.

I'll try. There we go. My name is David Serna, the applicant on behalf of the owner, TG Housing, LLC, for the property located at 963 Alleyne Avenue, Southwest, Atlanta, 30310. I am, as you stated, seeking rezoning from R4 single family to R5, or R4A to R5 two family home, which is actually to revert the home to a duplex for which it was used for between 60 and 70 years before the prior owner modified it without approval apparently to a quadplex, which had operated in that condition for the past 20, 25 years or so apparently. And so the request is to allow the reversion to a duplex but in a single family home zoning district. The only things being done to the home are interior renovations to revert it from a quad flex to a duplex and the unbricking of one window that was bricked up as part of the conversion from duplex to quadplex. I have had the unanimous support of the Historic Adair Park Land Use Committee, Adair Park Today, NPUV, and here we are tonight.

Okay. Thank you.

Any questions?

You can have a seat.

Thank you.

We'll let you know if there are any questions. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of this application? And is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the application?

Okay, hearing none, we'll enter deliberation. Questions or comments from the board?

Okay, prepared to hear a motion.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-23, I move that this board accepts the staff's finding of fact.

Second. Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-23, I move that the support send forth a recommendation of approval.

Second. Motion has been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes.

Next case, please, Ms. Holmes. Z-26-24, to ordinance by zoning committee to rezone from planned development housing to planned development housing for a change of conditions for property located at 1579 Gates Place Northwest, fronting 35.95 feet on the north side of Gates Place, being all that tract or parts of the land line and being in land lot 229 of the 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia, and being lot 120, DuPont Common Subdivision, Phase 2, as per plat recorded in plat book 307, pages 115 to 118, Fulton County, Georgia, records. Depth 52.8 feet, area 0.08 acres, land lot 229, 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, Margaret H. Gaddis. Applicant, Elizabeth H. Klin. NPUD, Council District 9.

Thank you, Ms. Holmes. Is there anyone who would like to speak in support of the case?

Good evening. I am Elizabeth Klein. I am the applicant for my sister, Margaret Gaddis. We are requesting rezoning to reduce the setback along Gates Place from 20 feet to 10 feet and a reduction of the side yard setback in order to allow- I'll give you your name and address, please. Oh, I'm so sorry. 1579 Gates Place. We are requesting the 20 feet to 10 foot setback and a reduction of the side yard setback in order to allow enclosure of an existing deck as a screened porch. The existing deck is already in place. We are simply seeking approval to enclose the existing footprint as a screen porch. We have been approved by the DuPont Commons HOA prior to permit application, and as well as we have three letters of support from adjacent neighbors. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Hang on one second. You'll just stay there. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of the application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Okay. We'll enter deliberation. And I do have one question. There are some conditions within the staff report. Are you aware of those? I'm sorry? There are conditions in the staff report. Are you aware of the conditions? What does that mean? So the conditions are that, hang on one second here. The staff's approval was conditioned on the following. The site shall be developed in accordance with the survey. 1578 Gates Place, prepared by Survey Systems Atlanta, dated December 17th, 2025, and stamped received by the Office of Planning and Development April 3rd, 2026, and all conditions of Ordinance 01, O0058 and 0100421 shall remain in full force and effect.

I don't believe I was informed of that information.

I'm sorry, ma'am, are you saying that your planner, Ryan Sellers, did not contact you today with a copy of the staff report or discuss the conditions with you?

I have not received any staff reports.

You did not speak to Ryan on today? To who? To Ryan Sellers, your planner.

All he did was tell me to come to this meeting.

You did not speak with him today? You did not receive a copy of your staff report?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. The conditions from staff is to condition the property on the survey that you provided to us in your application consistent with your reduction in your setbacks. And then because your property is in a planned development community, it would also condition you to the other conditions found in the original legislation that adopted the DuPont Commons subdivision.

I'm sorry, I'm having a really difficult time with the reverberation of the microphone. So all I got was an email from him today just saying that there was this meeting.

Understood. I'm explaining to you the conditions. Okay. The conditions in the staff's approval is that your property would be, or your sister's property would be conditioned to the survey that you provided to us in your application that is consistent with your request to reduce your setbacks.

So for clarity, you're saying that the survey that we provided is what we would be allowed to move forward with? That's correct. Okay. Yes. That's all we were asking for because the deck is existing. Right.

And then the second condition is the property is a part of a planned development. And so it also conditions you to the existing legislation on those properties. So you could not do anything else other than what you already have on your property.

Understood.

Thank you for that. Okay.

So with that, I think you can, well, are there any other questions or comments for the applicant? Okay. You can have a seat then, and I'm prepared to hear a motion.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-24, I move that this board accepts the staff's finding of fact.

Second. Motion has been made and probably seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-24, I remove that this board send forth a recommendation of approval with the conditions found on page four and a staff report dated June 4th, 2026.

Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes. Next case, please, Ms. Holmes.

Z-2609, an ordinance by zoning committee to rezone from Cabbage Town Landmark District Sub Area 3, Belline Overlay, to Cabbage Town Landmark District Sub Area, I'm sorry, U-2606, an ordinance by zoning committee for a special use permit for a truck terminal pursuant to Section 1617-0051P for property located at 2090 and 2024 Jonesboro Road Southeast, fronting 846 feet on the east side of Jonesboro Road, beginning at a half-inch rebar, found on the easterly right-of-way of Jonesboro Road, being northwest, a distance of 34.23 feet from the intersection of said right-of-way and land lot line common to land lots 38 and 39. Depth, 1,494 feet. Area, 59.891 acres. Land lots 26, 27, and 39. 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, IOV 2090 Jonesboro ALLC James Leary. Applicant, Harold Buckley Jr., NPUZ Council District 1.

Thank you, Ms. Holmes. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in support of this case? Okay. Please remember to state your name and address and lean into the microphone.

Good evening. My name is Harold Buckley, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant in this case requesting a special use permit for a truck terminal. The nature of the... Hang on. Address? Oh, I'm sorry. 2849 Paces Ferry Road. Okay. That should be second nature for me by now. Sorry about that. The situation that we're dealing with here is that we have a truck terminal that has been on this property for several decades, going back 40, 50 years. When it was built, it complied with the industrial zoning that it had at the time, which allowed these facilities by right. But over the years, the city council has adopted a special use permit requirement for this land use, and we don't have that. So that turn of events caused us to become legally nonconforming, which in common parlance is grandfathered as a nonconforming use. which is fine for most purposes in the short term, but non-conforming status comes with two restrictions. Restriction number one is if the tenant in the truck terminal leaves the facility and that space is not reoccupied within a year of that vacancy, we lose our non-conforming status. The second restriction is that if the truck terminal is destroyed, if there's a catastrophic event like a hurricane, a tornado or a fire or anything like that, the zoning ordinance would not allow us to rebuild what we have today. That imposes hardships on us in a couple of ways. Number one, when it comes to any sort of financing for the maintenance, upkeep, or any other activity on the property, the lenders, the lender community typically does not like to loan money for those properties because their position is our collateral, if we issue this loan, could literally go up in smoke tomorrow and then all of a sudden we have an unsecured loan and we're not going to do that. So it's extremely hard to get financing for a number of non-conforming use types, this being one of them. And number two, when you go to sell the property, the prospective purchaser, upon doing their due diligence, see these restrictions and they say, well, we don't want to buy this piece of property for the same reason that the banks have a problem lending money on it. Why would I buy buy something today that could go up in smoke tomorrow, and I couldn't rebuild it, but I'm still on the hook for a mortgage on the property. And this isn't just, an esoteric problem that we're talking about here. It's not conceptual. My client actually had a purchaser for this property last year. And the purchaser asked these questions and we pointed them to a section in the zoning ordinance that says, you know, for situations like this where you have illegal use and it's knocked out of zoning compliance by the adoption of a special use permit requirement, then you're not actually treated as non-conforming with those two restrictions, you're treated as conforming. and they hire somebody like me, and this is not unique to Atlanta, I've seen this in a number of jurisdictions, and I will write a scholarly analysis of that zoning provision and explain to them that those triggers or those restrictions don't apply, and the response I get is, we don't wanna hear that from you, we wanna hear that from the city, because you're not the one who would actually make the decision if we had a problem. So that purchaser backed out and the property owner was forced to look at what can we do to resolve the situation, because we have a piece of property we can't sell. And that's when the decision was made to apply for the special use permit. We're not asking for new improvements on the property. We're not asking for any changes in the use. We are just trying to get over this hurdle of being able to get financing and being able to sell the property to a third party. So we have seen the staff report and we saw the two conditions and actually we would respectfully ask if this body recommends approval that it not do so with those two conditions because actually that would put us in a worse position than we're in today because right now the code provision that says the adoption of a use permit doesn't make you non-conforming, the city is supposed to treat you as a conforming use, applies regardless of whether we sell the property or not. So if we were to get this use permit approved with that restriction saying, hey, you know, this only applies to you and it doesn't apply to any successor who might buy the property, we're still stuck with the same problem. So with that, we would respectfully ask for your support and recommendation of approval and I'll answer any questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of this application? Okay, is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? And as you come up to the podium, remember to state your name and address and speak directly into the microphone.

Good evening. I'm Shirley Nichols. My address is 989 Eisenhower Road, southeast Atlanta, and I am the zoning chair for MPUC. We met. The neighborhood had already reviewed this application and came to the MPU and made a motion that we denied, and the MPU voted in agreement with the neighborhood to deny it. While the applicant is looking out for its future financial benefits, there are reasons for the special use permits, and so those reasons are there to protect the neighborhood. We have a school that is directly across from this property, And we have, and the neighborhood's not really happy with the way the owners have responded in the past when they have needed to talk to them about issues. And for those reasons, they denied it and so did the NPU. We have a representative from the neighborhood who's representing the president who's out of town for the Norwood Manor Neighborhood Association. Thank you.

Good evening.

Board members, can you hear me? Yeah. OK. Thank you for this opportunity.

So you're going to need to move that microphone a little closer. And remember this name and address, and then you can state your comments.

OK. My name is Hollis Turner. My address is 2112 Bellhaven Lane, Atlanta, 30315. We thank you for this opportunity to present our position about this request. Opposition is in direct opposition and the request for the special use permit. The community comments are as follows. Norwood Manor stands in strict opposition to this request due to a complete lack of community engagement and a history of unresolved cold and environmental conflicts. Lack of engagement. The applicant has made no effort to reach out to our neighborhood regarding this request. Furthermore, multiple outreach attempts made by our community between 2020 and 2024 were completely ignored. Unfulfilled replanting agreements. In 2021, this facility cleared out a significant portion of the barrier trees that protected our community. and neighborhood. They were legally required to replant those trees, but today they have failed to do so. Environmental and health concerns. We are experiencing severe air quality issues due to continuous truck idling on this lot. The resulting fumes blow directly into the back of our neighborhood. This issue is significant enough that we have been forced to escalate it to city and state officials. Because these critical outstanding actions remain completely unaddressed, Norwood Manor cannot support any further allowance for this property. We urge this body to vote no on this application. Thank you for your time and for standing with the residents of Norwood Manor to protect the health, environment, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you.

Any questions? No, you can have a seat. We'll ask questions when everybody's spoken if we have any. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to this application? And would the applicant or anyone else like to speak in support in the time remaining?

Yes, please. I just wanted to make a couple of points.

Can you maybe lift that up a little bit more?

Is this better?

Yeah, thank you.

I'd just like to make a couple of points first. My client, the property owner, was unaware of any of the history that you just heard until we went to the NPU meeting and it was brought up. Apparently this is an issue that the neighborhood had with one of the tenants on the property that we were unaware of. And so we would be happy to sit down and talk to them about their concerns and what can be done at this point in time to address them. if we had the opportunity to do that. So that's the first point I'd like to make. Second point is, this is an industrial piece of property. It's been a truck terminal for the last several, several decades. And so The idea that denying this application is going to make that use go away is just not accurate, number one. It would just leave us without the ability to, or with a diminished ability to maintain the property because we'd have the burden of financing that I told you about. And it would hamper our efforts to sell the property to another buyer. So what you might have across the street from that school, if this facility were to go dark and lose its non-conforming status, is a vacant truck terminal. And that is an attractive nuisance that nobody wants in that kind of proximity to a school. Now, there are other industrial uses the property could be put to, and I would note I've got the code open, and one of the permitted principal uses, those are buy-write uses, one of them is warehousing and distribution. If this stops being a truck terminal, the most likely use that would go in there after the current tenants leave would be a warehouse or a distribution center, which would have the same sort of truck activity as the truck terminal. So again, we've got a situation where you have a severe individual hardship on the one hand, and on the other hand, An opposition that really wouldn't bring relief to the neighborhood the way it sounds like it would when it's first presented So that's my rebuttal.

Thank you, sir Is there anyone else who would like to speak and support?

Okay, we will enter deliberation questions or comments from the board a couple of clarifying questions for me, which is in its current iteration of It is a non-conforming use that has been grandfathered in. So they could leave it as it is now and continue to operate in the same manner that they've operated for the last 50 years? Yes, ma'am. And so the special use permit is really just to? Make it comply with the zoning regulations. Make it comply with the zoning regulations. Yes, ma'am. Which, in complying with zoning regulations, If it's a non-conforming use now, do they get more by complying as opposed to? No, ma'am. It's the same.

It's the same. Except for the fact that, like, if something happened to the property, could they actually rebuild right now? Yes, ma'am.

There are provisions in our non-conforming regulations to allow them to rebuild if there is damage to the property.

Okay. So they could rebuild. They can continue the same use.

The non-conforming doesn't allow you to expand. So you are set with the uses that you have on site. You are set in place of the buildings that you have on site. And so in the getting of something, I guess, would be if you wanted to expand the buildings on site, then you could do that with the special use permit because then you would be in full conformance with the zoning ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you. The nonconformity holds you exactly where you are.

Got it. And can you speak to staff's position on the applicant's request to remove the conditions? I'm not aware that that's been done on a special use permit.

It is not, and I respect Mr. Buckley's argument, but the city's position has been that we not allow the transfer of special use permit applications, that they be CONDITION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS BEFORE THE NPU AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL AND IF ANY OTHER USER WANTED TO APPLY OR BE ON THAT PROPERTY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONED TO THEMSELVES.

SO TAKING MR. BUCKLEY AT HIS WORD, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO, IF THEY WERE TO GO UNDER CONTRACT, THE PURCHASER

The purchaser would have to apply for their own special use payment.

Would that purchaser have to already purchase it? I'm sorry? So if they were under contract to buy it, no one's going to, assuming that's correct, if no one's going to buy it, would the applicant be able to be the person who's going to buy it?

Yes. It would seem that the property owner would have whomever he is in contract with or in talks with to apply for the special use permit instead of himself.

That's pretty common. Yeah, it's just the new owner. We get a bunch of those.

I also looked through Excella. I did not see any violations, outstanding violations, nothing, no arborist comments or anything like that.

Yeah, and I also looked at the history of the John and Leslie Dobbs School. And I know that staff couldn't find anything. The only thing I could find online, it was built in the late 2000s. I mean, early 2000s, I mean. So this truck terminal precedes that school use. So any other questions or comments? OK. I'm prepared to hear a motion then.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number U-26-06, I move that this board accepts the staff's finding of fact.

Second. Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number U-26-06, I move that the board send forth a recommendation of approval for the conditions found on page four in the staff report dated June 4th, 2026.

Second. Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. Aye. Motion passes. Can I get a motion to adjourn? I'm sorry, ma'am. We have one more case.

Oh.

Thank you all very much.

Sorry. Thank you.

I missed.

Z-2609, an ordinance by zoning committee to rezone from Cabbage Town Landmark District Sub Area 3 Beltline Overlay to Cabbage Town Landmark District Sub Area 4 Beltline Overlay for property located at 708 Kirkwood Avenue Southeast. beginning at the intersection of the east side of Short Street with the north side of Kirkwood Avenue. Depth, 100 feet. Area, 0.1148 acres. Landline, 2014 District, Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, Greater Mount Hermon Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. Applicant, Chris Wahlberg, NPUN, Council District 5.

Is there anyone who would like to speak in support? Please go ahead and... State your name and address when you get to the podium.

Hey, how's it going? I'm Chris Wolbert, live on 111 Short Street. I'm the applicant and under contract to purchase this building and will be the long-term owner of the property. I'm also a Cabbage Town resident, as I just mentioned, and live a few houses down from the building. This request seeks to rezone this property from subarea 3 to subarea 4 to adaptively reuse a historic 7,000 square foot church, converting it to a primarily residential use with no proposed increase in the footprint, scale, scope, or size of the building. I believe the city staff's report captures the merits of this proposal well. Staff found that the request is appropriate given the property's location, supports adaptive reuse, reinforces the residential character of the area, and is expected to positively affect the neighboring properties. This proposal also creates long-term housing and preserves the historic structure. I respectfully ask for your support and happy to answer any questions.

You can have a seat. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of the application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the application? Okay, hearing none, we will enter deliberation. Questions or comments from the board? No, okay, I'm prepared to hear a motion then.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-09, I move that the board accept the staff's finding of fact.

Second. Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-09, I move that this board send forth a recommendation of approval.

Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes. Now, motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you.

Oh, you stole my thunder. I say it every time at the wrong time.

you