Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. I call this meeting to the city of South Fton Zoning Board of Appeals to order. The time is 6:17 p.m. Will the clerk please call the role? Board member Patterson present. Board member Bleer present. Board member O'Donnell here. Board member Vaughn present.

Chair, uh, madame vice chair, you have a quorum. Thank you. Um at this time we have a special zoning board of appeals special call meeting this evening. This is case number uh I'm not seeing the case number. Can you can you call the case number? There is no case number. It's just the appeal. It's just the agenda item.

Okay. So okay. So we have um an appeal to the zoning board of appeals first section 808.19 for administrative decision regarding emblem at sand town land disturbance permit partial IDs 14 FO109 LL113714 F09 LL0311 and 14 F08 8 LL0205. Okay, I guess we can begin. Um, before we start, I do have a question for attorney Maker. Um, and I'm asking this because I'm trying to understand what type of what what is this we're hearing? What what exactly are we hearing it? Because since the decision has been rendered and the case has been closed, what exactly are we hearing

this evening? What we're going to discuss is a difference of opinion. I can tell you that since the board took action, um, the appellants had a certain view of what the decision meant and the city staff had a different opinion. There is some commonality, but there is a difference. So I think the best way if I may suggest to the board to proceed is to sort of let each side give you their version of what they believe the board did that evening and then you will have to decide if there's any further action to take.

Okay. Um and I'm trying to just I'm trying to understand should we hear this now and then go into executive session because I do have some questions. We can certainly go into executive session. Yes. But I beforehead or after I would suggest let letting the party speak. Okay. And if you have any questions for them, ask those questions and then perhaps we could convene an executive session. Okay. And go from there.

Okay. And I'm just trying to make certain that we are not being put in a position that there could be uh potential inconsistencies that could possibly put us in a position of some sort of you know um legality issues maybe. So that's what I'm that's where my concern is coming into play. Um, so I guess will will this be another 10 minutes or will they what's the time frame on that?

That would be up to the board decide. So you you all can allocate 10 minutes to each side. Um, but technically the decision has already been rendered. So it's not like it's a new case coming. So it will be up to you to decide 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 5 minutes, 5 minutes or however much time as they may consume. Okay. Okay. Well, um I'd like to Would anyone like to make a motion to uh give a decision or or a suggestion on the time frame of how long to hear each?

I'd like to make a motion that uh both the the appeals and the city each have 15 minutes each to uh present their understanding of the decision and then after that we'll close it. Seconded. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. All those opposed? Nay. All right. The motion has been approved for 15 minutes for each side to hear um the I guess the applicant side and the city side. So, do we let the applicant go ahead and go first?

Okay. Please state your name and give us the details again about your your agency and the project again as far as the project we're working on.

Absolutely. And um and thank you for uh hearing this matter for um the third time. So it's nice to see everyone again. Uh my name is Joe Seagleman. Uh I represent the Appellant Corta Development, which is the developer for this proposed project. Um, I'm going to be hopefully very brief and would like to reserve uh some time for rebuttal after the uh the city gives gives their remarks. Um the my understanding of why we're here is actually uh from our request. So, we submitted a um a motion uh or a request to have some clarification or in the alternative to reconsider the final decision u depending on the board's perspective and and what the board felt was appropriate. Um I believe that's already been provided to you. I have physical copies if you would like it. Um but uh I'm going to summarize it in my remarks, but um and you already have this and the attorneys already have it. Uh hopefully you do too. Hopefully this isn't anything new, but certainly want to be sure that you have it and you can refer to it. Um although again we'll we'll be sure to uh include the high points of that. So uh all of you are familiar with this matter. The purpose of this is certainly not to rehash the substance. Um we came before you first on December uh 18th about a matter that began in in mid 2024. Um then that was that hearing was continued to February 3rd where this board issued its decision. Um and almost immediately following the decision there was confusion on um between the two sides as to what the decision meant. Um, this board reversed, which we greatly appreciate because the we had appealed because the city had decided this project couldn't move forward and would

would be subject to redesign and indeed the reasonzoning process which we um disagreed with and of course the city had initially said otherwise had green lit this project for nearly a year. We had worked with the city hand in hand uh getting this project across the finish line and at the very last minute um again not to rehash all the facts that are already in the record but the um the the city changed its mind uh took away the the the zoning uh that that had been approved and gone through the process uh requiring us to appeal. The board reversed the city's um zoning denial. So we uh humbly greatly appreciate the board's time consideration of all the issues um and to to reverse that which we interpreted as a green light to move forward with the project as designed because the city's denial was a denial of the project as designed. So reversal of that in our view was that the project could move forward as designed. Uh subject to of course to conditions that were included with the decision. Um, condition A, as you're familiar, uh, concerned interconnectivity. We're not here for clarification on that. There's that's not at issue or in dispute. But condition B, um, there there was a question we were interpreting condition B as consistent with the overall reversal. Uh, and condition B, as you might recall, and it's it's in the the motion, it's in the record, uh, was that there would need to be mixed use as depicted in the site plan, or I'm paraphrasing, but that's, uh, what it said. and and we we interpreted that as well if the project can move forward as designed when it's zoned for multif family and and designed as multif family that that mixed use would be consistent with the remaining portion of pod f as opposed to the portion that quarter would be developing. Uh there were some

questions about that uh that that um that I want you to hear from Ray Crocker who is the developer. Um but I want to just sort of give a little bit about the procedural posture because of this dispute. Um we had no choice but to uh to file suit against the city to preserve uh the developers uh rights on appeal uh because the city had interpreted even though it was a reversal favorable in our view to Corta. Um the city interpreted it as actually affirming their denial because you know that that they they believe condition B required a wholesale redesign which is what the city's denial was in essence. So they viewed it as affirming their decision even though this board had reversed which required it we the project wasn't going to be able to move forward so we had to appeal within 30 days in court. Um the reason why we're here today and not not in court right now uh is because well there there two reasons. Uh the first is we have never had any interest at all in being adverse to the city. We wanted to work with the city. In fact that had been the process for the year that this project was in design in the design phase. Uh we we don't want to litigate. Um, but also we understood this board to mean what it said with the reversal. Indeed, I understand there were congratulations given to to Mr. Crocker and indeed to some of the some of the council by the board members and we didn't want there to be litigation if that wasn't what this board wanted. Uh, so we wanted to we wanted to have one last opportunity to to understand exactly what the board's position was. uh you know if it meant for the project to be denied but mainly I don't want to take any more time. I want you to hear directly from Mr. Crocker. Of course, we're happy to answer any questions that you might have for us. Uh but we're here hoping that uh the board meant what it said when it reversed uh and that this

project can move forward subject to the uh condition A interconnectivity uh and that we can have clarification on condition B if not um you know withdrawal of condition B from the the final decision alto together with that I'm happy to answer any questions my co-consel's also here he's happy to address the board but uh but mainly I want you to hear from Mr. Ray Crocker. Thank you.

Yeah, Ray Ray Crocker with Corta. So, I want to try to simplify this and explain clearly why we're back. Um, when we left on February 3rd, we understood that the decision was reversed and that we could move forward with our plan as it was shown and there were two conditions for us to make interconnectivity to pod E and the remaining portions of pod F. And then the condition B stated that mixed use should be developed as depicted on the original plan in pod F. It didn't say remaining portions of pod F. So the the words matter in that condition and that's what the confusion is. What there's what the condition B said is that mixed use as depicted in pod F from the original plan. We believe what you were saying or meaning to the board's intent was that the remaining portions of podf had to be a mixeduse and that we were able to move forward with our plan as it was drawn. And the reason I think the city is incorrect is se several reasons. One, the decision was reversed and what that said was that our plan did meet the zoning in the plan. Um, two, we were congratulated by a few uh board members that we were able to move forward with our plan. And then verbally during the meeting, I asked a specific question. It it was that what I'm understanding about the the motion was that my plan would be able to move forward with connectivity into the other parcels and there was verbal yes. That was the intent of the the board. So, it was a little confusing to hear from the city uh that they interpreted that we had to basically re you know get rid of our plan, redesign it with commercial as though it was the original plan which is the whole reason we were in here to

begin with. So it doesn't what their position is doesn't make any sense with the reversal first of all of the appeal and um that u we would we would be required to to uh redesign our plan to include mixed use. So that hopefully clarified it. Uh it's really around the condition B. Condition B is referencing what we believe to be the remaining portions of pod F. Condition B um doesn't change the zoning. the remaining portion of pod F is already zoned mixed use. So condition B could easily be removed from from this to to eliminate the confusion.

I want to just quickly clarify that the um the the litigation has been dismissed. It's tabled and that's why we're back before you. Uh you know, depending on the outcome uh this evening, it's it's possible litigation may be necessary. Certainly we we hope that it isn't. Um I just as a housekeeping matter I without asking if the board has seen the the motion before you. We would just ask that it be a part of the record. You could see that it's dated from back in March. I think we were originally going to appear back before you on March 19th. Um and then but so this is um you know dated from from then but just as a matter of just that we presented something to the board that it' be a part of the record. Um and I'll I have another point to address but it can wait. Thank you.

So they have 5 minutes and 46 seconds remaining. Um, and now I'll start the time for the uh by the city. Thank you. All right. Hi. Good evening. Paul Mitchell. I'm here on behalf of the city of South Fulton.

Um, so so tonight you're being asked to uh clarify the conditions that were a part of your decision on February 3rd. Uh, so as far as the things that we agree about, first of all, I'll say from the city's standpoint, we agree that you said what you said. So it's it's not about what the words are or anything like that. Obviously, it's about how it's interpreted and what the impact is. So, as far as whether or not this board reversed the the city's denial, and I won't get into what exactly it was that was being reversed, the city conceds. The board reversed the the city's decision such as it was. Uh, so that's not in question. And as has already been explained, I I agree with the way it's been represented about condition A. There's there's no dispute about how condition A is interpreted. asked the one about interconnectivity between Cortara's pod of 200 apartments and the you know the surrounding. The big question is is it a pod of 200 apartments in pod F or what exactly does condition B mean? So condition B said mixed use as depicted in pod F from the original plan. And so the u again I think it's I think it's a fair representation of what needs to be clarified. Does this mean that quarter builds 200 apartments in the manner that they in the plan that they showed and then the remaining part of pod F has to look like the 2001 plan? Or does it mean that Quarter can build 200 apartments but has to incorporate the mixeduse component? more might it mean yes you know they they build 200 apartments and then they also have to build the remaining part of pod F in the way that is depicted in the 2001 plan. So again

what the board said I think is clear. The board said mixed use as depicted in pod F from the original plan. I understand quarter's quandry uh because from their position they can't do both. they can't have the 200 apartments in the way it's shown way it's shown and the 2001 mixed use in the way it's shown and so my understanding is the the board is being asked to to to clarify that because there there there does seem to be um some room for interpretation certainly from Corta's side and I I can understand where they're coming from I I don't think that it'd be appropriate to simply withdraw condition B uh again your decision is what it is uh but we're here to um hopefully get some some clarification on what that is. And from and from the the city's standpoint, again, the board made its decision. The board said what what what it said. And if there's some clarification to be had, we're we're certainly here to hear it. And I'll reserve the balance of my time, please.

Thank you.

Carlos Alexander, assistant city attorney for the city of South Fulton. on behalf of the city of South Fulton. And the only thing that I would add is that the board's decision was that condition A that uh Quarter would provide interconnectivity and condition B commercial as depicted in the original plan in part F. The question is on that condition being who's responsible for the commercial? Is Quarter responsible for the commercial as a part of their uh project to build their apartments or is the board stating that Quarter can build their apartments as they're currently designed without the commercial and then the commercial is left to someone else to build? The city's interpretation of the plain words that were given to us by this uh by this board on the February 3rd decision was that Quarter was responsible for condition A and Quarter was responsible for uh condition B. That is the city's interpretation and it that's simply what the question is.

Could I add one thing? I would like to make sure it's clear that there's a master developer. Uh this is in a master development. We are purchasing the one parcel. We are not commercial developers and our intent was to build the the residential only on a portion of podf and we never understood the decision to require us to build ours and a and a use that we we do not develop. Just want to make sure that was clear.

All right. So, just for the record, the city has 10 minutes and 53 seconds left and the uh appellet or the other side has 5 minutes and 5 seconds left. Well, that they may not be finished. Um I would like to are are you all finished or would you like to reserve your time for after we do executive session? We certainly to the extent there there would be a need or opportunity to speak further certainly reserve the balance of our time and whether that's answering questions or how are we going to start the board. Okay. And how many more minutes do they have left?

5 minutes and 5 seconds. Okay. And the city has 10 minutes and 53 seconds. Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, at this time, um, do we make a motion to go into executive session? Okay. Um, make a motion we close public comment as as previously done and then have questions. Okay. So, we're going to close it and then reopen it. Second. All right. Go ahead and make your motion. Like to make a motion. Oh, sorry. That's okay. I'd like to make a motion that we uh close public comment for both sides temporarily

and it's been second. For those in favor say I. I. All oppose. Nay. It has been so approved. We will temporarily close the public u discussion and we will go into executive session. Point of clarification. Was your nay against closing it temporarily? No. Oh, are you just saying nay? Just say nay. Yes, I was saying if there were any naysay in the room just for formality purposes. Okay. All right. Can I ask a question? Um, you had mentioned asking some questions. Are you wanting to ask those questions before we go into executive session? No.

Okay. All right. Thank you. We need a motion to go into executive session. I would say suggest for pending potential litigation. Would anyone like to make a motion forward to executive session? I move that we um that the bo the uh ZBA zoning board of appeals um enters executive session at this time. I second. All oppose. All all in favor, excuse me. Say I. I. All oppose. Nay. All right. It has been so approved. We're going into executive session. No, we're going to stay in here and everyone else is

for to come out of the executive session. I second. I was just moving. That's fine. But those all in favor say I. I. All oppose. Nay. Okay. It has so been moved and ordered. We are out of executive session and uh we will move forward. I would like to uh move to uh stand by the board's original decision that was rendered on February 3rd as previously stated. Is there anyone want to second that? Second. All in favor say I.

I. I. All oppose say nay. It has so been ordered. We will remain and we will go with this decision that was originally rendered when we first made the final decision at that time at this point in time there. Go ahead. No. Okay. Um well, I guess we're opening up public discussion. Okay. Uh, we're gonna open up public discussion again at the Are we opening up public disc? I don't think there's a need because we're done. That's it.

Yes. We're standing by the decision and we really if Go ahead, Carlos. Come on up. But we're done. Carlos Alexander on behalf of the city.

Carlos Alexander on behalf of the city. Um, can the board clarify the question uh regarding the original decision that the board has voted to stand by uh which in my understanding is uh in the original decision there was a condition B which required uh mixed use and the clarification I believe that both parties needs is is Quera responsible for providing the misu mixeduse or someone else responsible for the mixeduse.

Thank you.

I would say based upon the original u decision that was rendered on February 3rd, mixed use was uh heavily considered in our decision. I'll leave it at that. heard briefly. This is this is not a request for further clarification. Uh this is not a request for further clarification as much as we might uh want to make that request. This is uh just more of a a an understanding of the action taken. is uh did the board vote to deny our request for reconsideration, the request that was before you that brought us today or um was there no action taken on the request? Uh just clarification as far as the the motion that was heard and seconded and voted on just now. Thank you.

If I can I think the action of the board was to act on clarification and basically state that they stand by the decision that they rendered initially. He can't hear you. Yep. I think that the decision of the board was to rule on the clarification. Say they stand by the action that was taken at the first meeting.

We have no further discussion with this matter at this time and um we will go ahead and I need would someone like to make a motion to end public discussion. I move that we end public discuss discussion. Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say nay. It has been so ordered. We are ending the public discussion. And I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn. All those a second. Thank you. All those in favor? I I I.

All those opposed? Nay. It is a order. We are adjourned. Thank you.