Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Uh,

well, did you want to wait? All right. Good evening everybody. Uh we're going to go ahead and start the December 18th, 2025 zonal board of appeals meeting for the city of South Fulton. Uh with staff, call the role for us, please.

Mr. Johnson, present. Dr. Blackshere present. Miss Patterson present. Mr. Matthysse present. Mr. O'Donnell present. Mrs. Pies. Mrs. Jerome present. Mrs. Evans. You have a quorum. All right, we have a quorum. Uh, second. Has everybody had a chance to uh review the minutes of last month's meeting? If so, I'll take a motion. If you want time to look it over, please do so. Make a motion to accept the minutes. I second it.

It's been properly moved and seconded to accept the minutes of last month's meeting. All in favor say I. I. I. I.

Any oppose? Nay. Hearing none. The meet the minutes of last month's meeting are accepted into the record. All right. We have uh one case tonight uh looks like a popular case that is going to be uh an administrative decision regarding emblem at South at downtown plot and land disturbance permit. Okay. All right. We're going to have uh public comments. There are 10 minutes reserved for those speaking in favor of the case and 10 minutes in opposition. Everyone comes to the podium, states their name and address, and if you are a city of South Fulton resident. Uh, do we have cards? Uh, staff for anybody speaking.

Yes, we have four cards in favor and that is Hakee Hillard, um, Joe Seagelman, Haley Harper, and Ray Crocker. Okay. Is there a case number here? I'm not seeing the case number here. I want to call it in officially. Is there see the case number? I don't believe there is one.

No case number. Okay. Uh. All right. So, the first case then I'll just read it as is. is an appeal to the zoning board of of appeals per section 808-19 for administrative decision regarding emblem at s at sand town plat and land disturbance permit partial IDs 14 f09 ll1137 second parcel 1409 LL L 0311 and a third parcel 14F08 [snorts] LL0205. Is the applicant here? All right. Please step to the podium and state your name. Hang on one second. Was there from the city that we we wanted uh before we got started with the petitioner? assistant city attorney Alexander. This is our first time doing this type of hearing. So I would ask that we extend the time from 10 minutes to 15 minutes for the Mr. but also to incorporate any speakers that are speaking on his members of the public. He has it. I'm sorry. I know that um Attorney Hillyard has his team here, but I don't know if there are any uh members of the public who are um so if the 15 minutes could be extended for attorney Hillyard side as well as any members of the public that are speaking on his behalf and then also uh 15 minutes for the city side and any members of the

public that are speaking on behalf of the city. I would indulge ask the court the board's indulgence for that. Wait one. I'll take a motion to alter the rules for this particular case and extend the uh talking time to 15 minutes as opposed to 10 minutes. I'll make a motion to extend the time. Seconded and properly moved and second to extend the talking time from 10 minutes as normal to 15 minutes. All in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Nay. Hearing none. You guys have 15 minutes each. Okay. And um we'll start with attorney Hillier.

Um um Mr. Chair, just as another housekeeping matter, we have a a binder of information that we uh booklet we have to give out to each of you all. Uh we want to make sure that it's included as a part of the official record in this matter. It it it is the same documentation that we submitted uh when we filed the appeal. Um the neighborhood presentations are in here. not actually uh there's one additional document in there and we'll discuss that when we give that to you. But because this is this this hearing is on the record uh we wanted to make sure we officially produce these documents uh to you uh for your review and we won't any any objections to that?

No. Okay. [snorts] I've got my real lawyer here helping me do the right way. Um,

well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Good evening. Uh my name is Hakeim Hillyard with the Shilovis Grubman Law Firm, 1834 Independence Square, Atlanta, Georgia 30338. Um I'm here this evening uh on behalf of Corta Development Company uh in the appeal involving what was what some of you know as the emblem at Sandtown Development. Uh for more than 30 years, I've worked in zoning and land use, advising, planning departments, and representing applicants before cities and counties across the state of Georgia. In my career as a city attorney in the city of Atlanta, I served as council to its board of zoning adjustment when that body heard appeals very much like this one. An identical quai judicial body with the same charge you were assigned tonight. I've advised directors and roles just like Mr. McClendon's. I have stood where Corta stands today asking boards like this one to hold government to its own written word. As a zoning wonk who cares deeply about how this system works, this decision saddens me because it undermines the basic promise that if you follow the rules and rely on the city's written approvals, the city will stand behind them. Uh let me start with Corta, what what Corta was trying to do and why and what it was relying on. In early 2024, before it committed to invest in South Fulton, Corta came to the city uh to understand exactly what it was allowed to do on this property. This is not a request for a new zoning. There is an existing zoning case on this property from 2001 from when before the city of South Fulton was created. It was Fulton County governed this area. That zoning expressly allowed multif family use and left remaining entitlement for approximately 200 additional multif family units on this site. This is the controlling zoning on this property and the city does not dispute that multif family is allowed here and that there were remaining units to be developed. Cortiera came to the city to confirm exactly that, that it could develop those 200 additional units within the remaining multif family entitlements already allowed under the 2001 zoning

and that there was no separate binding site or concept plan that limited that zoning in a way that the code actually enforced before investing heavily. Corta asked the director and his team in in substance under the existing zoning we are entitled are we entitled to build these additional units and is there any site or concept plan that legally prevents us from doing this? The director reviewed the record and on July 3rd 2024 issued a written confirmation letter saying yes under the 2001 zoning this multif family project including the additional units is permitted without identifying any operative site or con concept plan that would block it. Later, Taylor Harper with Corta specifically asked the city staff about any sightspecific review requirement and was told that there was none and that applied to restrict this project. That written confirmation is what Cortier relied on and it is it is then followed the city's process submitting plans and civil plans responding to the staff comments and working through review cycles for more than a year with staff ultimately saying that the plat was ready for the consent agenda encouraging Corta to keep going. With me tonight is my colleague Joseph Seagelman, co-consel for Corta and two members of the Corta team who have been directly engaged with the city on this project. Mr. Ray Crocker, Cortara's managing director for the Southeast and Mr. Taylor Harper, Cortara's director of development for the Southeast. They have provided detailed affidavits documenting the meetings with the city and the director's confirmation and the sages online system entries and the sequence of approvals and the later denial. What happened in in instead of the city standing behind that written confirmation is this. After more than a year of approvals and assurances, the city manufactured a new argument that more than the that an old concept plan should now be read to require that this project be designed in a way that contradicts the very approvals the city

itself had been giving over the past year. Let me put that let me put that what it means in simple terms. A family receives an inheritance for their from their parents. Before they spend it to build a house, they go to the city hall and ask the director in writing, "Are we allowed to build this here?" The director reviews the code and sends back a written confirmation. Yes. Only then do they commit their money. Over the next year, they build. Inspectors come out. Each time there is a correction, the inspector says, "Fix this and keep going." The city's message is consistent. You are approved. Then near the end, someone else inside city hall, not the director, without and without his legal authority, persuades staff to flip the status in the computer from approved to denied. The rules have not changed. The director has not sent a new letter. Yet the approval they relied on with their life savings is simply taken back. Everyone in this room understands that is wrong. That is what happened to Corta. Cortid Corta did exactly what a responsible applicant is supposed to do. It went straight to the city's director, received that formal written zoning confirmation, and then spent more than a year submitting plats and civil plans, responding to every technical comment, and working through every review cycle the city required. Staff told Catera that the plot was ready for the consent agenda and repeatedly encouraged it to keep going. Corta invested roughly $900,000 in fees, engineering, and carrying costs on the strength of those approvals. And then after all that, the status was flipped from approval to denial. Even after the reversal, Corta tried repeatedly to meet with the director and understand what had changed. Those efforts were refused. There is still no written explanation from him of what rule Corta violated. At this point, it is important to be candid about what happened. This plaque was pulled from the council consent agenda twice. The first time we understood it was to allow for a meeting with neighbors. The second time, there was no

explanation. When we asked the director to discuss what had changed, we were met with silence. We eventually spoke with Matthew Williams, the city's planning and zoning administrator, who told us we needed to start the zoning process over, a process that had already been completed and approved. Corta is troubled by what staff shared about how this decision was reached, including the role of the direction from the district council member, but the legal violation that warrants reversal sit squarely on at staff's feet. Staff and the director took lawful written zoning approval relied upon for more than a year and reversed it without codified basis without any written findings from the official who issued the approval and without any coherent explanation for what provision of the ordinance Cortara supposedly violated. Cortier is understandably concerned that when asked to justify this re reversal, the professionals charged with preserving the integrity of the rules that govern development in the city had no reasonable codebased explanation to offer. That is not a lawful correction of an error. It is an unlawful surrender of a vested approval. And it is exactly the kind of arbitrary action your ordinance requires the board to do to undo. Your ordinance section 5-60009 sets out a simple but important standard. An appeal must be sustained if you find either that the administrative officials action was based on an erroneous finding of material fact or that the administrative official acted in an arbitrary manner. Both prongs apply here. The reversal rests on an erroneous premise that the concept plan that was never treated as binding, codified a limit on the 2001 zoning approvals, followed by a status change ordered and defended by people other than the director with no written findings from him and no willingness to sit down with the applicant to explain what rule was had been violated. When an applicant gets a written approval from the director, spends over a year following staff's instruction, invests $900,000 in reliance on that, those are

vested rights your board should protect. We have preserved all constitutional objections, due process, equal protection, takings in our writings, in our filing. You do not need to decide those tonight. What you do need to decide is whether this internal override that the director's decision after a year of reliance is erroneous and arbitrary and under your own under your own ordinance. You may hear the city outside council argue tonight, we just corrected a mistake, but if that were true, the director would have issued a new letter explaining the error. He hasn't. You may hear the city attorney say the concept plan is require required the 2021 age restricted project to go through a zoning. That is true, but that was a change of use. Here we are staying within the same multif family use of the 2001 zoning, what this 2001 zoning allows. Unless there has been an unwritten decision from the director that post dates are appealed, that zoning chain is not changed. And you may hear, you may also hear, you should defer to staff. Deference makes sense when staff applies clear rules consistently. It does not make sense when a director's written approval and a year of staff approvals are undone by someone else with no written explanation. As I close this preliminary comment, uh let me address the one comment that captures the problem better than any legal brief. Matthew Williams told us we need to start over and go through the zoning process. And when we ask how the city could change the process after all this time, he said we have the right to change our mind. We obviously disagree with that. The city does not get to change its mind about vested approvals without clear error and a formal written correction by the official who made the decision. But Mr. Williams is the only person in the city who took time to explain this and he has never shied away from the conversation. He's a good man walking around with bad facts. The law does not allow what those bad facts describe. If there truly had

been a clear error, the director himself would have made that decision in writing with a straightforward communication to Corta. None of that has happened here. The affidavit of Ray Crocker and Taylor Harper document all of this. The director's July 3rd, 2024 zoning confirmation, the pre-development meetings, the sages entries showing approval and consent agenda readiness, and then the unexplained switch to denial without any written directive from the director. That is the record you have before you. We are here because Corta relied on the city's written assurances and paid a steep price, about $900,000. But this is bigger than Corta. Every credible builder and investor who hears this story will ask, "If a director's written approval, confirmed over a year of staff reviews can be undone by someone else inside city hall without a word from the director, how can I safely invest in South Fulton?" And here's what saddens me most. This kind of behavior has already been called out by the courts. South Fulton has already been cautioned about pulling plat a plat off an agenda um p plow off of an agenda for political and ad hoc reasons. The same pattern is repeated has is repeating itself. The city has been warned not to do this yet we are back here again. You are volunteers on this board because you are you care about South Fulton. You want this city to be seen as fair, predictable, and governed by its ordinances, not by informal influence inside the building by after the fact we changed our mind explanations. The only way to protect this is to insist that when the city speaks it in writing through the its director, it either stands by that decision or has that same official openly and formally explain why it's changed. That hasn't happened here. What cannot what cannot be acceptable is what happened here. A silent override of the director's written approval. defended only by a shifting concept plan theory and an informal claim that we have the right to change our mind after an applicant did exactly what the city told it to do under your ordinance and

under basic fairness that everyone is in this room understands that is both erroneous and arbitrary. Your code gives you the authority and respectfully the responsibility to say so. On behalf of Corta and on behalf of every future applicant who needs to be able to trust the city's word, we ask you to reverse this denial and restore the approvals that the director and the staff gave Corta had every right to rely upon. Uh we'll reserve uh our little remaining time for any rebuttal that we might have and we're obviously available here to answer any questions you might have about our appeal that we haven't uh answered in this this presentation.

All right. Thank you. Uh, attorney Hill is the city ready. Good evening. My name is Paul Mitchell. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Freeman Matis Gary and I represent the city of South Bulton. I have a PowerPoint presentation that I'd like to refer to. Uh before I get started though, uh I did uh similar to Carter's uh [snorts] council submit all the written materials. Uh I did that uh last month via a link. I have hard copies uh as as well, but just to make sure that everything is in the that's in the record. I don't have anything to add from the uh the electronic submission from last month. So, u if we could look at the next slide. Uh first, I want to talk about what your responsibility is here this evening. So, you sit as an appellet body to review actions taken by the city of South Fulton. And in this case, it's actions taken by its director and staff members. I'm going to refer to the the highlighted portion says an appeal shall be sustained only upon in other words you should grant Cortier's appeal only if there's an expressed finding by the board that the administrative official's action was based on an erroneous finding of a material of a material fact or that the administrative official acted in an arbitrary manner. So those are the two things that you're looking for this evening. You're looking to see is there an erroneous finding of material fact or is there an official who's acting in an arbitrary manner. If there's not,

then you should affirm the actions taken by the city. If we can see the next slide, please. This really all focuses on a letter that director McClendon wrote to Corta on July 3rd, 2024. uh this record is in the materials uh that have been provided to you uh but I'm going to highlight and you see it it's a one-page letter uh you'll see that this letter is written in response to questions from Cartera and now there are two key parts of this letter again there aren't too many parts to it but I'm just going to highlight two key parts if we could look at the next slide please so this is a couple of paragraphs down and I I think this is really the the crux of the issue from Carterara's perspective. Certainly if on rebuttal if they want to uh disagree with that they may but I want to focus on this and then I want to focus on the on the next paragraph. So this part of the letter this is director McClendon writing in response to questions that Cartera has about a property that was zoned in 2001. a property that has a site plan that we're just about to look at. So, this is what Director McClendon said. We have had the opportunity to fully examine your request and confirm herein that the approved zoning, so the approved zoning is that 2001 zoning. The approved zoning allows for the development to a total of 550 multif family units in the northwest quadrant of the subject property. that 350 multif family units have been developed and there remains the right to develop 200 multif family units in the northwest quadrant. Now, I want to go ahead and point out that there is something in this paragraph. There's something that's very accurate and there's there's something that's not. The very accurate

part is that the 2001 zoning did allow for 550 apartments and there have subsequently been 350 apartments developed. So if the original site plan, if the original zoning was built the way that it was planned, there could be 200 more apartments. That's accurate. The somewhat confusing part here is that it refers to northwest quadrant. As you'll see in a second when we look this at the site plan, there isn't really a northwest quadrant. I mean, if you think of the of of the phrase in its most basic sense, a quadrant is 1/4th of something. The northwest part, you would imagine there's a northwest, a northeast, a southwest, a southeast. But when you see how this property is set up, you'll see that there is no northwest quadrant. And so the confusing part here is one, the letter refers to northwest quadrant. And in fairness to Cartera, the property that they're concerned about is the northwesternmost part of this property. So it's understandable how the misunderstand it's the misunderstanding is understandable. But now if we can look at the next paragraph, Director McClendon continues in his letter. To make a record of this decision, we will include your 5204 letter. So again, this letter is in response to a request from Corta. The associated zoning records, I'm sorry, the associated zoning records associated with the subject property and that's all in the record and I have it. It's there there's a lot. This was zoned in 2001 in Fulton County. It's it it's a thick file. They they had it. They were aware of it. So the associated zoning records associated with the subject property and this confirmation in the zoning file related to the subject property thereafter subject to the

presentation of a site plan with 200 multif family units to the department of community development as well as demonstrated compliance with all other conditions of zoning associated with the subject property. Our office will confirm the subject zoning requirements have been satisfied and the proposed development can proceed immediately to permitting. Obviously, I want to highlight the highlighted part. It was always clear from the director that the that quarter was going to have to demonstrate compliance with all of the requirements of the zoning. If we can see the next slide, please. So this letter w was issued in uh on on July 3rd, 2024. And then the the event that triggered the appeal uh occurred on September 3rd, 2025. So now we're going to fast forward uh just a little bit over a year and and during this time that there have been reviews by staff and there's been a lot of back and forth and there has been uh reviews by different departments uh within the city uh there's by fire planning drainage hydrarology erosion control wastewater landscape traffic review different departments will review this but importantly here the planning department reviewed it and and this is kind of where we had our snack was that there had been discussions after that first letter about okay do do does Quarter have the right product do the you know the what you're showing us is are are these town houses or are they apartments how does this fit and so that there was a lot of subsequent conversation but then it becomes obvious to the city that whoa whoa whoa we're looking at the wrong thing we're we're missing the most important thing here and that is that

there's a 2001 site plan that shows exactly what's supposed to be here. And so if you want to build something other than what the 2001 plan showed, you just simply have to file an application to reszone the property. This site plan uh I'm sorry, this zoning category for this property is site plan specific. So, in other words, if you want the right to build what's on the site plan, you have to show up with a permit that shows that you're building what's on the site plan. Anything else, you need to ask for permission. You need to ask for a reasonzoning of that property. So, to uh quickly note the highlighted portion here. So, this comes from a staff email. So, under the appeal filed by Corta, this is the thing that's highlighted. This is what you're deciding. of of you know was this arbitrary or was this erroneous. So staff member Karen Tomminy wrote this development does not match what was approved in the site plan for zoning position for for zoning petition 2001 Z0079. That's that Fulton County zoning from 2001. The zoning case has this area designated as pod F. We'll look at that in a second. Which is a town center that contains community services, commercial components, and residential components that contain loft departments, town homes, and an assisted and an assisted living facility. So again, you sit here tonight as an appellet body to see whether or not Carter is correct. And they're the what what they are what they are insisting is that this staff member Miss Tomminy was erroneous. She was factually erroneous or she acted arbitrarily. Well, what did she do? This is what she did. She wrote so I mean her her findings are right

here. And so what happened? Excuse me. So then the the event that happened is that in the city's uh online portal for for managing files and such where where you have the the different departments who review and say yes you know green light red light planning department changed from green light to red light because they said well actually this doesn't fit the 2001 site plan. So, if we can look at the next slide, please. This is the 2001 site plan. So, if you look at it, you can see it's kind of like an L laying on its side. As I mentioned before, it's if you're trying to find the northwest quadrant, well, there's nothing in the northeast. So, so again, I would say that calling it there saying that there's a northwest quadrant is a little bit confusing, but I'll absolutely concede that we are talking about the northwestern most part of this property. So, if if you look up there in that upper leftand corner, that's what we're talking about. Okay? Now, it might be kind of hard to see that again, this is in your materials. It might be kind of hard to see from where you're at, but you don't even have to look too close to see that the plan that was submitted is completely different. But when when when you look at this pod F, it has a mixture of uses. Again, has community center, has assisted living, has apartments, has a mixture of uses. Okay, so this this is the site plan that was approved in 2001. The only thing that anyone has a right to develop is what's in the site plan unless they ask for resoning. And guess what? Someone did that in 2004. And in 2004, a lot of this was resoned. But guess what wasn't reszoned? Pod F. This part in the northwest corner. There's no dispute that the last zoning decision on this

property is this 2001 or the the last site plan for this property is this 2001 site plan. In 2004 when Fulton County revised this site plan, it specifically said that pod F stays the same. So this is the one we look at. So if we can look at the next slide, please. All right. So now we just kind of highlighted a little bit more what we're talking about. This is that pod F. So again, it's a city center design. If Carter had submitted a land disturbance permit, an an application for the land disturbance land disturbance permit to build this, then they absolutely would have had a right to receive that permit as long as they checked all the other boxes. There's a lot of technical review that happens, but as far as from a planning perspective, all they had to do was submit this site plan or file an application to reszone so they can get a new site plan. If we can look at the next slide, this is what Cartera submitted. It's 200 multif family units. Again, if this is what they want to build, they need to they need to submit a resoning application and then that that resoning application will be heard by the city and if it's approved, it's approved and they they can go forward with it. But until they submit a resoning application, they do not have a right to build what's shown in this plan. So again, think back to Miss Homy's her her email that said, you know, actually we just looked and we saw this 2001 site plan. 2001 site plan shows community center, assisted living, some apartments, this mixture of uses, and what you've shown doesn't have that. So that's the whole that's the whole problem here. We're not taking anyone's property away from them. We're not saying that they can't build. We're saying you can either build what's been approved or you can ask for approval to build something different. That's it. If we can see the next slide, please.

So, what I did in these last couple slides, and I'll be quick, is just highlighted some of the legal principles here. Um, I absolutely concur uh with Attorney Hillard's u with his sentiments. We want to do what's right. We want to do what's fair. And doing what's right and doing what's fair is following the law. And the law in Georgia is this. And I I just highlighted a couple of cases. You don't get a permit if you're not entitled to it. You don't get a permit for an illegal use. In other words, if if there's something that's not allowed, even if someone mistakenly issues that permit, you don't get to run with that permit and say, "Hey, you gave it to me. Your fault. Now I get to go and build this." So even if the quarter can point to a mistake that was made whether it was by uh director McClendon, Miss Tomy or anyone else, the fact is the Georgia courts have recognized that that does not give you the right to build something you're not allowed to build. So just the highlighted language here, a permit for an illegal use is void. Vest no property rights. Next slide, please. If a permit's issued by a governing body in violation of an ordinance and here this case the zoning ordinance even if under a mistake of fact it is void. Uh next slide please. And then this this is just one more case about vested rights and and and again the the rule in zoning law is if if a permit is given to you that shouldn't have been given to you, you don't that doesn't give you the right to use that permit. In this case, no permit was ever given. It was simply the letter and then the later, you know, correction that that that was uh in Miss Tomy's email. Thank you so much for your time.

How much time does Attorney Hill you have left? Yes, he has 1 minute and 45 seconds. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief. Uh, you know, I appreciate council for the city's arguments, but there's a fundamental flaw in his argument, a factual flaw. He keeps referring to this site plan. If the site plan were site plan specific, if this zoning in from 2001 were site plan specific, we would have had a different conversation. But it wasn't. It says in the zoning ordinance from 2001 specifically, said site plan is conceptual only and only must meet and exceed the requirements of the zoning resolution. That's a fundamental material difference in the the conclusion you reach based on what council for the city said. If it's site plan specific, you have to build to that site plan. If it says conceptual only, it's conceptual only. It doesn't even say concept plan substantially in accordance with this plan. When I do resoning applications, I have a site plan and I have to meet it to the tea and you all have reviewed variances request. you see where the buildings are. If there's a site plan associated with it, you have to meet the site plan. That is not what this zoning said. And because of that, you can throw out all of the arguments related to that because it is a fundamental difference in in interpretation of the code when you look at it the way that the ordinance said it says it. Uh the other issue is I I said about the site plan and we talked about how this decision was made and that there was no uh vested vested rights here. This is not just one decision. This letter was not the only time we talked about this. After we talked about this, Mr. Mr. Crocker and Mr. Harper who have expansive affidavits that detailed every communication with city staff, multiple times they met with them and multiple times because they had to approve the zoning. Each time that happened, they they they acknowledged that the zoning that we had was approved. So, this wasn't just looking at one letter that was a short letter. They they reviewed this request and

approved it multiple times through the process. I know my time is up and I want to be respectful, but we hope we have an opportunity to answer more questions about this. Okay. Certainly, we've got a pretty packed audience. Were there any uh cards filled out for comments? There were two against cards. Okay. You want to call the first? Um the first card is for Lolita Jackson. Please step to the mo podium and state your name and your address and if tell us if you are a city of South Fton. Hang on one second. How much time? [snorts] Yes.

Yeah, they only had um against only had four seconds left. Against only has four. So they're riding on the city time. the uh citizens who came in to talk against they're stuck with the the city's 15 minutes that they've already used. I'd like to make a motion if at all. Hang on one second. We got to get clear. Unless y'all make a motion to give more time. Okay. Absolutely. Both sides. Hang on one second. Hang on one second. Uh Mr. O'Dall, you want to

I'd like to make a motion that we suspend all time requirements tonight. I think this is really important that we hear all sides of the argument. I've got an entire binder here that was given to me. But actually, I was I was getting ready to take a fivem minute recess for the board to be able to uh go through this packet because you all have given us some significant uh documents here that uh I want to at least give the the the board five minutes to be able to go through. Uh as as it relates to Mr. O'Donnell's, I'll second that motion to suspend time limit so they could speak.

Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor to suspend our standard. Hang on one second. City attorney, you have something to offer? Um, before you vote on this motion, I would like to say that um we you know, if we suspend all time, yeah, I wasn't going down that road. But if you extend the time to a time certain Yeah. that might be more minimal, but how you extend the time has to be extended for both. Yeah. of of course uh can clean up your motion a little bit cuz we don't want to be here all night. I'll pull my motion.

I'd like to make a motion that we extend at least 15 more minutes beyond the set time limit for each side. Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Second. All right, it's been properly moved and second to give each side an additional 15 minutes uh in lie of the uh material that we have in front of us to review. All in favor? I I.

Any oppose? Nay. Hearing none. Uh we're going to extend the uh time for 15 uh minutes for both sides to do their presentation. But right now, uh, we're going to take a 5m minute recess, uh, to allow the board to kind of go through some of the information we've been presented with.

Is there an extra binder for our representative uh, in district five? Um, Miss, thank you so much.

go ahead and start back up. I see we've got our two board members here. Y'all sign the roll? Okay, good. Good. Good to see y'all.

Could I note something before we reconvene? No, let us reconvene first if you don't mind.

Okay. Thank you.

[snorts] [clears throat]

All right, we're going to go ahead and reconvene. the uh December 18th, 2025 meeting of the zoning boards of appeal for the city of South Fulton. Uh and I believe we were on citizens comments and you had a card. Yes, we have two against cards. Okay. call the first one and please step to the podium and state your name and address and if you are a city of South Fton resident.

Good evening. My name is Lolita Browning Jackson. I live at 5493 Stone Cove Drive in the Sandtown Center subdivision in the city of South Bolton and I am here to oppose the zoning appeal for emblem at Sandtown at Sandtown. Uh, this appeal asks the community to accept a development that does not align with the existing neighborhood character or the long-term entrance interests of the Sandtown residents. We do not want any more apartments. Zoning exists, of course, to protect communities from overdevelopment, strain on the infrastructure, and projects that move forward without meaningful community support. The Sand Town Center residents, those of us who actually live in this community, deserve development that is transparent, appropriately scaled, and rooted in the needs of its current residents, not exceptions that benefit developers at the expense of us, those who live there, who actually live in the neighborhood. So, approving this appeal would set a troubling precedent and further erode trust between residents and decision makers. So, I urge you to deny this appeal and require any further proposal to fully comply with the standards of what it's for and also to have genuine community engagement. Ask us for what we want outside of our homes. Thank you.

And the next card is for Donald, Mr. Donald Barnes. Barnes. Step to the podium, state your name and address and tell us if you are a city of South Fton resident.

Thank you. Good evening everyone. I am Donald Barnes. I live at 5373 Stone Cove Drive Southwest, City of South Fulton. I am the Homeowners Association president for the Senttown Community Development, a property that has 323 homes. I am speaking on behalf of the residents of 323 homes in our community. We are wholeheartedly against this development. It goes against what we have been protecting what we have been building what we have been staking our finances into for the past 20 years. Our development is 20 years old. We do not need rental homes. Nonetheless, rental apartments. We have no issues with Carter. If they want to come in and build homes, single family homes, fine. Rental properties, rental homes, doesn't make sense to us. We are We want to protect our neighborhood. We want to protect our home value. We want to protect what we're doing, what we're building in our community. There are other homeowners in here who could speak, but they would be saying the same thing. So, the two of us are speaking or saying what everybody else is saying who we're representing here tonight. We don't want rental homes. Imagine a rental home property being built next to your home. How would you feel? That's how we feel. Please, on behalf of the Sent community, on behalf of the 323 homeowners in that community, please honor our request by denying their

request of building rental homes in our community. Thank you. Does the city have anything else with your remaining 15 minutes? Cuz each side got an additional 15 minutes. Uh, would you like to defer and let them go first? Um, I I'd like to defer that, but if I could just say that I I do have a a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and I'll uh submit that as part of the record. Okay. Just as a matter of step to the podium, please.

Thank you. Joe Seagleman on behalf of Quera. Just as a a matter of general housekeeping, uh, as council for the city was saying, I believe they have hard copies. The binders in front of you are are our respective hard copies. I'm not sure if a motion needs to be had to to formally accept their copies, our copies into the record, but um, mutually I think you can speak for yourself of no objection to that occurring if it's helpful or needed to make these copies officially part of the record. Thank you. And there's no objection from the city.

Okay. Thank you. I'll be very brief again. It's Hakeem Hillyard on behalf of Courtia. Um, and then turn it over to Mr. Ray Crocker to talk about this a little bit. I think wanted to say I don't know I understand that you all had not had an appeal hearing before and why we're talking about these documents because whatever party loses and if there's an appeal had to superior court, it's limited to the record that's before us. So any testimony, any documents, all of that is all that can be read into the record. So that's why we're talking about the record and making sure that it's clear and complete and the information that we've submitted and and all the documents that we submitted. I'm sorry you all hadn't seen that. Uh we submitted that originally on October the 3rd with our appeal. All those documents are provided as a part of that. I wanted to say one thing. I wanted to try to level set what we what we understand we're doing here. We're not here to ask you all to consider a zoning application. That's not what we're here for. Whether the use is appropriate or not. I have friends in the audience who live in the neighborhood. I didn't know that do or don't support the use. We're not arguing their opinion. We're not arguing anybody's opinion. What we're arguing is that we came to the city. However you feel about the project, you have to be concerned as a a city of South Fulton resident that a developer comes to your your city, one of the largest developers in the nation comes the city of South Fulton and says we want to develop in your in your in your in your city and we're looking at this land and we look and see this is what we it says we can do here. Tell us whether we can do this or not. And so that's what happened and the city gave us a letter and said you can do this and then we came back and wrote another letter and said hey well we understand you wrote us a letter but this is what how we interpret what you said we can do. It wasn't smoking mirrors. We didn't come in the dark and hide in the corner and give them tricks and tricks and bags and

play games. We had a conversation and Mr. Crocker gets up here. is going to tell you how many times over the course of a year and $900,000 uh spent that that uh confirmation that in that that in that short letter was affirmed multiple times over that year. Uh and so if anybody feels however they feel about this, you've got to be concerned if you want any kind of development to come to the city. Someone said, "Hey, well, we want this type of development to come." There's no developers going to come here that if if they believe that they can tell the ask the city, "Can we do this?" The city says, "Yeah, you can do it." Multiple times over a year, you spend $900,000 and you tell them, "I'm spending money. Are you sure I can do this?" And then a year later, you say, "Okay, well, we changed our mind." And they didn't even tell us that. They didn't write a letter. They didn't call us. We didn't figure it out until something was pulled from the agenda. That's how we found out. And we still don't know. We heard tonight the first time we had an explanation. Is that how you treat the development community? And then you're going to say you want other developers to come. Everybody's concerned about this. Everybody in the development community, the the ones you want to come are concerned because it costs money to get to the point where you're going through the permitting process. And so that's what we're fighting about here. Process, not substance really. We're talking about process at this point. uh and you're talking to one of the largest development companies in the nation here who's watching this. The other thing I want to say is that um this 2024 zoning that council for the city referenced was a resoning. It was a it was a change in use from assisted living to age restricted. When you do a change in use, that is a resoning application. That's why it was a resoning. In addition to that, since 2001, the city has done a lot of things to make changes on this plan that there was never any other resoning because that's not a resoning. So, it's very clear that

this is not a resoning application. The city said it. I don't know if you tell me the letter was short. Does that mean the director didn't review the information related to the 2001 zoning and making the decision? Was it reckless? But we didn't. There was no smoking mirrors on our part. The other thing I want to say, this site plan, I want to get back to it because I I just hope everybody understands what we're talking about here because when I go through a resoning application, a lot of times when we sit down, we say, "We want to build this big pretty building for you and we want to resone the property. We're going to build this." And the community says, "Well, how do we know you're going to do it? How can we how can you promise? You say you're going to build this building, but now the building's over here closer to my house. I didn't want it there." So, we give you a site plan and we lay it out. You've seen these site plans. This is where the buildings are going to go on the street. This is where the parking's going to go. This is where the sidewalk's going to go. This is where people are going to park. And when we build it, we're telling you that we're going to build it to this site plan. That means that's what the council meant when he said site plan specific that you everything has to go where it says on this plan that you approve when you approve this zoning. That's not what this plan says. It says concept conceptual only. Doesn't mean the parking or the buildings have to be in any particular place. It specifically says the opposite. And there's case law throughout Georgia that makes that clear. So when you hear site plan specific for this zoning, the case is over. The court's going to not court's not going to agree with that. And so we're here trying to have a conversation with you all about how do we move forward? How do we move forward? Because this money, you can't just say sorry, we approve and you know, sorry for spending a million dollars on this project. There were asurances granted along the way. The law says if I come to you and ask you for permission, you give me that permission. We rely on that permission and we spend money in reliance on that permission. You can

tell you can tell us go away, but you got to pay for it. So, we need to have a thoughtful conversation and change the conversation from what we want to see on the property to what happened here. We should all be on the same side. He didn't they didn't come to the city of South Fulton to be in an adversarial posture with the city. We went to the council member. We went to the the staff. Everybody on the staff knows Ray and and and and Taylor. They were here all the time until the the till the plat was pulled from the agenda and then everybody got alligator armors when we wanted to talk to them. No one wants to talk to us. Now we're persona nongrada because somebody decided that something didn't happen the way it was supposed to. I could understand it if we were in here tricking somebody. If we went and slipped in when nobody was looking and wrote something on the plan say, "Oh, see we can do that. That says it." That's not what we did. We pulled a 2001 file. We gave the entire file to the city and said, "Look at it and tell us what you think it means." That's what happened. So I we we regret that we're in a position where we have to be adversarial to a community when we were really just trying to do what we were allowed to do as of right. And then the developers don't go to communities to go negotiate what a a site plan is going to look like if it if it's already entitled. That's just not what happens. That's the first question I get when they come to me. Hey, we want to put this on the property. Can we do it as of right? And then what are the development standards we have to meet? If we have to reszone it, then we go to the community. So, we don't want you to be offended if they didn't come to the community when the city told them in July of 24 they didn't have to. That's why they didn't go. They just went and started putting together a development plan and going to the city and spending lots of money in reliance on that. If they were doing some trickery, that was a huge risk to spend a million dollars hoping that you all wouldn't figure this out. We believe we disagree. The city attorney agrees with me because he's

saying it's site plan specific. I know it's not. We go to court, it's going to be reversed if you all rule in the city's favor because that's a factual in inaccuracy. It's not site plan specific. There's language we can cite that's in the book. If you look at the 2001 only that very clearly says conceptual only. That's not even concept. That's conceptual only. There's no specific site plan associated with it. And so I just wanted to make that clear and make sure you all understand that's our position. And I'm gonna turn it over to Ray Clocker to kind of talk a little bit more about what happened in this process. Please state your name and address for us, sir. Yeah. Ray Crocker,

55 Chaffen Road, Roswell, Georgia. Is this on?

Yeah. So, I I'll expand on on the site plan uh conversation. We we knew it was concept conceptual only. We spent more than four meetings talking to the city about this. We went down initially, laid out our plans, talked to them about it. We showed them the letter. We showed them all of the zoning documents. We showed them everything that we wanted to do. Um, we scheduled a preconceptual meeting, which is required by the city, which has all the departments. We reviewed our plan specifically, talked about storm layouts, talked about entrances, exits. The specific plan that you're looking at that we're proposing was reviewed. No comments, no objections. There was absolutely uh no feedback to whether uh it was objective because we were trying to meet a conceptual plan from 2001. That was never ever brought up. They had the opportunity at the initial meeting in August August 21st of 2024 to tell us that this did not meet a 2001 plan. Did not tell us that. We came back met with them again on a pre-development meeting on September 18th. We um during that meeting the plan was refined further. We spent more money relying on the initial conceptual meeting that our plan met all their requirements. We talked to all the departments. We talked about the initial initial uh zoning conditions that were in the initial zoning. We talked about those conditions and how we were meeting them. We talked about everything that uh we were laying out uh that our plan was not a town home. It was a multif family designed under the IBC was not designed under the residential code. It was a single parcel development. It was not an individually platted development as you would see in a town home community. We walked through this multiple exhaustively with the city to make sure as we progressed and spent more money that we were within the requirements of the zoning. Taylor Harper sent a follow-up uh meeting of our

understanding, a memorandum of understanding of what we understood that our plan was approved and we could move forward. I'll also point out too in in Mr. McClendon's letter, he says once you show us a plan and once you uh uh demonstrate that you've met the zoning conditions, you can submit for permit. Okay, we did that in our preconceptual and our pre-development meeting and we moved forward and submitted permit. They accepted our permit. They reviewed our permit. They reviewed it multiple rounds. They gave us comments. We responded those comments. We got all the way to an approval in their system. They approved our plans. And it wasn't until our plaque got pulled from the agenda that they went back and disapproved our plans. And that was done through a conversation from someone on council as a direction as we understand it. Um I think there was something said here uh by one of the people that were opposed. Donald said that sir do me a favor and pull the mic toward the center or either Yeah.

that he represents the whole neighborhood. We presented to Sandtown community and Sand Town Center HOA both there was one strong opposition which was a gentleman you you heard from. There were multiple positive conversations from the community about what we were doing, how it would bring their children and the grandchildren back to the community. I think it was misrepresented that everybody does not want this. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Three minutes.

Do you reserve it? Okay. The city want to rebut. How much time does the city have?

Okay, if I can uh re refocus our attention to a couple of things. Is it possible to refer back to the PowerPoint? Uh, first I I do want to address something that was just said. There was a comment made that um, unless I misheard it, and if I did, I certainly don't want to misrepresent it. There there there were comments made about this plan being accepted, and I think the word approved was also used, but I just want to be clear there there has not been an approval of a permit in this case. There there there has been conversation back and forth. There's been written correspondence back and forth. What what happened on September 3rd, 2025 that's being appealed tonight is that a staff member in the planning department said planning department changes this from a green light to a red light. That wasn't a denial or an approval of a permit. That's the decision that that that's being reviewed. If if we can uh go back to the beginning of the presentation really quick again, I I'll try to be brief. Um next slide, please. and and and I I want to focus this board's attention on what the decision is before you this evening. So the decision is you're being asked two things. You're being asked one, was there an administrative official's action that was based on an erroneous finding of material fact. In other and the person we're talking about here is Miss Tomy, and we're going to look at what she said in just a second. So, first you're looking at was was she making her statement based on an erroneous you was she taking her action based on an erroneous finding of a material fact? In other words, was she just wrong in what

she was saying? Were her facts just wrong or was she be was she acting in an arbitrary manner? She was just making it up. So, let's look at what she did. So, again, those are the two things that you're being asked. You're you're being asked on September 3rd, 2025, did Miss Tomminy make a material mistake of uh a mistake of material fact or did she act in some arbitrary manner? Was she just making it up? Can we look at the next slide, please? Oh, I'm sorry. Let's uh skip ahead. One more. And one more. Okay. So, this this is Miss Tomy's statement. So, again, this is the thing that's being appealed. She said and well she wrote this development does not match what was approved in the site plan for zoning petition 2001Z79. Let's stop right there. There's there's no question of what that site plan was. There's a disagreement about whether they had to confir, you know, comply exactly with that site plan or at least the concept of the plan. There's no question what the site plan was. So this first statement that Miss Tomminy makes, she says, "What you proposing, Cortara, your 200 apartments, does not match what was what was approved in 2001." Was she right or was she wrong? That's for you to decide. Was she just making it up or was she referring to the zoning documents that have been in the public record since 2001 and and that this very large corporation, Corta, was fully aware of. So that's the first thing. If we look at the next sentence, the zoning case, in other words, that zoning petition, that 2001 zoning petition has this area designated as pod five. Remember, we we we [clears throat] looked at the map where it shows what pod 5 was originally designed to be, which is a town center that contains community services, commercial components, and residential components that contain loft apartments, town

homes, and an assisted living facility. So, the question to you is, is Miss Tommy making that up? Is she just is she acting in an arbitrary manner? If she's not, then respectfully, this this zoning board of appeals should affirm what what she has said. Again, this isn't about this isn't a reasonzoning application. It's just a question. Was Miss Tommy acting in an arbitrary way or was she just completely wrong about the facts? Well, what facts does she site? She said, "When I looked at the 2001 zoning, I saw these things and it's there." And then, you know, we looked at what those things were and it's not what's on your plan. That's the decision that they're appealing. Was was Miss Tomy wrong? Did she make a mistake of material fact or was she just making it up? I submit to you that she was not. Um, other than that, um, I'll I I'll just say that the the city has at all times endeavored to do the right thing in this case. There is back and forth. Zoning is a process and I'll tell you, especially when and I'm I'm working on other cases. I've got Well, I'll just say I'm working on other cases where we have to go way back into the past and review these zoning documents and we discover things as we go along. That's that's part of the process. This is a 2001 zoning. Part of the property was reszoned in 2004. There was a lot to go back. The file is in the record. And as the city went back and and went through this, they said, "Wait a minute. I know we've had a lot of discussions, but what you're saying doesn't match this." And so, we need to push pause right here. They still own the property. if if they want to build something different, they can apply for that. But uh the the the decision before this uh zoning board of appeals tonight

is was Miss Tommy acting in an arbitrary manner? Was she making a was she making some mistake? And the decision that she made, it's it's it's right there before you. So that's the question for you tonight. Thank you. Okay. You want me to? Okay. M Mr. Chair, me the board members, thank you for this time. We're going to be very brief. I'm going to make a couple comments and I'm going to let my my colleague close. I wanted to make clear. I'm sorry. Can you let him know how much time he has? Oh, I'm sorry. I wanted you to know how much time you had.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. All right. I'm going to talk very fast here. I just wanted to give you my own interpretation of the standard of review that you all are and why we believe this decision will is is appropriate to overturn in this instance. Uh the the the standard here is erroneous finding of material fact uh or or it was made in an arbitrary way. We believe both prongs are met. The erroneous finding here is that it rests on an an erroneous premise about a conceptual plan that was never a binding codified limit on the 2001 zoning. All the facts in the record and all the actions that have taken place, even the record the the the actions that council for the city referenced supports our conclusion and we are confident we would hope that you would rule in our favor, but we're confident that this court would support that conclusion too and we and we say that with all honesty. The second point is the approval of the U. It was carried out in an arbitrary way because when the decision was made, we didn't we weren't told anything. It was pulled from an agenda and we had to go begging somebody to talk to us. Karen Tomminy and Matthew Williams, we had a corner of them in this in a room and they took us in a room and told us, "Well, this is what's happening." To this to this day, we don't have anything in writing from the staff. If you don't support what we're doing, you should support a process that is clear and open so that anybody from the development community is entitled to know what the process is. You can't walk around and believe that this is the way that you're supposed to do business with the development community. And we're very concerned about that. Um, I want to let my my colleague close very briefly here. I've talked too long. Good evening again, U chair and members of the board. Uh I believe all the the pertinent uh topics have been have been

covered and I have just over 60 seconds. Um I want to reiterate that I I do believe that the uh the erroneous um standard has been met because the site plan as it's been referred to uh was conceptual only. And so uh even taking uh the city's council at their word that um Miss Tomminy found that it was inconsistent with a conceptual only plan. Uh even taking that as true, it's an it's an erroneous finding because as a conceptual only plan, it was not site plan specific and it was not binding. Uh the other point is the um I won't touch on the arbitrary uh component that my co-consel has already touched on because I don't have time and I believe that point was well made. The other point and just to to clarify the record, there was a comment made by the city's council that um there never was an approval uh despite um our our client having come up here and and stated that there was. I want to point the board simply to tab E, exhibit E in the binder. This is the first uh exhibit E. So, a few tabs from the front. And you'll see there's only one page uh under this uh exhibit or the first page. And it says on August 18th of 2025 that the planning review was approved. Uh and then it was later reopened and disapproved, which is the matter that we are in fact appealing this evening. Uh thank you for your time and attention. We certainly appreciate it. Uh and we hope to be partners with the city of South Folton moving in the future. Uh we appreciate your time and consideration and respectfully ask that this appeal be granted. Thank you so much.

Second E. It's the the first E. Um, Mr. O'Donnell, you you've you've found it. Uh, so where he is, if you want to and uh Mr. Rome as well. Yes. Thank you.

Anyone from city? Yeah, you have time. What's the city's time? He has 5 minutes and 28 seconds.

[clears throat] I think it's just based on time. He's got 15 minutes. He's got time remaining. Hang on. Hang on. Hang hang on one second. He's got He's He's got the 15 minutes that we already voted for him to have. Take your time. Calm down. You've got the floor, sir.

Okay. My my understanding is that there is a little bit of time remaining from the the extra 15 minutes that was allotted to the city side. Um and really the only thing I have to say is that as far as the approval, I'm not trying to quibble with what's in tab E. I'm talking about there was no permit approval like a land disturbance permit. That's that that that's what I was trying to say. In other words, that there was not something in hand that would have allowed the development itself to go forward. That's the distinction I wanted to make. I I I do believe that there were some more comments that citizens wanted to make. State your name again for us, sir, when you come back.

Again, Donald [clears throat] Barnes, HOA president, Sant Town Center subdivision, 5373 Stone Cold Drive Southwest. I just want to to go back about 20 minutes into a conversation where he made reference to him coming and talking to or not coming and talking but having a conversation with the homeowners of Sant Town Center. We did in fact have a meeting. We did in fact look at some renderings of what they wanted to do and we did in fact make comments of some modifications and some designs of his renderings that we liked. However, we never gave the opinion that we wanted rental homes built next to our community. Never did we do that. So, I I want to make sure that you understand that although I'm the only one here or there's only two of us here that spoke about this wholeheartedly as a community, 323 homes, we are against this development. Thank you. Right. Looks like city has 3 minutes 40 seconds of time remaining. You wish to use it or give it back? I don't think we have anything further at this point.

I think we do have something further at this point.

Carlos Alexander, assistant city attorney, city of South Fulton. Uh I believe that uh part of the crux of the appellants's argument is that they're being treated unfairly uh because they were not giving given notice. But in the if you look at the original letter from 2024, uh it states that they must meet all the zoning requirements. And attorney Hillyard mentioned that Queria is one of the largest development companies in the nation. They're experts. They're experts at reading a zoning document and understanding what's required. What's required in that document from 2001? They they knew they had access to it and they knew what the requirements were. They did not meet those requirements. They presented a site plan that did not meet those requirements. Therefore, that's why they have not been approved to move forward. They have not been treated unfairly because in the 2024 letter from our director, they were told that they must meet all the zoning requirements. All right, 2:35 left and I believe the applicant side is out of time. Correct.

All right. So, at this time, I'll take a motion from the board to close the floor for public comment. I make a motion that we close public comment. I second. It's been properly moved and second to come out of public comment. All in favor say I. I. I.

Any oppose? Nay. Hearing none. Public comment is closed. We are out of public comment at this time. Uh we're going to open the floor for the board to uh present any questions that they have of either side. As it is our tradition, we're going to start with the district uh where this development is taking place. So, uh Dr. Blackshere, do you have any questions? And after Dr. Blackshere, uh I'm going go to this end because I usually start on this end, but Mr. Johnson, you'll have the last word. Dr. Blackshere. Yes, I I do have questions. Um, good evening, gentlemen, both sides. Um, can I see

who's your question to? We want to get them to step to the podium. Oh, or is it just to the group? No, it's to these gentlemen here to the guitar group. Okay. One of you guys want to step to the podium because you need to respond to the microphone. Whichever you want. Either the attorney or the uh developer. I'm sorry, Dr. Black. Go ahead. Thank you. Um the site the site plans, can you pull that back up again? The the ones that's that you were looking to build the apartments that you're looking to build.

Okay, that right there. And with all due respect, no disrespect intended, I grew up out here. I knew what was there before. It was a pro. It was projects. Boat rock projects to be exact. That's what I don't want to see again. I don't even want it to cuz right now as soon as I saw that that's what it reminded me of which you know I had a lot of friends to who got killed out there and who moved on and built new lives outside of that but that's what it immediately took me to with this being rental property

[clears throat] How could this bring value to those homeowners in that area? How could that bring how not I mean not just putting money in the caterer group's pocket, but how can that really bring value? So, we were about a 30% discount to ownership. So, if you want to write a check every month and you just can't quite buy right now, you could live in a nice community like Sandtown. You're saying that the layout

reminds you of the projects. Let me remind you of one thing. It took me back. Right. I'll remind you of one thing. The site is zoned for multif family. So, someone could come in here and build three, four story, whatever the code allows them to build. We studied the market. We really understood what this area should feel like. We understand there's residential, single family residential homes in the neighborhood. We see that there's threetory traditional garden, large, tall, three and four story buildings next door. We wanted to fit in the community more with a low inensity product which was a two-story town home and that's what we designed. Looking at it from this plan,

it's not very appealing. But if you look at our elevations and look at what we're bringing,

these are uh check right every month is $2600 a month for a twobedroom or threebedroom. Um these are twos and three bedrooms with dens. Um you know you you're going to bring it's not going to be a lowincome projects I guess if you would say that uh community. It can't be it's professionally managed. We have uh full on-site staff. We have uh full maintenance. We have gates uh fully maintained by I mean just like any other multif family residential. It's it's just the product type is a lot less intense. It fits the neighborhood much better.

And what was the percentage of people who live in that area? Did you all take a some type of Did you all do some type of study to determine what's the percentage of people in that area that were open to this? We did not take that. We opened we opened the uh conversation for questions and answers during our two presentations to the communities. Okay. Um, we've met with the local group twice. Previously, a year previously when Lenar Homes was going to build single family residence on the remaining land and over by the lake on the remaining land, right?

Um, we presented the to the local community then and then again when when we went back to present this plan. Okay. But we heard we heard positive things and we heard a few negative things. Mhm. So, it was I would say 50/50 from from the comments that I got during the presentation, right? But you wouldn't be certain if they were legacy people such as myself, right? I I I wouldn't know the opinion of people that didn't speak up, right? No, no, no. I understand if there was no tally taken with their logistical information.

There was not. Um, what is the reason why or is there a reason why we can't build homes for sale versus the can these twotory town homes be sold versus being rentals? They could be sold if the properties reszoned to allow more single family for sale fee simple uh for sale property. Currently, it's zoned for 200 multif family. Okay. [snorts] Uh, I have some more questions, but I'll I will defer at this time and I'll leave the floor.

Can I give you just a little bit of a further response to this and and with all due respect, Sure. Dr. Blackshire, I just want to make clear um uh and your questions are good and valid. They're important and we're taking them seriously. I want to make sure you understand this appeal hearing. Uh those questions are are not relevant. And I'm not saying that because we don't want to hear them and we want to talk about them. And I'll tell you when we filed this appeal, council for the city will tell you,

council for the city will tell you that we also asked for an opportunity to talk to the city because we didn't want to come here in this posture. We didn't want to be adversarial. Um but this appeal is only about whether not about what you can do or what's appropriate and to the extent that the board makes a decision based on those issues and not the standards about erroneous and arbitrary uh it's against the city's interest to move in to make a decision based on those issues. But we're willing to talk to you about that and we want to talk to you about that and have a thoughtful conversation about it because uh Mr. Crocker answered that question exactly right. uh the the proposal to develop this property was based on what the property was zoned for. And the other issue is that there I understand there's a disconnect because I do a lot of work in the city of South Fulton. People don't feel like a a multif family for rent is appropriate. Although the market says this is the area where it should be and and it also says that if you bring more rooftops that some of the other services and quality of services you want uh are going to come as well. So there's some disconnect in the community and with the development community about what that means and it's with respect to you, but we want to make sure you understand even if even if you're against our appeal, uh the the best thing you can say on the record is something that that responds to whether this city acted arbitrarily and erroneously and and making saying that there's a site plan as a part of this proposal and it's not. I I understand fully

what the reason is, but I wanted to still inquire. Absolutely. Because it was brought up and it was presented. So, I still wanted to just make my feelings known um about and don't get me wrong, I grew up in a subdivision, but I had a lot of friends who grew up in Boat Rock projects. So, that plan just took me right back there. No, I understand. Um, and since it was presented, I just wanted to address some things and understand what's going to be the value still to the current homeowners, the retention other than, you know, contra making money.

Sure. Um, what we put on all of our communities is a cares program. It's where we give an apartment uh to a usually be a husband and wife. They are the uh liaison between our management company and new tenants. They um they set up events for the community. They create a place that people call home. And in the community of all all uh town home style apartments, your retention rate is 50% more than you have in a traditional uh garden style apartment. So you're going to have friends that live there. they have the same interest, same children's are friends. Um, and they stay longer. You have a natural security with the longer tenency in a community like this versus what could be built here, which is your traditional multif family. Um, our CARES program is on all of our properties. Someone will be there 24/7. Like I said again, it's staff, full staff, full uh leasing office staff, maintenance staff on site. Not sure if that answered.

Well, I was looking for more so of a I wanted to know if there was a monetary value. Are the will there be, you know, an increase in the value of the homeowners that would be

Sure. Sure. [clears throat] I think um I don't know what these will appraise for per unit. Um I believe that's in our underwriting. Wasn't prepared to discuss any financials of of this, but I can ask Taylor if he knows what. There about 30 60,000 per door is my guess at this point. Um per door. So how that compares to a town home in the community? Um you know these are 1450 square f feet,450 square feet compared to the others at that value. I I don't know. We haven't done an appraisal in comparison. So all of these will be town homes, not apartments.

They are apartments. They're designed as apartments. and that they lay out and they they they live as though you're you're you don't you have a neighbor next door to you. This horizontally attached multif family. Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm I'm done for now. I I will have some questions later though possibly. Miss Evans. Yes. Yes. Um I'd like to still speak to you. Um could you clarify um the 30% that you mentioned um is that a tax credit for that property or

these are these are market rate not tax credit so the the uh same cost we we run the number of if you were to purchase this uh unit and you have an HOA your taxes insurance and your maintenance on that we're roughly 30% the the monthly check rate is roughly 30% less than because I was thinking you were mentioning tax credit. Okay. Okay. Or not. And I think the only other question I saw something about active senior is would there be active senior or this? So that wasn't we would we would welcome active senior here but it's not zoned. It's not going to be multif family. Correct. Market.

And you are even though you're Carter Corta Carter you are a subsidiary of Lenar. Lenar. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. We are. All right. And um just to clarify, I know you keep mentioning you mentioned to um the other board member that so basically I'm feeling that even if we vote, no matter what we vote, you're you're moving forward with this and you're going to you plan to move forward, you know, if it's not approved by us.

I I can't speak to what Corta has done here, but we have formed the legal conclusion that the decision that was made here was arbitrary and capriccious, and we're asking this board to agree with us. uh you know again we didn't want to be here. We can show you the emails how many times we've asked to meet to try to resolve these issues and have some of the conversations that you all are generating but the city was not interested to do that. I can share those emails. Uh and so right now they can't just walk away from a million dollar investment uh over the course of a year. And so if you all decide to rule against us, we believe that there's legitimate grounds already based on how the city decided this to challenge this and go forward with the project. Uh that doesn't mean they're not going to willing to have conversations with you about the project and the design and all these issues that Dr. Black's here because I'm down here all the time. I don't want anybody looking at me sideways or tripping me on the street and all that. Uh I've got a 15-year-old. I got to be around for a little longer. And so we're committed to this, but we're just asking you all to understand and hopefully agree that even whatever you feel about this project, everybody's making very good points. We got friends in this room. I didn't know we're going to be here. But whatever you feel, I I believe your duty is to make sure that the process is fair, understandable, and when a developer comes to this community, they need they know what the rules are. And if they follow those rules as the city director says you follow them that you you know there's nothing else we can do you know and and and you we're asking you to make a decision that reflects that reality not what should be on this site. He's going to do what he needs to do to make sure that there's input from the community but but don't tell them you spent a million dollars sorry because we just don't like your project because that's not the question before you. The question before you is what is fair? Because otherwise you're going to start getting developers in here that aren't at the level of this company because they're not going to want to come because they're going to say Corta spent

a million dollars based on a bunch of yeses until they were told no. And then they said well please help us and they said no go away and if you want your million dollars go figure that out somewhere else. That's really where we are right now. So we don't have an option but to to to challenge this if you all rule in in in a different way maybe because we believe the law and the rules and their standards support it.

But my question about the conceptual only um that you keep mentioning but if that's conceptual only so what are we so are these plans so if you're saying that he didn't have to abide by that so what makes it like all of this in this binder is this only conceptual will will this change? No, no, let let me explain. So, in 2001, there was a conceptual plan put together by the developer. That plan had probably no uh real engineering done. They didn't know if the roads could go there. They didn't know, they didn't have buyers for the different parcels. They put a conceptual plan together in 2001 with Fulton County that said this was what can be built here. And here's how it would lay out conceptually. So, that's the plan that we're talking about is conceptual. We had a preconceptual meeting with the plan here with the city. We our conceptual plan was reviewed. There was no no comment about that not meeting some 2001 plan which was conceptual. But we we responded to the city with a letter confirming that we're moving forward because of the con because the back and forth with the city talking about entrances, exits, uh storm water, fire, all of the people. So we took that plan and we got approval from my investment committee to spend more money to go refine the plans further and then we had another meeting. Then we eventually submitted plans for permit and they were eventually approved in their system. No, we didn't have a permit in hand. They were approved in their system and then uh ultimately denied.

So would this be your finalized plan? So would this be what we would expect if it was approved? Our [clears throat] plans are ready to pull permit and we have to submit building permit but it would fit the plans uh fit the site plan. So that is not changing. Mr.

Hello. So I have a lot of questions but I do want to stick to the reason that you're here. And so our attention was brought to exhibit E. And the history in exhibit E in this binder reflects that there were planning reviews added on March 2nd. Planning review disapproved on March 17th approximately 2 weeks later. Planning review re required and that was in August. Okay. um August 6th and then there was another approval there on August 18th. Then on August 28th, the planning review was reopened and then disapproved on September 2nd. So is this specifically why we're here? You're talking about this time frame and this is where you spent the $900,000

during this time frame? No, we spent the 900,000 from the point that we've got the letter from Reginald that says that we're zoned to the point that we submitted plans July. Yeah. July of 24 to the point we are here. Okay. Today. Okay. The dispute is it about what's on this page about the meetings that you had where you were told that approvals were made by the city and then pulled back. Is this what we're talking about? The dispute is yes them denying our plan and then us asking

yeah us asking multiple times why were we denied it was ultimately denied a plat was denied which led us to ask the question if you guys open our affidavit Taylor Harper in my affidavit it walks you through the timeline and gives you exhibits that are in there that reference the exhibits that will walk you through the exact timeline of what happened and how how we got to this point but the what we're disputing is that our plat was pulled. Council member that pulled it told staff to disapprove us and make us go through reszoning. That's what we're appealing. Okay. And you like So, we were approved. Okay. So, you had a discussion about reszoning and want to move forward without having to reszone basically.

Correct. We we have spent the money to refine this plan down to the detail with city comments. The plans are complete. having to change the plan will in probably cost another half a million dollars.

Well, and the and this the the the the dispute the crux of this dispute is not whether the city gets to deny approval. You know, if they make an error in the judgment a year ago, the law says they can undo that error and the city has no problem. You can't create a a right if you make an error. The city's not saying they eroded in any way. The city is saying that the conceptual plan is a condition of this zoning and and we're saying it obviously is not. But that's not what the city attorney said. The city attorney said this was a site plan specific. That's different than a conceptual plan. Site plan specific. If it was site plan specific, we wouldn't be here. We'd agree. We know that that's true. But this is a conceptual only plan. And so what we're arguing is only that it was an erroneous conclusion on the city's part. a year and a half later, a million dollars in to say, "Hey, we know we looked at this for you a million times. We know you came down here over and over again. We know every time you met with us, you wrote us an email or a letter confirming what you what we said to you. But guess what? We just realized that this conceptual language on this 2001 zoning that we looked at in July 24 and we keep looking at every time you come in here, it means you got to meet that." and the law and it's clearly not true under the law. Conceptual plan is can't is not a condition of this zoning and that's what we're arguing about and that's what we're asking you all to consider.

So to be clear the only plan that you all ever came in with is emblem sand town. That's it. There were never any other plans that you all came in with and changed later. No. No. Okay. To just to be clear there, this site the buildings moved here and there as we engineered it and got the roads correct. I mean, just make sure I'm I'm answering that correctly. Yes, the plan shifted and massaged as we went through final design, but that is the plan. We came in with 200 multif family homes on that site and they were always rental units. They were always rental units and those were presented to the neighborhood as rental units.

Okay. Um, this is just for my information. The money that's been spent, the $900,000, 973 to be exact. 973. Um, those are all considered pre-development costs. Those are pursuit cost and legal expenses that we've spent today. And legal. Okay, that's all I have for now. Thank you. Is that it, Mr. Ro? That's all I have for the moment. Thank you, Miss Faraday.

Okay, [laughter] I got a couple of questions. Um, it it is Well, let me just start here. Okay. So, it sounds like to me that, you know, we we we do have rules and um laws that are set in place uh to be followed. Um and from my understanding, developers feel like um we did not uh well, the city did not follow those rules that was set in place. Um my first question is, do you have the I know you guys said that it was approved. Do you have that letter of approval? I know you gave us a binder, a whole bunch of information, but do you guys have that letter of approval?

There was never a letter sent. So, if you follow the affidavits and follow the timelines that are specifically it references this and it shows that the plat was pulled. A couple of days later, there was a note from someone on staff that says, "Hey, pull this out of approval." And then two days later, it was denied. So, there was never a letter issued to us.

When did you mean when you say the plat was pulled? the plat. Okay. The plat had we had to get our plat approved prior to our final plan civil uh permit being issued. Our we went through several rounds. I think we were on our third round of comments back and forth with the city departments and our civil engineer. During that same time, a plaque was sent to the city for approve for their review and approval. They approved recommended it on the consent agenda to city council to be approved. It was put on the city council agenda and the district council woman pulled it. Uh was it in July or August? I believe July asked us to go talk to the neighborhoods to make sure everybody understood what was happening. She understood that it was zoned and then we put back on the agenda. Then it was pulled the second time with no explanation again after we did exactly what she asked us to do.

Yep. And then from there, after we did what she asked us to do, it was pulled again. Then we requested to get explanation from Mr. McClennon. We had to show up down here. We ended up talking to uh Matthew Williams and Karen Tomminy. They said, "If you want to uh if you want to move forward, you have to get it reszoned." And and we were like, "What are you talking about?" You said he said, "Speak to the council woman." That's who made the decision.

I got a question for the city. Um is it any particular reason why um uh the city did not communicate to um the developers um uh the decision to pull I mean to to deny um because they're saying that they kept going back and forth with the city and the city did not communicate um with them um until they had to keep coming back and forth and now we're here. So, is there any reason why the city have not communicated with the developers and give them any type of due process when it comes to making these decisions?

Well, from my perspective, I I'm not so sure how much of an approval there actually was to then resend again. There's there is this process. there's back and forth and at at at one point in time in the review process the planning department had given this green light but then had changed that and so um I wasn't a party to the communications themselves um so I don't know if there's someone else from the city who could speak to that but as as far as due process is concerned again there there there wasn't for instance a public decision that was that that that was made that was then reversed first or something like that.

Okay. Um, so I I'm pretty sure the developers wouldn't have spent the that type of money if something was not approved. Um, so that's that's why I was asking it wasn't a letter of approval, but you said it was something in writing that says something was approved. As far as us moving through the process, start over and talk into the mic as best you can, please.

As far as us moving through the process, the process is set up to where we get the letter for zoning confirmation. We're confirmed that we are zoned for 200 multif family homes. We don't have a plan at that point. We put a plan together. It says in the northwest quadrant of the site, that's exactly where we're placed on the site. We develop a plan. We schedule a meeting with the city departments. We come down and show them the plan. We talk through it. We show them the original zoning. We walk through all the zoning conditions. We explain to them this is what we want to do. Is this okay to go forward? We follow up with the letter. It's it's in the package. And they accept our plans into permit appro. They accepted our plans. They reviewed it multiple times. They had multiple opportunities to tell us to stop spending money and no one did. [clears throat] No one did. And we felt that Reginald McClendon's letter was correct. His determination was that we met zoning and we do. We're 200 multif family units. We met the zoning conditions. The only thing that they're pointing to that we didn't follow was a conceptual plan that was changed multiple times over the years. So to hold us to that without saying it, we're supposed to just assume it, how are we supposed to do that? So we follow the process. We get our plans finally completed. We submit the plans. They accept the plans. They review them multiple times. They ultimately approve it. You see it on there. Two days later, it's disapproved at the direction of a city council member.

Okay. Um, what's the opposition? Uh, well, what is your name? I'm sorry. Hakee Hillard. Hi, Keem. Yeah,

because you you made the point, how do we move forward? Um what the city is saying that, hey, we just want you to go through um the steps of um submitting um a resoning application, submit a site plan, uh 1, two, three, and four. What's the opposition of not following those steps? So, so I, so I've been reszoning properties around the state for 30 years. And the first question I get when clients come to me, developers say, "Hey, can I do this as of right or do I have to go through some process?" Because that affects how much money they're going to spend. Then they want to know the risk, the likelihood of success, those questions. So when you find a property that's entitled as of right, it's a good property. I happen to represent the property owner here as well and I aware of the conversations when we made it clear that there was these this number of units available but they didn't want to accept the representations of the property owner and they said listen before we agree to go into contract with you we want to go independently to the city to make that confirmation so they do that they do their due diligence and they spent the money to do that so that they before they spend the money that that Mr. Crocker is talking about. So we went through this whole process and so the question about what's appropriate for the site was based on what was required and so we looked very closely at the zoning formed our own conclusions about what could be developed there and came up with a plan based on that and and and what Mr. Crocker is saying it wasn't just the letter that the city attorney said. There's a little short letter and that's how they relied on. It was a little short letter that was followed by months and months of conversations back and forth and and the permitting process is is a back and forth. You're submitting plans, they want revisions, but the issue each time is not whether the zoning is allowed. it it implies if you if they let you go down the process

that that original decision about zoning is their position until they change it. I think the issue here is is that there was some concern from the community that this project was going through the project process as a as a as a as of right project without a reasonzoning. And I think that's probably why it was held and that's why we were told to go back to the community even though we weren't required to. We went as a courtesy to the council member and the community and we had a couple of meetings that were directed who we had to meet with. We made clear this is this is as an as of right zoning but we want to talk to the community and and I think what Mr. Crocker is saying is correct. I think maybe people felt like there was going to be widespread opposition. There was not. I I don't I I understand what the gentleman said here, but we got a lot of different different feedback from people that felt good about it as money. In fact, more people that communicated with us were supportive of it. So, but we were out of that process. We were just doing this as a courtesy to the council member. I I I see that you guys went in good faith um to the community um and and as the community stated um that um it was some plans that was placed before them that they was they thought was good and then it was some plans that was placed before them that they did think was um not so great.

Right. What we presented were the building elevations and we explained that the the artistic layout of the exterior sighting was done by an architect that we trust and and the look of the building was something that we put the trust into an architect to do and we liked it on the on our level. There was a comment that they would like to see brick on the front of the building. So we said we would go back and look at that and that was that was it. It was not a layout of this site plan. There were no comments about changing this to enter, you know, putting it on a different part of the site. There was nothing about that. It was sus specifically about I believe one comment was we want to see more character and I I asked what the definition of character was and it was just it's very arbitrary. Um we believe these have great character. You know, these are not complete. There's a rendering here. So I guess my point is the neighborhood made comments about the exterior sighting. it was brick that we said we would look at on the fronts of the buildings.

Okay. Um and I and I think that the um community what they're saying is that um basically when when when you own a home um you do want your the the value of your home to be um sellable as well, right? And um so what they're saying is that if you put up these apartments or um single family uh town homes

uh or multif family town homes that it may become an eyesore that people would may not want to purchase their um home that they're selling as well. So I understand what the community is saying. pay maybe not so much that I um

I I agree with that and I would say this when when they purchased their home this site was zoned multif family so they knew that it was multif family at that time there could there could be something really ugly coming here that I guess the city approves that I mean I I guess my point is is that multif family is zoned here it's been zoned here since 2001 there's nothing that I'm asking to change about that I'm just asking to be treated fairly by the way the city led me down the road to spend 7 973,000.

I understand. I I understand. So again, like I stated when I first um uh took the mic the question section, I said rules and laws are set in place for a reason and um it should have been communicated to um as far as the they should have been communicated why. Um, but again, I don't know if the city did communicate it or not. Um, so that's the question.

Was everything done to communicate with these guys so that they wouldn't have spent the $973,000? Well, of course, how how much they've I

I'm not privy to any of those numbers. That's the the first I'm I'm hearing of that amount. I mean, before tonight, I I was aware that they were going to say that it was a big number and and and I I was aware of other big numbers and the numbers gotten bigger and that's understandable. That's part of the process. Uh what what what I would say is going back to uh Director McClendon's letter on July 3rd, 2024, it was very clear that all other conditions of zoning would have to be met. And so yes, there was a lot of subsequent conversation and there's a lot of discussion, frankly, there's a lot of discussion about, you know, the definition of of an apartment versus a town home based on what these looked like and and and different things like that. Um, but as a as far as as we got further down the road, you know, leading up to just a couple of months ago back in September 2025, uh, I I I don't have any additional information than than from what's in the record about the about the communications about this about the staff member entering into the portal that the application could not move forward as is but but but but again I I I would say that it was very clear in the letter from the beginning that all other conditions would have to be met and then in September 2025 the staff member in in her review said there are other conditions that this does not comply with.

Okay. The city asks, "Was it arbit did this person speak arbitrarily or erroneous? Let make sure I'm getting my words right. Or erroneous." Um, the developers, and I know you keep saying it was conceptual, conceptual, um, conceptional. Um, do you did do you feel that um this person made it up or was it factual? Mr. Miss Taylor Hopper

ma made what up? What did you I'm sorry. You um she what did she she asked um about the site plans? Did it have all of these um what she um saw at first it was supposed to have a community, a senior community. It's supposed to have all these great bells and whistles. And then um when she got your concept conceptual plan, it didn't have any of that. So I think people are confused about the actual and the conceptual. Yeah. Am I right?

I I think I understand what you're saying. you're under the impression that the that our site plan was not shown to her until the end of the process and that's why they made a decision that was inconsistent with the full year of review and I think that plan was under review with them well before and that's I think the point right yeah I mean we'd be happy to show you the evolution of this plan it has not changed there's been a clubhouse and amenity with pool full gym the green when did you start reviewing the site plan with the city. That's what I think the

Yeah, I think I'll look at Taylor Harper's timeline and I don't know where that timeline is in here. Um, this would be probably exhibit A. Let's see, maybe B, but the timeline will tell you the first meeting we had with Reggie and then after that we maybe it's C1. Yeah. Taylor, can you come up here? Where's your timeline? Yeah, it's the timeline. Yes. It's under his affidavit. It will lay out the timeline. So the site plan was first the the earliest iteration of this. Sorry.

Oh yeah. Taylor Harper. Um for Corta 3910 Orchard Road, Smyrna, Georgia. Um so the site plan was initially submitted for conceptual review in the earliest meetings with the team on the preconceptual meetings and the pre-development meetings both. Okay. which was it's was

yeah August 26th of 2024 was when it was first uh it was part of our package that had to go in for preconceptual meeting and I actually sent a follow-up letter to that meeting on August 26th kind of uh um chronicling everything that we discussed during that meeting and within that document does state that we um at that point wanted to confirm that we were meeting all zoning conditions tied to the property. And that is uh exhibit I believe exhibit C section two. Sure. And I may have misunderstood your question, but uh in the off chance that I I did interpret it correctly, I just want to point to the language that the city's council um highlighted for for you all. Do you mind if you're controlling the slide, could you um go to an earlier slide in the city's presentation?

Um right here, and I believe this is the language you're referring to. Mhm. So, the reason why this decision is erroneous is because the the the supposed zoning requirements referenced in this language, community services, commercial components, etc. um were part of the conceptual only plan that actually isn't a zoning requirement. So, it's an erroneous decision or language because what she's saying is part of zoning actually is not part of zoning and that's why it's erroneous because it was conceptual only. Am I cing that correctly? Hopefully that answers your question.

That did. Okay, that did. Okay. Just add something to that. It does allow for loft style apartments and this is what we decided to do. to build twostory style apartments versus your three-story apartments. So, that is a use allowed in this pod. Okay. Okay. Hey, talk into the mic, please.

But it does not What he's saying is that was a conceptual plan which is not part of zoning. Correct. Correct. And and just for further clarification, he's referencing um the uh the the loft apartments. So this is it's erroneous because she's referring to this con conceptual only plan as if it is a zoning requirement when it is not. However, she also has a factual inaccuracy because we actually are providing loft departments whereas this comment says that we are not. So it's actually it's erroneous based on the law and it's factually incorrect and I think that's what we wanted to just clarify there.

Go ahead. because you know I was about to ask a question. [laughter]

No, I I I appreciate that. I I I think her comment is being cherrypicked here. The the the the question for the zoning board of appeals is was she materially wrong or was she just totally arbitrary? And I mean her her statement speaks for itself. The fact that there are some things that that Carter wants to do that would be consistent. the fact that there were apartments that that's consistent. That doesn't make Miss Tomy's statement here arbitrary. It doesn't make it capriccious. It doesn't make it materially wrong. She reviewed the 2001 site plan. She said it doesn't match this. And and again back from the July 3rd, 2024 letter from Director McClendon, that letter said that yes, even though when you look this entire site plan, 200 more apartments can be built, you will still have to meet all of the zoning

the zoning requirements. I got it. Wait, wait, wait, wait till a question is posed. You have more questions, Miss Faraday? I have I don't um now you want do you want to follow up with his question if I may I believe it could be helpful step to the mic.

So one one other point of this is this 2001 conceptual plan was not a mystery to the city. It's not something that was unearthed and discovered later. I want you to note the date on this comment. It's September 3rd, 2025 when initially the the initial approval that was given through the letter where the 2001 conceptual plan was known about and asked about that decision came in July of 2024. So this supposed zoning condition that again is not an actual zoning condition is raised more than a year after the initial approval was given in 2024. And this appears to be uh a decision in search of a reason. And this reason that's given respectfully uh is an erroneous one. I I have no further questions.

Okay. I I think uh Miss Jerome wanted to follow up. Uh so go ahead, Mr. Ro. Thank you. Question for you, please. So if the current zoning is multi if the current zoning is multif family and the issue is that the petitioner needs to reszone what exactly is the city asking them to do right now to reszone what

well the the city's position is that if they if if the developer wants to build something other than what's shown on on on the site plan, the 2001 site plan, then they need to ask for a reasonzoning. The the decision letter from 2024 from Director McClendon, what he was asked to do and what he did was he looked at the 2001 zoning. He said, and and it's it's in small print, but it it it's on that PowerPoint slide, and it's presumably in the materials in front of you as well. Um, but there there's there's there's a block off to the the right hand side that says how many different kind of uses there are going to be. And for apartments, it says 550. So again, this is 2001. Since 2001, 350 have been built. And so that's so director McClendon's letter, he went and did the math and he said, you know, in this site plan, there are 200 more apartments that can be built. Now, the the site plan that we've been looking at tonight from Carter is just a portion of the undeveloped part and and it certainly doesn't match the the 2001 site plan. So, what so this the city's position is if Quarter came in with a permit to build exactly what's shown on that site plan, no problem. If it's something different from that site plan, then there needs to be a reasonzoning. And and and even if we're going under conceptual or not conceptual, conceptual has to mean something. Conceptual has to mean something like the 2001. Conceptual isn't just fill in the blank. Correct. It it doesn't mean just whatever you want. So, if there's a conceptual plan and there's a deviation from the conceptual plan, legally the developer needs to submit a reasonzoning application like

you're asking them to do now if you're going to uphold a conceptual plan. That's correct. Now, now sometimes this is where discretion comes into play and you know the the the city staff has some degree of discretion to say is this close enough because as as that's been referenced sometimes when developments actually start to get built or right before they get built start engineering the roads figure exactly where things going to be like oh we need to move this a little bit here a little bit there and those those types of things often don't cause any problem obviously in this case it's it's completely different in the city staff's uh decision I think is well founded and they said, "Well, hang on. We, you know, we need to push pause on this."

So, was it incorrect in the letter that's been referenced um by Reginald McClendon on July 3rd, 2024 that they are allowed to build an additional 200 multif family units. It's unclear what I mean like like I I would say the letter in that respect is a bit little bit unclear. The way it should have been worded is of the and and and there some of this verbiage is in there that of the 550 that there were originally 550 subsequently 350 were built. So 200 more theoretically could be built on this site.

But but but but at that point there had not been a site plan submitted. They director McClendon was not asked to review that plan and then say yes you can get this approved. And the case law site, you know, later on here talks about how Georgia law distinguishes between conversations such as this and actual permit approvals. And again, the permit approval did not happen in this case. So while while there there was obviously clearly there was a misunderstanding, there was not an actual permit approval that was then taken back. And um I want to address Miss Jerome's question. Was did we make an error? My position is that we did not make an error that uh the developer can develop those apartments that number of apartments within the site plan that from 2001 as long as they meet the other conditions. And the letter says as [snorts] long as you meet the other conditions. They knew they had access to this document. This document has been public record since 2001 for 24 years.

What What are the other conditions? Um, you want to speak to that? Well, the Well, the conditions include this this conceptual site plan. I I I have the the zoning file with us. This is from the zoning file, but it's um there's a list of other conditions that have been that have been submitted. So, the petitioner has not met other conditions aside from the conceptual site plan being changed.

Well, I'll I'll I'll say I'll tell you what I can tell you and what I can't tell you. What I can tell you is from a planning perspective, the petitioner, the appellant here did not meet the conditions of of of meeting this site plan. Again, even if you just look at as a conceptual site plan, it's it's nowhere close to the same. So the staff was, you know, made a wellfounded decision to say this this isn't right. But there were other city departments as well who who made reviews and um some of that I can remember off the top of my head and some of it I cannot. All right. Go ahead.

And to address um your question as to what were the conditions. Our position is that the site the site plan itself is a condition. So he has to meet the site plan from 2001 because that is a condition of the zoning. That is the city's position. Um the appellant's position is that the 2001 zoning just contains a concept and that it's not binding. So we disagree about that, but that disagreement does not equate to us making an arbitrary decision. We're based upon the expertise of the city's zoning department in reading the 2001 law. Our position is that the site plan for 2001 is a condition of the zoning and must be met. So anything that we're we're basing our uh approvals or disapprovals on is not arbitrary. It's not capriccious. It's not something that we're making up and it's not even a a difference in a factual error. It's a difference of opinion about what the 2001 zoning says, but that doesn't make it arbitrary.

So the 2001 zoning is being referenced because this project started in 2001 from a site plan that was created in 2001. 300 units from the original site plan have been completed or 350 um I forget the exact number. And then the additional 200 units are supposed to be an extension of that original site plan. You're allowing them to build 200 multif family units as part of that same original 550 multi-unit site plan project.

Go ahead. Um if if if I can just say as far as what's what was approved and what's been developed when we look at this site plan A, B, C, and D have been built as shown. So again, it um A, B, C, and D have been built as shown according to the 2001 site plan.

Matthew WL is on administrator. Yes. So at the bottom of the site plan, the single family product that was built that's labeled A and B has been developed as is. C has been um changed. D and F were changed in the 2004 resoning. Can you please sorry go a little slow for me. When you say A and B have been built as is. What is the single family product at the bottom of the uh site plan here? A and B that has been built that has been developed per the site plan per the 2001 site plan.

Correct. Okay. In 2004, they came in and did a modification to D, E, and I believe C as well. And that has been developed per that site plan from 2004. The only thing that was left off was F. And the 2004 resoning specified that F shall be developed as it was reszoned in 2001.

And the 2000, and I want to mention the 2001 resoning references all the commercial amenities that are being left out. So that's why we're saying that the that the site plan is not conceptual in um in design. It's actually being developed as per the site plan. Okay. So based on what you're saying, the letter from July 3rd to build 200 multif family units. Um those 200 multif family units could only go where F is labeled. That's correct. Because everything else is developed.

Okay. And so that was incorrect. In F, they need to build housing and commercial. It needs to be the additional items that were in the 2001 site plan. No, it could include housing as well. It can include housing, but exclusively the 200 units that the appellant wants to build. You said exclusively, right? because they want to build 200 uh rental units. And the city is saying you can build housing, but you also have to build the other commercial amenities and businesses that were going to do the other one site plan. That is correct. Per the site plan F. Yes. Okay.

Miss Faraday. Why would why was D, E, and C modified? Your question to the applicant to the to the developers. Yes.

So, I wasn't part of that development, but the ownership of the property that we're buying it was part of it. My understanding is that the single family in A and B were developed similarly to that. Um, if you go out there and you look at where this road comes in, where F is, there is no roundabout, but there is a a the plan looks totally different. Um, they said that C has been uh redeveloped. There's absolutely nothing on C. The road goes down south of the lake. Um, which is totally different. If you pull it up on Google Maps, I'd love to overlay it to show you guys that it's that it is not the same on C. So, why was it changed? My guess was that uh a developer wanted to purchase E and D as a multif family use and they proposed it to Fulton County. It was not city of South Fulton at the time and they proposed to build 350 apartments, garden apartments on E and D. And it was on a portion of E and I think a portion of D is where they they built it. Now the seller sold the property to them. They went through the process and built it. I don't know exactly why. I'm going to say that's what the market brought to that area.

Um he may have a he may have a better explanation. I just think it's an important element. Um the apartments that were built on where E and portion of D were built before 2004. They were not part of any of this resoning. They were built as the Slate community was built. It was completed in 2003. My my my final question to the developers is um um I asked earlier, what's the opposition? Why why um would you not want to submit the resoning application?

Here's here's the whole problem with this is that we spent a lot of time tiptoeing through the process with the city. They had all the opportunity to tell us that what in any other law he's saying that a conceptual plan is not you do not have to adhere to a conceptual plan. It is a conceptual plan. They had an opportunity to tell us that multiple times. They're telling us now that we have to meet a conceptual plan after we've spent $975,000. If we go through resoning, I'm I I'll definitely do it. But our plans have have been purchased. We've spent all the money. All of our architectural plans are designed based on all the interim approvals that we've had. Call it approval or not. We've had verbal conversations. If you see exhibit C here is a letter where we wrote the city confirming, hey, this is what we're doing. We understand that we're meeting all of your requirements. They had the opportunity multiple times to say, no, you have to go through resoning. They never did that.

And the in the 2001 plan says conceptual. What would give us the idea that they want a con to to make a conceptual plan a sightspecific plan? Never. I mean, they had the opportunity to do that. I mean, we discussed the plan with them. So, the problem is they allowed us to go down the road g giving us multiple rounds of of review and never brought this up until the very end. That's the problem. and and our opposition of going through a resoning is because there would likely be changes to our plan after we've spent the money at at the direction of the city to move through this process with no opposition until the very end.

I have no further questions. Mr. O'Donnell,

first question is for the staff. Do we have to make a decision ultimately tonight? Does that have to Oh, I'll let staff answer, but I know the answer. 60 days. Uh, the board has 60 days to review everything that's been presented tonight and make a decision. Okay. Thank you. Um, the second thing is, uh, I've been told that there's a binder from the city. I have not received such binder. And yet we want to add that to the record. So where is that binder please?

On behalf of the city last month I I I submitted all of the documents in electronic format and I have the hard copies over here. But uh I I'll tell you the the material the mo the key documents we are the documents we've been talking about tonight but the the all the documents have been submitted. I'm I'm happy to provide additional. You're asking [clears throat] me to use that as reason to support your arguments, yet I don't have it in front of me. Could I please have those documents even if they're the same? They've been submitted. I have not seen them. [snorts]

[clears throat]

also for the uh city. Um my understanding is we are referencing a 2001 uh resoning case and that there was a second resoning. Is that correct? In ' 04. Yes. And I I have both of those files. Okay. See, that's not in any of this. So, I'd like to see that portion of it at least.

This is the 2001 and there's an electronic format that's been submitted that might be more convenient, but as as I sit in for the chair. I am the vice chair. Um would anyone like to make a motion to add all of these documents? I'd like to make a motion now that I've got it to add the documents provided to us by the city as well as the binder provided by the applicant into the record.

Anyone I think they already done that already. We didn't we didn't there was not a formal motion. I second it. Motion has passed. Four documents have been applied to the record. Oh, I'm sorry. U my apologies. Um for a vote all all yays. Yay. Yay. Yay. Nays. Motion has passed. We will add these documents to the record. Is could do you know where the 2004 documents are in this the resoning piece?

Uh I believe it's the the the entire file that that you have. The whole thing is a 2004 resoning, I think. So, I I I know that that from what I can see from from where I'm standing, I know that that's the cover sheet for the beginning of the 2004 uh resoning. Will we be able to get that hard that electronic copy of that if you don't have a full hard copy of it? Okay. Okay. Mr. Odon, I would like to clarify that the 2004 was a modification, not a reasonzoning, right? and it did not include the portion that we're talking about tonight, which is portion F. Okay. Yeah. Could I have five minutes just to review this?

Well, I think this is a lot of documents. Take your five minutes. And I still have I can ask my other questions if you want first. I'm come back to you. You said you need five minutes, right? Well, I'd like to hear the responses to any other questions. Going anywhere, right? So, you're here. I can't read and listen at the same time. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. That's a problem cuz we got work to do, Miss Patterson. Um,

all right. So um and I appreciate the patience of um this team um answering these questions because we don't we did not we did not have access to these documents prior so that we would have been able to have read them um and and asked these questions. But I wanted to reiterate before the the people that are from the community left that because Judging by what they stated to the body here this evening, their concerns were about the development itself and that's not the reason why we are here. The purpose for our discussion that's been presented in front of us is to make a decision of whether this pause was something that was done arbitrarily or was it done based on some fact. Okay. So I just wanted to reenter that in this discussion. Um, I do have a question and I will um I'm I'm not sure who to address it to, so I'll ask that you both um speak. But can we characterize this discussion? Um the challenge and issue is that one side feels that they should have been told that there was a problem and the other side felt that they did not they were not told. Is that the characterization of where the issue is right now? I'll speak to this. So, I think you're right. It is about the um amount of time that we spent with them, which is we when when we go step into a development, we do our due diligence. We go speak to

the city. We we talk about where we're going to build something. We we sit down with all the departments. We say, "Hey, this is what we want to do." We look at the zoning. We look at the zoning conditions. We look at a if there's a conceptual site plan. That's what we did here. We stepped all the way through those. And even there were comments from Karen said that you guys are are doing more than any of the other developers do. That was the first meeting we had and it it it brought us back when when we go and we do as much possible as we can to to make sure we're doing what the plan and the process is supposed to be and then no one with the city ever brings this up that they're going to hold us to a conceptual plan versus a a a a sightsp specific plan is what you normally see in the zoning code. Look around the whole state. Sight spec sight specific elevation specific zonings. It's very clear that's what you got to stick with. When you see a conceptual plan, the the opportunity to move and shift that around is usually at the city's discretion. We got the letter says build these town homes apartments in the northwest corner. We step through a conceptual plan meeting. If you go to exhibit C, Taylor followed up that meeting. We were early. We we hadn't spent any money at that time. At that time would have that that would have been the time for them to come and tell us, "Guys, hold on. Stop. You've got to go uh adhere to this." And it would have taken us back. We would say, "Wait a minute. Okay, we got to go through a resoning to get our plan approved." Instead, they let us go all the way through it all the way to our final civil plans being uh they were approved in the system. our building permit plans were developed ready to submit because we were our our civil plans were imminent to be approved and we could submit our building plans immediately after that. It's about the timing.

Understood.

If I can add to that making a legal argument on this issue is that I think it's a little more than that. I think that it's not we're explaining what happened but that's not what the arbitrary arbitrary action or erroneous actions were. You know, you can be delayed. I think I said earlier, the Georgia Supreme Court said years ago that I can come in here and ask the planning director here to issue me a permit to put a hotel outside this building. And he can issue me that permit. And if that permit, if that hotel goes up, someone can come and say, "Well, that's not authorized here." Right? That person that got permission to build that hotel can't say, "Well, I get to keep it, and if you make me tear it down, that's an erroneous decision." If it's a unlawful uh decision, the city is entitled to say, "We're taking that back. Sorry." They get to say that. That's the law. That's what Georgia Supreme Court says. What's happened here is different. It's not just that it was a delay in talking to us. When they made the decision, they didn't come back. If they had come back and said, "Hey, we didn't we misapplied the law here when we told you that you could build this for the last year and every time we approved this, we made errors each time." Because that's what they did. They say, "We didn't make that decision." They made the decision multiple times, but what happened here is they're relying on a conceptual plan that the site plan I mean I'm I'm a land use lawyer and it's struggle sitting in here with a bunch of planners in here and we're arguing about enforcing a con concept plan. It's it's zoning 101. It's what we teach parallegals. If it's a conceptual plan, it's not enforceable. If it's a site plan specific, it's enforceable. That's why council said it was site plan specific, but he knew it wasn't sight plan specific. If it's a site plan, it's a site plan. It's a real plan. It shows part. It shows what everything is. There is no plan. And so what they said is we're going to reverse ourselves based on you not meeting this site plan. That is not a condition of the 2001 zone. And this it's, you know,

I didn't want to make this argument because it's going to it's going to it's if we go to a court, the court's going to agree with what we said and we're going to be able to build what we want. That's what I'm telling you. It's that clear. And for planners to be sitting here and saying, arguing with you, suggesting to you that a conceptual site plan is in an enforcable condition of zoning. I mean, that's all we have to say, you know, and we knew this before we came in here. That's why we went to the the the director who's never responded. I want to put it on the record that he's present. He's never responded to one email, one conversation about anything. We don't have any idea. He's only only thing he's communicated is yes, you approved. He's never retracted that. but he's here in this forum participating and this client has spent a lot of money. He's been asking the city to talk to him, been talking to the city attorney about it. No one's responding. Let's talk about it. What can we do? All these thoughtful conversations that you all are talking about. Did you consider this? Did you consider that? We never had an opportunity after we got rejected cuz I guess the city just said we're going to take it back. Put your money in your pocket. Go home and we're going to go away. We can't afford to. They can't afford to do that. And I'm sorry I went further, but I think the issue is the the legal question you're being asked. Is it erroneous for the city to conclude that this concept plan is an enforcable condition of zoning for them to be able to tell us we don't meet the zoning? We're saying that a concept plan, [laughter] conceptual purposes only, is not an enforceable condition of zoning. And I'm confident that there's case law going from 30 years to today that will agree with me. And so if you decide to agree with their position on that, uh, they lose. And so they need to come up with another argument because that one won't work. I'm happy to conclude that if you want to decide it based on that, we're done. Uh, it just really is not. I can't understand that we're having this

conversation with professionals telling you that this concept plan is an enforceable condition of zoning. I think they knew it when we started it wasn't enforceable, but we tried to find a reason to to that because we didn't want it because people weren't happy with it and and we're in this position and we're adversaries when we really should be having a conversation together because I don't really think we're in different positions because they want to talk to the community and have a conversation about how to make this work and we're not able to because of the disagreement about issues that are not really disagreeable, about legal issues that are not really legal conclusions that are proper. Thank you for answering that question. Did you want to just say something?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Um, the crutch of our disagreement is that we are relying on the 2001 site plan. When director McClendon wrote his 2004, I mean 2024 letter, he was relying on the 2001 zoning site plan. he was relying on the numbers because that particular uh letter was asking questions about the numbers that could be built. He relied on the 2001 zoning. So, we've relied upon the 2001 zoning not as a concept but as legal requirements of the zoning. So, we have consistently relied upon the 2001 zoning as legal requirements and we are consistently doing that. Our most recent decision which was made by um Miss Tony is relying on the 2001 zoning. It's consistent. Our position has always been that the developer must meet all the conditions of the 2001 zoning and the letter says that.

I I'd like to um yield my time back to um you have any more questions? I I want to wrap up what they just said, but I was going to ask if I could return the the questions back to Mr. Donnell since he has read Commissioner Don Donnell since he has read I'm going give everybody a chance to talk while you finish.

I'd like to just make this statement. The city of South Fulton and the District 2 that I represent, we want the development. We want to attract a Our city is growing. It's a new city. It's a proud city. The the the constituents are homeowners. they've sacrificed for their properties and they want to have decisions that sit around them that will allow their investments and safety concerns to be like places like Roswell. I think you mentioned you live there. So although that is not the conversation, we want to improve the relationship between the development community and our community of the constituents. I would like to see a better relationship with our city government and the developers because we don't need to be we're working together, right? Um my thought is that if there's a way that we can look at this to create a meeting in the middle, I think that that would be something that this board may consider um interesting to hear. Um, as far as a move forward plan, I think I there are still questions that stand. So, I will allow that to happen. I'm clear on what your position is. I'm very clear on what the government's the city's position is. I need I think what if I were to ask a question, I'd need to understand what would a middle ground look like so that we can resolve this situation. What does that look like?

Is that a question you're posing or just hypothetical? That's a question that I am posing.

So PF has 12 acres remaining if if they if they want commercial can come into pod F. It can still come into pod F. So there can be but it if there what I'm hearing is we have to meet an exact plan which doesn't show parking doesn't show parking count it it's a it's a concept plan so how how do we come to the middle there is commercial parcels remaining in podf which could meet what this plan's intent was now I'm not going to speak for the master developer that I'm just letting you know that there is additional land remaining that that could be if the market uh brings it, it could be another use on the commercial side

and that [snorts] process would require a reszone to do that. Is that correct or no?

No, not in our opinion because I I would not think that a a commercial developer would have to come in and show a concept plan to the city and on that 12 acres and it could be a a mix of uses. It could be condos. It could be everything that remains in that entitlement, which there is a lot of remaining entitlement on this master development, could come into that remaining parcel. Now, I'm hoping I don't get in trouble by the master developer speaking for him, but I think that could be a middle ground. Just understanding that the the all of the land there's several I don't know how many is there 30 acres left that pod C around the lake has not been developed. This does not show what's out there today. I I I would like to show a real plan. There's pod C is north of the main spine road that runs out to I believe um if not Boat Rock um

Bakers Ferry. Yes. So So this this plan has is changed totally, but the all of the land around the lake can still be developed. The land to the south of our proposed plan can still be developed. So to a middle ground to me is that everyone needs to understand that there's remaining land that could uh the the intended use of commercial in Syria could come in if the market brings it. No one can force it to happen. That's Mr. Johnson. Did you have anything? You hadn't added anything yet.

Yes, sir. I do. Thanks for recognizing me. Uh first of all, I just wanted to say, you know, this been a long lengthy night and thank you Mr. to hear, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Mitchell, and uh city staff for, you know, for their presentation. I also like to say thanks, but they guys are left cuz I'm sure they got to go to work tomorrow morning. Miss Lolita and uh Mr. Donna Barnes for coming in and staying that long to show they passionate about the neighborhood. Um, you know, I can respect what you guys are doing for the builder goes, but but and I hear this back and forth about what the law says, but I do know for a fact that our citizens got to be involved in anything that you guys are building out here. If our citizens are not involved with it, and I heard Mr. Hillyard say, you know, as a courtesy, he spoke with the current the council person. You know, I personally don't think that's a courtesy. I think it should be more of a you should have to speak to that council person because that council person is uh been feet is being held to the fire by her the constituents and the people in that area though the people voted in office and if she go and make a decision or don't try to fight for what those people want they should vote her out of office so I can respect her for respecting that neighborhood because if if if me if I want to develop something go build it in Alpharetta John's Creek I I'm not going to go up there and do it unless people in that immediate area accept it and and and approve it, so to speak, however they want to do it. So, you know, I hear him say that you guys are uh one of the largest uh developers in the in the nation. You know, you spent $973,000, but before you would have done that, seemed like to me you guys at least would have considered or got some solid buy in or at least good consensus on the on the record from those immediate neighbors. I'm not doubting that some people might have wanted it, but I can tell you where I live at. Um, I really don't prefer a renter next door to me.

Uh, I was a renter once, too, but I just think that they need to be considered. You know, it's a place for all of that. It is a place. We we we need more rent opportunities here. But every one of those people that I saw speak tonight, and I think he made a reference to 323 homes. None of those, however many homes it is, if it's 200 homes there, at least you I think y'all probably should have brought one of them guys here, have somebody here say, "Hey, I I want this." But those are homeowners that sat on that back row. They were pretty serious about making a point known that they do not want a renter right next door to them. That That's what I heard. You know, I'm not a I'm a builder friendly guy, believe it or not. Uh I really am. But I am a straight builder friendly guy and think stuff should be brought here. But but when you got neighbors saying that they don't want something, I I think me personally, I respect that. I respect that bigger than anything they're written on paper. If if uh you know, it's supposed to be some commercial. I hear everybody throughout the last this whole election cycle went through. They want nice amenities. They want a certain level type of restaurant. They getting tired of your regular Popeyes and your church's chicken. They they want something. They want something meaningful brought to the neighborhood. If uh if if if you guys were promoting something like that to go along with this mixeduse development, I I think you probably the road would be a little bit easier cuz if those people had back there who came in had been in favor of what you guys are doing, I would tell you right now you would probably get my vote. But right now, I'm I got a real problem with with uh supporting what you all are doing without the community involvement. That's just where I'm at. And and that's no matter who it offend, who it upsets. And I don't live in that particular district one. I live in a different district, but I respect what those people want in their district.

That that's where I'm at. Um, I'm looking at this letter y'all keep referring back to and I see here on the third paragraph, second sentence, where it says, uh, therefore or thereafter, subject to the presentation of a site plan with 200 multifamily units to the the develop to the department of community development as well as demonstrated compliance with all other conditions, whatever the other conditions may be of zoning associated with the subject property. our office will confirm the subject zoning requirement has been satisfied. That tells me there that that to me, you know, and I'm not the brightest guy, you know, on earth, but this tells me that somebody still trying to make a decision based on like if some something else needed to be met here. And if I'm interpreting it wrong, I see you shaking your head, Mr. Hyard. If you don't mind, would you please expound on on that, please? So the letter was written uh a confirmation was sent back about what the entitlements were and then the other conditions were uh uh uh complied with through the process. Yes, sir.

Uh we did all of that. There weren't any other conditions we were asked to satisfy. In fact, the only issue that they've been talking about all night is a condition that was associated with the property at the outset. whether the concept plan is something that you have to comply with or not. So, I'll let Ray tell you more about that so we can ask you answer that question fully because I want to make sure you're clear about that. The code and and and a part of the process was a preconceptual meeting with all the departments. We did that. We talked about the zoning conditions. We went through we did that and a pre-development meeting. So, the letter we understood that there was still work to do. Yes. Right. That's what I'm understand.

There was and we did. What the problem is is that site plan there is you can read it in that zoning. It says it is conceptual only. That's what it says conceptual only. Through the process no one ever told us that hey you have to meet this zoning condition which is a site plan. You got to put those buildings exactly where they are. That was never told us never written never verbally told to us. And I don't think anybody would argue that that's the problem. We went forward. So another thing in zoning 101 I'm I'm familiar with that you need community buy in too. Sure. Did you all present that to the city?

We presented to let me correct him. Community. So there's a difference between a a property that's going through the resoning process and one that is entitled as of right. if it's entitled as as of right, the only thing a developer is required to do is to go to the city and get the permits. Now, whether you think it's good form, and I think it is good form sometimes to go to the community as a courtesy, but when it's property that's zoned as of right, there is no requirement to go to the community to get buy in. And and and and I I say that respectfully because I understand what you're saying because particularly in South Fton with all the new development coming, people want to know what's coming. They want to have some input in it. But if you're reszoning it, you know, there's this whole process. The city has a public participation plan. You have to go to all these public hearings for as of right that is not a requirement. And I don't think the applicant or this developer or any developer that's developing property as of right and is not talking to the community about it as a result should not should be punished in the in the zoning process because of that.

Yeah. Okay. All due respect, I I don't look at it being a punishment, though. Because what what I'm looking at it is this here. I [snorts] hear y'all speaking about something from 20 24 years ago. And most of us here have been in this city probably 30 to 40 years, way before we become a city. We respect that. But but the problem we've gotten here is a lot of people here have been making decisions that they're not even either construction-minded people or they have not considered neighbors. Now, some of the issues we got in that exact same area is infrastructure. You know, it's infrastructure. People that can't even get home back and forth there. There's a lot of changes that have taken place in the last 20 since 2001, 24 years now between congestedness,

uh, traffic control, all of that. I think if you guys had went and spoke with that particular community and that gentleman Barnes who is the HOA president of that particular community and just explain what are you guys willing to do as far as amenities for number one I I heard u Crocker say that that there's room for that and whether the master developer get been out of shape or not he need to understand that we don't care about him getting bent been out of shape what what those neighbors and people care about is they got to live there. They're going to be there for the next 40 to 50. They going to raise their families there. So, getting been out of shape or not, they just want something there quality and and and and the way but they got a serious congestion problem as far as getting in and out for infrastructure. Have y'all spoken to any of that? Cuz I had heard anything about that.

Yeah, I think I think let me let me clarify. I don't think I think you and I and we agree with you that the community should have a a role and an understanding of what's going on and have some input. We don't disagree with that. When I was describ describing zoning is a right across the nation. Yes. Developers develop property. If they can do it, they're not asking for permission from the community. That's just how it goes, right? And so, but it's but it's not for out of disregard for that for for interest of the community. They're going to develop the property as they develop it and and and you all have a right to have some input into it. So, I I don't want make sure you understand. And I don't disagree with you on that point, but the but but the issue that you're deciding here tonight, you know, what we're asking you to say is if if if the decision that the city said it made and the basis that they said they made the decision, was it erroneous or not? It's an unrelated to decision to whether we're building what you want to see. And and I say that as respectfully as I can so that we make sure that you understand if you if you make the decision because we didn't talk to the neighbor, you don't like the design of what we're doing and all those things, those those are things are that are outside of the the review before you tonight and won't be considered if if it has to be challenged in some way, but we do want to talk to you about that separately.

I I hear what you're saying. I I've heard that at least four or five times tonight saying that it would end up in court. And and in my personal opinion, that's where it need to be because and and the reason I'm saying it need to be there because if you take the citizens out of this conversation, I could not in my good conscience make a decision against those neighbors who was here speaking and and I hear other people sit here and make decisions about something that's not right next door to them. I mean, I wouldn't do anything to my neighbor that I wouldn't want my neighbor doing unto me. We got a problem here in the city of South Fulton with Union City doing stuff on the border that's next to us that we can't do anything about. But here within this city, we can. And 200 more homes in that particular area. I'm just looking at this letter though. I maybe I'm interpreting it different than you. I'm kind of interpreted the way McClendon uh uh Matt uh Paul and y'all had to forgive me for calling your names like I'm calling because hey my hey but anyway uh you know that that's how I'm I'm interpreting it kind of like they interpret it and and I think this may be something going you know that may need to be in court. I don't know how these guys going to vote, but as of right now, I truly cannot vote yes to this. I and and I would after it's done, I would like to make a motion just flat out denied.

I mean, may may I be heard just to expound on this a little bit? So, I want to reframe the the response somewhat because uh there is a remedy to citizens and people who want to be heard and they want to have their input. Yes. The going to a council member to have them stop a lawfully zoned and pre-planned project

isn't the answer. What the answer respectfully is go to your council member and change the zoning. Make make this site plan specific. So, it does have to be adhered to strictly, but don't public punish a good faith developer who's trying to add value to the community who is following all the existing rules. Go to your council member, have them change the zoning rules so that they are consistent with what you envision and what the gentleman who spoke envisions that that don't allow as it's currently exists this zoning as of right. So it's it's not that we are trying to cut anybody out at all. It's just to denying this is not the right way to go about enacting the change that you want to see. Respectfully would be my answer.

Totally understood. What's your name? Joe Seagleman.

Okay. Uh all right. Joe Singleman. Uh I hear what you're saying and I can tell you this and and and I'm going after I say this, I'm going let the chairman pass it on to the next person. Our council right now is in a very very I'm talking about the entire council including this newly elected mayor. They in a very tough spot right now. And when you speak about resoning right now, we watching them so close. We watching them like a hawk right now. Anything you do on that council when it comes to this property and reszoning, you will be held accountable. [snorts] I'm personally going to be doing it, but I know quite a few people are watching them. So that that might not that may be easier said than done. But right now with this case here in particular, I just think the citizens need to be respected. That that's it. I think you guys probably truthfully can get this done a whole lot easier by having a conversation with that neighborhood and with the respected council person over that district. I I think that's that's probably your better route. Now, if you guys want to defer something, I hear it. But me personally, if I'm the deciding vote tonight, you're going to lose with me and you going to find yourself in court as if Mr. Heryard say and that's it. If I'm the deciding vote

and I and I I gave my answer uh understanding that we were not likely to change your opinion. I just wanted you to know that there is a way to tackle what you're after that's not denying a rightfully, you know, property. Respectfully take it.

Okay. Uh hang on one second. I I the chair only votes in the event of a tie. Uh so ideally I won't be voting tonight, but and I typically don't even uh weigh in, but uh I respect what everybody's had to say. Uh in America, we have something called property rights. And if I buy a piece of property knowing what is zoned and if it's zone multifamily then I have the right to build multifamily. If my neighbor don't like it and says hey I don't want any apartments going here. My neighbor has a right to buy that property from me, but my neighbor can't tell me what to do with my property that's lawfully zoned multifamily. If we're hung up on design, that's one thing. But if we are hung up on the fact that people are going to be renting these units, well, duh. That's what multifamily means by nature. And so having said that, Mr. O'Donnell.

All right, hear me out here. There's gonna be a lot of lot of questions that I just like to have answered honestly. Um, sorry. Thank you. Uh, I got a lot of questions here just to sort of have that clarification. Um, because I'm I'm in complete agreement with you on that. You know, property owners do have rights. Property owners do have rights. And um my understanding that's red. No, it's on. Sorry. Let me get a little bit closer in the mouth.

So, property owners do have uh rights and so forth. I just want to make sure from uh to see if everybody agrees on this on on a couple of these. We are bound originally by the 2001 zoning agreement. Correct. You agree with that? Yes. with the amendments made in 2004. Is that correct? We have not seen 2004 amendments

if they have been legally filed. Are you still bound by the agreement or the uh the amendments in 2004 if they were legally filed? Yeah. If if if there's a if there's a zoning decision that was uh lawfully uh occurred and on the record, right? Thank you. That's all I need to know. I'm good. Thank you very much. May I May I answer the question? Cuz you asked you as

Well, I'm just wondering if they agree with that statement. Right. We would we would only kind of clarify that 2004 zoning doesn't apply to the whole property. It doesn't apply to the property in question tonight either. I I agree with you uh to an extent. The property that you've purchased um have you purchased or or are you potentially purchasing all of F and D or just a portion of F and E? Just a portion of I can't tell where the property lines are here. I believe E is an existing property. I believe it is all in F. It is all

I I can't tell. It's all in F. But you will say that you agre you you'll state that your development that you're proposing is currently in F. Is that an an agreed assumption? I would say the majority of it is in F until I see property lines. I can't tell.

Thank you. Now going back to the original 2001, it states here that you can build the 500 50 home uh uh multif family homes. And in your opening statement, you said there was 220 lots, but then since I've heard 200 here and you've also stated 200. So, I just would like to know how many lots you have or or pardon me, multi- There's one lot. There's one parcel. This is a multif family development. I'm sorry. Individual units. That's what I mean. My apologies. 200 units.

So, you agree that there's 200 units remaining. Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure because like I said, very beginning you said 220. Okay. Now, looking at this, would you hold on? I'd like to see it. Show me where you say it's conceptual.

Just just point us to the page. Just tell us the page from the pod. From the podium. From the podium. From the podium. Everything into the mic. 10 to exhibit exhibit C, which is the original zoning. Flip to the fifth or the sixth page. Top of the page 2A says, okay,

said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the zoning resolution. Now hold on. Can you say that again where it is? I didn't find it. Under C tab C tab C. Hold on. I've lost here. We do not.

So in the modifications in 2004, [snorts] it states we didn't Yeah. In 2004, it it it shows out that the approved zoning plan is district A and B is 150 plus 75 225 units all single family. The revised single family phase 1, two, and four is 207. Two town homes are entitled to go into district C and district E. 50 + 50 100 units. Phase three, 98 units of town homes, luxury apartments, which is where we're at. District D, 350. Are you building your home your your resident your your units in district D or are you in F and E?

F F. So, majority is in F like I said. Okay. Was now 350 units were built by the slate, right? It is in place today. Right now, there's a site plan for a year from 2004.

Stand by. If if id had gotten this ahead of time, I would have been more prepared. My apologies. Just take your time. Relax. We already here. Take it.

It's in here.

All these names. All these names. What's that? See, my understanding is you do have rights to build the units. I don't really care for it. I'm going to be blunt. Okay. Uh you stated earlier that um you want to partner with the city of South Fulton in the future. uh right now with what you're doing, you haven't matched the needs or the desires of what the city of South Fulton really wants. Now, I think you're you have the potential to win the battle, but are you willing to lose the war in part partnering with the city of South Fulton in in the long run? Do you really want to be that company? Um, and and you know, if you give me a half a minute here or a couple minutes, I believe that in the 2004 update, it there is no modifications stated to section F and it describes it as a city center. And if you're building your condo or your your units in portion of F, I don't think that meets the the modification in 2004. It doesn't matter whether you want to uh uh follow that footprint, but would you call what you're building a city center?

It's a multif family community. Just it's a multif family community, but it's not a city center. Typically not. Okay. I I mean, if you want to give me five minutes of, you know, like I said, I'm trying to hurry here, but I read it in here while they were talking. I think it does. So, the zoning modification that happened in 2004 referenced when when the multif family 350 multif family unit parcels were purchased, they went through a zoning modification to modify the plan to allow their uh their proposed development to be built is what you're reviewing. Is that what I'm is that what I'm understanding?

That is correct. Okay. But there's also it states there are to be no changes to pod F. Okay, [snorts] here we go. Take a look at this uh if you don't mind. This is from the map. Would you say that this is a conceptual? We haven't seen it. Yeah. Would you ask I'm asking you would you call this a conceptual plan or would you say that that's actually drawn out by an architect or a full development plan? a a conceptual plan. Behind the mic, please please please.

My opinion, this is a conceptual plan. There's there are uh no parking lines drawn. I mean, you you mean you know the difference between a conceptual plan and a fully designed plan. It's not a full and also it's not just the plan is included with the file. Does this condition of zoning say that this is a condition of the zoning? that this site plan is a condition of the zoning and we don't have the benefit of the file that you're looking at. We're just answering question. Hey, you know, unfortunately, I didn't either until, you know, I demanded it and people were actually irritated going to say that, right? That that gave it to me. I think we know that. Yeah, I think we

to be blunt with you, I was unfortunately in support unwillingly with your position. I really was. But this modification I think is a technicality that you don't meet the needs. You don't meet the requirements. That's my opinion. And we can we can go through this and and and take some time and and truly look at I would encourage my my my panel members to actually look and read the documents in the modification before you make a decision because we are looking at a million-doll lawsuit if we make the wrong decision. I fully agree with that.

I'll table Miss Faraday. I agree um to an extent. I I my I I have a comment and the developers might want to respond and the city might want to respond as well. The developers are saying that steps was followed and taken um several meetings, several um documents um was uh was met and required. Um I I unfortunately I haven't read this information either. Um, and I just I'm just receiving your information as well, but from my understanding, just hearing both sides speak, the developers are saying, "Hey, we follow the rules. We follow the steps." Um, and uh, it was a conceptual plan. They showed us where it was a conceptual plan and not a set in stone sight plan. Um, as as as far as legality goes, what you guys are saying. Um, so I I I want to make it I want to be clear um that we are voting the whole board is voting on the same thing. I think we all have our different um way of thinking what we're voting on. Um so I I don't know who's going to who who should answer this question, but what are we voting on? because it's a lot of information in here and I'm pretty [snorts] sure we can find a lot of hiccups in this as well as we can find a lot of hiccups in this. So, we need to

be clear as a board what we're voting on and if we're going to make a good decision based on what we're voting on. I I think that's a fair question because I'm pretty clear on everybody's questions that we don't know what we're voting on. I think I know what I'm voting on, but I I don't think we know what we're voting on right now. I I I just don't think we know what we're voting on right now. I think it's going all over the place. So, who want to make that clear?

Take a motion to table or to question. My my question is to make it clear to the board what we are voting on that I I think that's already

No, it's not because we got down at the end um someone saying that we're hold on please respectfully each board member has questions and each board member has an opinion and a narrative. So, it's your floor right now, Miss Farad. If you have any questions, please ask those questions. Once everybody on the board has finished asking their questions, as I normally do, I will open the floor for [snorts] any motions and then you guys are perfectly free to make the motion that best suits your mood. Okay.

Could What are we voting on?

Yes. We're going to pull up the slide. So, under City of South Fulton Code section 5-6009F, it explains the standard that this uh zoning board of appeals is is to adhere to the highlighted section. An appeal shall be sustained only upon an expressed finding by the board that the administrative officials action was based on an erroneous finding of a material fact or that the administrative official acted in an arbitrary manner. The appeal that's before this board is an appeal filed by the de by the developer of of an action taken by Miss Karen Dominy uh a a city staff member. And if if we can flip just a couple of slides forward uh again again right here. And so this is the statement that's at issue. So the uh the developer under the city's code has 30 days to file an appeal of a decision that they take issue with. So this is in in their determination the decision that they have that they have challenged. And it's and it says uh by uh Miss Karen Tomdminy, this development does not match what was approved in the site plan for zoning petition 2001 Z0079. The zoning case has this area designated as pod F, which is a town center that contains community services, commercial components, and residential components that contain loft apartments, town homes, and an assisted living facility. So, if you look at the at the standard under the city code and then you overlay that with this statement uh by Miss Tomminy, the question before the board is was what was did she make a a mistake of material fact? What did she do something that was arbitrary?

Uh stay stay there for a second. There is specific language uh in some of these documents that a specific council member uh intervene. Can you speak to that? I I I I don't know anything more than what I've heard this evening. If you were to learn that that were true, would that by definition uh start to enter into that territory where we call arbitrary?

No, because the that's not the subject of this appeal. If if if if that council member's action was the subject of the appeal, then the question would be was that council member's action arbitrary? that the the the subject of the appeal is chosen by the appellent, not by the city.

All right. Uh, another question. Uh, we're having some discrepancy as to whether or not this was sightsp specific or conceptual. Uh, I've got a alcohol permit out in Decap County for a business that I own. Uh, and I had to submit a very specific site plan, parking laid out, uh, everything from number of chairs inside. So, uh, I know what a, uh, a site plan looks like when it's supposed to be specific. Are you saying that that's this? No. Okay.

No, no. That that that is a different level of site plan when it when it comes time for permitting. Okay. So, where are we hung up here? because it sounds like you're saying that this is beyond conceptual and they're saying no, this was conceptual and that is what was submitted and approved

for for the purposes of the zoning board of appeals. I would say even if this is merely conceptual, I think that the the important thing here is that the appellant is here tonight saying that they can build 200 apartments as of right. Where do they claim that right comes from? From the site plan. And so it's it's the same site plan. It's it's the it's the same zoning decision. And the zoning decision has a conceptual site plan. And Miss Miss Tomminy in her determination, this wasn't close enough to that site plan to merit going forward with a determination of whether or not to grant a permit. I have a question. Mr. Ro.

Oh, I'm sorry, Miss Evans. I apologize. I just heard a voice down there.

No problem. No problem. Um so to clarify from my understanding what you're saying. So Miss Tomminy when she looked at the application so previously had been approved um based on what they had submitted and it was um it [clears throat] matched it matched what was what it matched what was being approved. But when she looked at this last that last date where it was where she denied it, that was where she felt it was not matching um what they were asking for. So that that was not that was what was happening, right? Am I am I following? My understanding is that the in the approval process as again there was not a final approval that was made but in uh Miss Tommony's review and in staff review when they were initially thinking that this would comply the focus was on the number of apartments and things things such as that. And the thing that she noticed um as not applying was there were no lot departments, no town homes or assisted living facilities. Is that what is that what I'm reading?

That in the community services. So that was lacking. And so this new this last concept um conceptual um what is it? Site plan that they submitted it only contained the 200 um town unit. units. 200 apartments. The 200 apartments. Okay. All right. So, um but they do have the right because it was zon multif family. So, they do have that right to build build the apartments to 200 apartments. Well,

if it aderes the decision that Mr. that director McClendon made was that in this entire plan 200 more apartments could be built. And as as far as whether 200 apartments could be built on the property on that portion of pod F that uh that Carter filed a the permit for the city has taken the position that no e even if you can build 200 apartments you can't do it like that. You can't concentrate it like that. So it has to be the 200 with the additional U community services added on.

Right. Well, it again it really the the governing site plan even if as a concept is the podf site plan that was approved back in 2001. If if if you want to vary dramatically from that then you need to come for reasonzoning. So where where in the file was the initial um the initial initial um the submission the initial submission what what was the variance I'm sorry from from from yeah another there's a reference to I think like maybe a March 2024 or May 2024 another yes another submission

so the pro go back to the process so we met with the city in we got the letter In July of 24, we met with the city on their required preconceptual plan meeting. We put our conceptual plan on the table. We met with them and talked about it. We showed it to them on the screen. Excuse me. I believe it was a Zoom meeting. We showed it to them on the screen. 2001 file.

We had the 2001 zoning file. Everyone had all the information. We walked away understanding our plan was approved to progress it. We progressed it to the next meeting, Taylor, and that was the pre-development meeting a month or two later. Progressed the plan further, met with all the departments. We we met the zoning conditions and we uh showed a site plan as as Regginal's letter says that that shows 200 multif family units and we proceeded to permit. We submitted our plans for permit. They were accepted by the city. Multiple rounds of review and then approval. Okay.

So, basically, if you don't if you don't develop here, another apartment another another apartment community can be developed here. Well, of lower quality. I'll I'll tell you this. I understand multif family and I understand commercial development. This site has been zoned with that plan for over 25 years and this market has not brought in a mixeduse development and it probably won't for another 25 years. If that's what the city wants to have built here, it's going to be very difficult. the market decides what happens in certain areas. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Ro. Thank you.

So, I just want to make sure that I'm following and I know everybody's uh trying to make sure that they hone in on what they want to know. Uh but for the purpose of understanding the vote for tonight, the affidavit of Taylor Harper that's up right now, do you concur that that is the issue that needs to be voted on? The issue that needs to be voted on is denial of our plat and our civil plans after they have they have we've been through the process as it's typically done.

I'll just add I think the the issue before you this evening is whether the this comment by Miss Tomminy is no different than the argument that the city attorney has been making on a separate point. Uh they're making the same point. the concept plan governs this project. He's saying because the overall site plan is not consistent, she's saying, "I don't see all the things that are on the site plan." We're very comfortable with that argument. We we'd like you to rule in our favor so we don't have to deal with it any further. But we're very comfortable if you all decide that this site plan is why they are why this decision was made. You know, we say what we were what we were appealing when this decision happened. We learned that there was a problem because council member Ralph pulled this from the agenda and when we contacted her, my client contacted her, she said, "Contact Reginal McClendon for an understanding." And we've to this date, that was in September. I think we're in Jan uh December. We've never had been able to have a conversation about it. So, we don't know. And so, we went and found this comment when we were trying to search for the reason. And that's what was in the files. They said, "Okay, we guess they must have designed it based on zoning." We tried to have a conversation. We talked to Matthew Williams and Miss Tomminy. They started giving us some more context about what was told to them about why it happened. And we said we needed to preserve our rights. So we because we could we waited from se from the date of this note from se uh September the 3rd until October the 3rd because you have to file an appeal of an administrative decision within 30 days. And we got no answer. So we filed an appeal to preserve our rights to be here because if we hadn't and [clears throat] we brought it down then the argument would be different. Well, they they ran out of time. This is a shell game.

So, this is not what was in your appeal? No, this was this this issue was in our appeal. What we interpret this decision as is the same thing that the city attorney's been arguing all night. Okay. That the concept plan is not a concept plan. You don't believe what it says on the paper. Believe what I tell you it means. Okay. I just That's what he's arguing. That's what this argues.

I want to make sure I understand where we do have some concurrence. Please, if you want to add to Uh, I want to clarify that it's been stated that what you're voting on is the denial of the plat. And I want to clarify that that is not what you're voting on because the plat is not, first of all, the the denial of the plat or the approval of the plat is a decision for the council. Uh, our board doesn't have authority over that. It's a decision for the council and it has not been denied. It hasn't been voted on. So, we're not voting on that tonight because that's a legislative decision for the council that has not been voted on.

Okay. I have some additional questions for the city. So, whoever wants to answer, um, is it discretionary or mandatory? Right. I'm going to say this again. Is it discretion discretionary or mandatory that a deviation from a conceptual site plan be cured by reszoning? [snorts] If I understand your question there there there is a matter of there is at least some degree of discretion.

Okay. So would the appellants plan be able to move forward if somebody agreed with them and said go ahead that would be okay in a discretionary capacity and not affect any laws? uh is your question. Would would a staff member have the discretion to have approved? Yes. To and again that this wasn't approval or denial of the permit itself, but to to have said that this can move forward to the council vote. Yes,

that's a good question. I I I I think I think that's really pushing the bounds. I mean, that that'd be an unbridled discretion. Uh but you know certainly when when you're looking at for for the purpose of this question looking at a conceptual site plan there is a degree of discretion that is involved in making that decision and sometimes when someone disagrees with that discretion we end up in an appeal like this.

Okay. Um Mr. uh O'Donnell made a reference to the changes that were made in 2004. what if any relevance does that have to this? So, uh 2004 locks in that 2001 pod F site plan.

So, it it it specifically accepted the the the podf site plan. Um I mean there there's more to it than that. It's a it's it's a lengthy document, but for for our purposes tonight, um you know, what what we've been looking at and what the city staff has looked at is what what was originally adopted in 2001 by Fulton County and then what changes, if any, were made in 2004 for this particular part of of the property.

Okay. And so again, my questions are clarifying questions to be clear. What the appellant can do that the city would agree with is to fill out an application for reszoning. Yes, that is one thing that the that the appellent could do. Yes. What else can they do? Well, they could also submit a site plan for they could also submit a permit to develop the property in accordance to the 2001 site plan or something substantially similar. There is some amount of discretion. It's not unbridled, but there is some amount.

Okay. Um Mr. Crocker [snorts] made a No, you can stay there. uh made a um suggestion that another developer could come in essentially and they could come in with commercial development, right? So, the information that I read um in exhibit B um it's an email um that references um as Miss Evans uh spoke about a few minutes ago, what the original conceptual conceptual plan uh required or stated that it would have which was community services, commercial components and residential components that contain loft apartments, town homes and assisted living facility. The appellant the apartments that they want to build, do they meet the loft apartment criteria? No, I'm not sure. I I know in in in in pod F there there it does show this mixture of uses. I'll

Is it completely off base or are they meeting a portion of the conceptual plan from 2001? Um I I I I think that well it it's it's kind of hard to answer for a couple reasons. One reason is pod F is a much larger property than this site plan. And so to say that pod F has apartments and the site plan has apartments in that sense yes there there is overlap but there's not much.

Okay. So, if another developer was to come in, let's say they got greenlighted, hypothetically, they built the 200 units. Is there additional uh room to come in and complete the additional portions of the site plan so that the 2001 conceptual plan is preserved because from what I understood the 200 units is not going to exhaust all of the available land. They're going to be multiple acres left over. So if and obviously there have been multiple developers already. So if this developer developer comes in and is meeting a portion of the site plan and building loft apartments, can someone else come in and build the commercial components, the residential components like the town homes, the assisted living facility to preserve the 2001 site plan so that it is met?

Not under what's been currently proposed. Now, it would it be possible for a group of developers to come in and one per one developer says we're doing the apartments, another one says we're doing the town center, another one says we're doing the assisted living. That's possible. And if a plan like that came before the city, then that that that would be a different consideration. But but but even in this case, you know, the the developer can't say, well, we'll take all the apartments and we'll just wait to see if someone else does the rest of it. That's where the city staff has stepped in and said, "No, that doesn't meet even if it's just a concept plan." It it doesn't meet the concept plan.

So then, how did the initial units get built? If the initial plan was for 550 and there's still 200 left all these years later, how was there a break between the first developer and now these developers coming in? because essentially wouldn't they be able to do the same thing another developer could come in and build another piece?

That's an excellent question that that really gets the essence of this entire process. So what what what has happened historically for this property is that these again the property has a concept plan that fits the entire property. It's it's labeled all these different pods. Tonight we've been talking about a portion of pod F, but these different pods, they came in. There were a couple of them and I misspoke earlier when I said the pod C had been developed as as shown. That was inaccurate. But pods A, if I remember correctly, A and B, the ones there on the south were were developed in in in that manner. And then in 2004, you had well so you had some subsequent development. So the the the short answer is the the way that that's handled from the planning department perspective is by breaking it into pods considering it on a podby pod basis and the development thus far has matched those podby pod plans. Now we're on pod F. The city has received a plan that does not match the pod F plan. And so your question about how much discretion do they have? Well, the the staff has enough discretion to say this isn't close enough. How close do you have to get it? Much closer than this.

So, pod F needs to include all of the elements that the 2001 site plan says that Pod F needs to have to include the modifications from 2004. It's because they chose Pod F. Basically, that they need to do what Pod F essentially uh calls for per the site plan. That's correct. Or or or seek a reasonzoning. or seek the resoning. Okay. So, is the resoning meant to circumvent the site plan to where they can only build the 200 units? What happens when they reszone? They reszone, build the 200 units, and then what

reszoning is a blank slate. It's that they file an application for what they want. It's considered by by staff. Staff gives their recommendation. It goes through the planning process ultimately voted on by the council. Okay. But it's owned multif family and you would like for them to move forward with the only the 200 units, right, that they proposed to build to reszone it as what? What would the reasonzoning be? Because it's zone multif family. So what would they reszone to? Well, it it's it's zoned for mixed use. It's zoned for mixed use. Correct. I think that's the first time I'm hearing that tonight. Okay. It it's zoned for mixed use. One of those uses is multif family. Oh, got it. Okay.

Yes. Okay. Uh my other question is at what point would uh in your opinion it would have been reasonable to because part of the gripe is that they spent money, spent time, had multiple meetings, spoke with all the people, did all the things and now a year later almost a million dollars in they're like oh yeah by the way right you haven't met the site plan criteria. At what point would it have been reasonable or at what point is it typically discussed? Right, once you review a concept plan because they've had pre uh conceptual plan meetings, right? I think I saw at least two that you say your concept or your plan does not meet what is required for this. When would it have been reasonable to discuss that with the appellent?

At what point? I can't say a specific date, but what what what I think not a date, but like at what phase would it be typically at a the first preconceptual meeting, second preconceptual meeting, or what department typically would tell you it's not what we need? Is it reasonable to have reached that conclusion before now or before when they were informed?

That's a very good question. It's it's a fair question that I I I I don't have the answer for. Um I know that the timeline is addressed uh in your materials. I I will say that there there there was at one point a focus from the city's perspective on trying to determine whether these uh proposed units were were going to be for sale, you know, if if these were going to be ownerowned units or if they were going to be rental apartments. So I I I think that some of this uh the delay uh occurred because of that because we we were focus we not we but the the city staff was focused on a on a question that ultimately was not an issue for the developer. The developer had had already made a determination that these were going to be for rent.

I would like to address Mr. Jerome's question uh and the question is about when would it have been reasonable to give them notice that they needed to meet this you know uh site plan and our position the position of the city is that we gave them notice in 2024 with the letter from director McClendon because the letter says that they must meet all the requirements of the zoning. The zoning has been public record since 2001. If I can clarify my question, um, they had meetings and so I really wanted to know at what point in the process after you've already started meeting, you're meeting face to face, you're on the phone, you're in communication, and they're reviewing your plan to say to them, "Your plan does not match what we have." because the letters that were referenced um and the public records is one thing, but now when you're actually doing business and you're speaking to a person and they're telling you that they've reviewed it and you're having pre pre-review um site plan meetings, um the appellant is saying that they were greenlighted all the way. Sure, this is great. Move forward. This looks good, move forward. Right? So, at what point if something did not look right, would a staff member typically discover that? Because we are in a situation where we're deciding on whether or not there was something erroneous or arbitrary and it's possibly erroneous and that's what my questions are uh trying to uh sift through.

Okay. Um I can't answer to what at what time period but I would say at any point when the staff member recognized that there was a problem in these cases. So I would say what where the errors were made were at any point where the green light was given but where the the the zoning decision that we're focused on is the one that was the denial that happened in September of 2025. That was not an error. So if there were any errors in the green light, those errors took place before that.

But the decision on September 3rd, 2025 was not an error. So I would say if we if it had come to the staff's um knowledge that they were not meeting the site plan, you know, 6 months before, that would have been the time to tell them. And if we did, if we made an error there, we're responsible for that error. But that does not give them a vested right to continue. Can I don't don't go away quite yet. I do want to hear from you, Mr. McClendon. When you say um that you're responsible for the error, in what way?

And that we we made the error. That's what I mean. We we if we didn't tell them, but I I can't say for certain that it was an error because I don't know all the information. I wasn't in those meetings with the staff and I don't know all the information that was presented to the staff. I don't know if a full, you know, what's been presented to you with all the the apartments. I don't know if that was fully presented to the staff 6 months before September of 2025 or nine months before, but I'm saying if it was and we should have told them at that point in time that, hey, you're not meeting the 20 2001 zoning and you have to meet that, then we're responsible for that error. But that error that would have been made would be similar to what u attorney Hillier said. If someone gave them a right to someone told them in the city that you have a right to build a hotel out here, if that person made a mistake, that doesn't give them vested right to build a hotel out here. If the city made a mistake uh nine months before or three months before September of 2025, that doesn't give them vested rights,

right? Did Mr. Mlennon want to add?

Thank you. Rejie McClendon, managing director of community development and regulatory affairs. Um, of course, I was hoping not to speak, but I do want to clarify um one thing about um our preconceptual and our pre-development meetings. Uh it it has been said that those meetings um were were mandatory. They are not mandatory. uh our our preconceptual and pre-development meetings are voluntary offerings that we give to uh developers. Uh and the purpose of those meetings is that they come to us with um questions that they might have. The preconceptual meetings are designed to be um less formal and for people who um are are kind of just coming up with the with a concept. Uh the pre-development meetings are really um they're designed um to bring in uh quite a bit of city staff, our fire department, public works department, etc. Uh, and those are for developers who really have pointed questions about um technical items um that might come up in a development that um that we um are going to want to give them advice on um [clears throat] either prior to or after they have uh already submitted uh development plans. Um neither of those meetings uh actually involves a review from staff. Uh generally how those meetings go is that we we offer the meetings, the developers come in and they ask us whatever they want to ask and we answer those questions to the best of our ability. But what what we don't do is we don't um we don't go through a thorough review of those projects prior to those meetings or after those meetings. we just answer the questions that they have. Uh and so, um I just want to be clear that those meetings are are not official. They're

not required meetings. Uh and they're not designed, uh to give people approvals or disapprovals. They're just designed to help people along through the process.

Okay. Um, I want to know how many acres are um going to be used for the 200 units and how many would be left because um the next thing I would want to know is if the city would be willing to reserve any land that's not used in pod F for the future commercial development uh to meet the original site plan. But how many acres does your site plan um take up and how much land would be reserved?

We originally put under contract 73 acres and the uh current site plan I believe Taylor is 23 and change. So that leaves 50 something acres and the city um would they be willing to let me let me correct something here. There w in this master development um there were 11 I believe acres outside the master development that was part of that 73. So 73 - 11 is 62. Then we are on 62 would be remaining in the master development. We took 23. Yeah, that's rough number. So there's somewhere around 40 something acres.

I would like to clarify your question. Um the second part of your question, would the city be willing to reserve the remainder? So, if the appelllet was greenlighted with conditions, let's say, right? You can build your 200 units on however many acres he said he uh needs and the remainder as long as the remainder is reserved for [snorts] essentially the completion of the 2001 site plan. Nothing else can be used um on nothing else can be built on that land unless it is going to be used for the commercial components of the 2001 site plan, the town homes, the assisted living facility, or anything else that was part of the 2001 site plan. Would that be feasible?

I would say that that would be a question for the council. Okay. So they would have to they would have to make that decision. And my last question is how much would it cost the appellant to go through the resoning process?

I think with the current site plan being approved, let's assume that which sounds like would be very difficult. Um it would probably cost us around $50,000. Um with a site plan change requiring uh commercial and and everything within our multif family. Um that would be basically throwing away all of our design that has been approved up to this point. I call it approved, reviewed with no no rebuttal until the very end. It would be the total that we've spent to date, which is 973,000. No further questions. Thank you.

And I would just like to clarify in the reasonable time to tell us that the site plan didn't meet it. We emailed Karen Tomminy on July 12th of 24 asking what the site plan approval process was, and she said that there was none. It's in exhibit C.2.

All right. Uh, I think we've got just a Hang on a second.

Hold on a second. Uh is there and this is for the city and uh the applicant uh before I open the the floor for any uh motions. Do you guys think there's any uh room? I I as I'm saying this, I'm I'm I'm aware that uh in your opinion there's been an absolute lack of response to your inquiries. That aside, uh is there any possibility before I open the floor for a motion uh to resolve this in a in a in a way that uh uh I want to say both sides, but probably that wouldn't be right terminology cuz city is not going to give any ground. But well, they may uh in a way where both sides might give a little ground to and even as I say this uh uh my own personal opinion is that uh uh it was not a uh required sight specific plan. Uh but having said that, I just wonder if there's any room for you guys to come closer uh to what the city uh may suggest uh as being closer to what was originally submitted. Although uh I wouldn't say that it has to be identical [snorts] because uh

I think

hanging on hang on one second hanging on what you just said uh in in her questioning you use a phrase that uh this the plan would be uh much closer. You you recall that answer to her inquiry about the plan. And you said it uh it would be much closer. That's very subjective language. Uh you know, much closer uh in whose mind, the city council person, the the the staff or or who? So uh I'm I'm I'm just uh I'm I'm a little leer about, you know, that kind of language. It just sounds very sub subjective. Uh, and so before opening the floor to a motion uh that may cause all of us to stub our toe, I'm just wondering if there's any uh both from the city and from the applicant if there's any room for uh uh coming back to this uh since you know you guys have invested a lot of money here.

So, I would um address Mr. Matthysse's question relating back to Mr. Rome's question. Her question was about the amount of discretion that the city had and the anytime we're ex exercising discretion, there is subjectivity. So, you know, if we're looking at the concept of a plan and we're exercising discretion, we have to we have to exercise discretion. So, it has to be some sub subjectivity. Otherwise, we would default back to the letter of the law. So, if we were exercising discretion, we're not relying on the letter of the law. We're relying on subjectivity. But the subjectivity would be based upon the expertise of the staff and using the the conceptual site plan as a guide.

I I just don't and I'm I guess I'm going to talk a little bit more than I wanted to talk, but uh I just wouldn't want that discretion. Uh and I know I not to go here, but I'm going anyway. I I I wouldn't want that discretion to look like uh the property is not already zoned in the fashion that is zone uh with respect to council district one sen doesn't have a buckhead and so if there can be apartments in district 7 that can be apartments in district one as long as it meets a satisfactory uh level of appearance for the city. Uh and so I don't want to be hang hung up on uh that kind of subjectivity. Okay. Did you want a response for me on that?

Yeah, please.

Um the city is being again guided by the 2001 zoning. Our position is that the 2001 zoning is a law. We there is some discretion, but the discret discretion is not wide. It's not arbitrary. There there may be some discretion, but it's not unfettered discretion. So, we're not arguing whether or not apartments can be built because in the mixeduse apartments can be built based upon the current zoning, but the current zoning also has other conditions along with the allowance of apartments. It has other conditions and our position is that we can't just ignore those other conditions because they're part of the law that was passed in 2001. So, we don't have discretion to just ignore them. No, I'm not s suggesting that the discretion would be to ignore them. I'm suggesting that uh the discretion would be to apply them uh consistently, you know, across the board.

Understood. Yeah. Can I ask you a question about the law? Well, not me. I'm not an attorney, but you can ask an attorney a question about the law. Uh I just was my my question is we're talking about the law here. Are we we keep talking about 2001? Is this 2004 agreement not valid? It is valid.

So, okay. Thank you. Let me ask you this then. In that, has any of you read that agreement? because in it it clearly states that the the main you know as far as it says where the roads are going to be the main circulation spine and it also says clearly that that that pod F is to be a um multi-purpose basically retail area and it has to have interconnectivity. It talks about green spaces in 2004. What they're providing there is no green space number one and so it doesn't match this. There's no interconnectivity and they're also developing into pod F which is clearly defined in 2004 as town center and commercial component of the plan. And that alone I mean there's your smoking gun. It it it sucks for you guys. I'm sorry, but if that's the law and we have to go by the current zoning, that's what it says. The affidavit here says that residential components that contain loft apartments, town homes, and assistant living facility. So somewhere somebody's already deviated from what you just read for 2004.

That's 2004. And that's the purpose of this board. If you if if if you want to go by this, there'd be no need for us. So [snorts] state your position. Okay. And then we're going to move to the next person, Mr. Johnson. All right. Thank you for recognizing me. You know, I'm gonna be throwing the second time. Yeah. Yeah. Right. And I appreciate it even though I heard some people speak five times on the other end, but I I do want to say, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson, go ahead. I'm going to take a point of privilege as a chairman. Okay. Go ahead. Uh cuz you you you know, you're coming at me directly about not recognizing you.

I you you you say more words than most of our board members. I don't want to call you out about that, but I'm calling [clears throat] you out because you coming at me like I've ignored you. And I I feel awkward that we're even doing this in front of the public. This is televised. In the eight years I've been on this board originally, we haven't had this kind of uh personal uh attention seeking. You know, call it what you like. I'm I'm not because I've been patient over Mr. Johnson. The chair is the chair.

Make your point. The chair is the chair, Mr. Johnson. When you are acknowledged, that's when you speak, Mr. Johnson. There's a protocol. Make your point cuz I'm I'm waiting to speak because I hear other people spoke without being acknowledged.

No, you haven't. Because that's not what I do. And you know that. All right. At this time, I'm going to take a motion from the board. Um, I would like to make a motion at this time to give us an opportunity to fully review all the documentation because the views have been so opposite from each side and I want to make certain um for my district that I'm really making a knowledgeable decision not just based on what we're hearing here in the circular of questions that's taking place tonight. I like to do my research. Um, and that's a part of what I've always done as a doctor. I've done my research and I like to fully do my research. Some great points have been made this evening, but I want to make certain that my decision, not just based on the feelings of the community, the recommendations or discussions that have taken place with the council outside of me, I was I've not had those conversations, but I really want to look at the information myself from both sides and make a clear and honest decision. So, I just wanted to again make a motion because there are some things and there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered because there are still some points that have been made from both sides that are really not clear and timelines need to be really I would like to see a full chronological from day one to now

so I can really understand the dynamics completely. So, I would I I hate to be long- winded, but I would like to go ahead and make a motion if there is an opportunity for us to defer this so that the board can fully look at everything because this is a lot of information to try to digest in just this time frame and I don't read and listen well collectively. I really need to go over this information. I've heard everything that everybody has had to say. Again, I appreciate the information, but that's just the motion I would like to make to give us full full knowledge where we really have some some some robust discussion and can knock this out one way or the other.

Make your motion specific to the next um I I'm not certain staff. Is that a possibility to defer this? Yes, under the provisions of our code, the board can take up to 60 days to make a decision. Uh the this is not in the code, but I would ask attorney Hillyard if he would agree that the board can uh send questions to either side uh to be responded to as long as everyone both sides are privy to all the questions and the answers. Right. Would you agree to that

in concept? I don't I mean I I think we need to make sure we understand and have some clarity. Maybe there's I mean if if the board wants to ask questions of council uh I think we can we can receive I just we just need to coordinate it just so that all the questions come by a certain date and then we all agree to respond at a certain time. Otherwise, we're lawyers. We're going to be I'm going to see I want to see his response. We're going to be going back and forth. You're all going to get 20 m 20 more. Everybody's going to weigh in. So if you if you can kind of I don't know what you recommend if if if their questions come within the next uh

so then um can okay within the 60 days can I make a recommendation that would be inclusive of my motion that um as we're reviewing this documentation if anybody has any specific questions on the board we submit those questions to you all uh say by Friday of every week at the end of every week and then you all possibly give us a response back by Monday or Tuesday of the following week. That would that would leave some order where we have a set time frame to get that in within the 60 days on a weekly basis because this is a lot.

Do you think it would be more efficient that if you all take a certain amount of time to get all your questions together and then that way you don't have that would be fine as well. Everybody gets their questions back by day. Speak into the mic. Sorry. Speak into the mic, sir. I'm sorry. She couldn't hear you. That would that would be fine as well. Attorney Hillard, I was just trying to get that conversation started cuz y'all were kind of haggling a little bit there.

So, um that that would be fine as well. Just whatever works for you all because I know that you all have other other cases you all are dealing with and we all have other lives, but I'm just trying to make it so that it's mutual for everybody. everybody's questions get answered uh within a reasonable time but we have to submit that information to you all in a reasonable time as well. So you know we have the 60 days to review however I may have some questions in between that I may need answers to to get clarity.

Can I say one thing? Well, one issue will be with the the Open Meetings Act and and so we we do want to make sure that the things that are supposed to be part of a public forum are part of the public forum. And so as you consider your motion, it it might make sense to whatever questions get submitted just hold it that it might make sense to hold them and then perhaps come back in a public meeting. Understood. at at a subsequent meeting and I'll add to that the only other the other important reason is that

any appeal that flows from these decisions is limited to the record and we don't want to have a disagreement with the record. We've heard you all say multiple times this evening that the the information that we submitted to the city as a part of our appeal back on October 3rd, you all had you haven't received. And so it concerns us that the record is clear and complete. And because we, you know, when when things go to court, the lawyers start agreeing on what was in or out.

I just want to make certain everything is above board and that we have a clear uh we have a clear conscience on our decisions. and uh and are making a knowledgeable decision not just based on what has been discussed in the past. I really want to review this documentation. So I'm making again I'm making a motion to defer this case for 60 days. Uh staff, what would that date be? this uh fee what February

if if that is a possibility if we can split the 30 that would be great to do staff do we have the capability to split the 30 to do what split the split the I'm sorry split the 60 into a 30 and a 30 well there's a regular schedule meeting of this board for January correct Correct. Correct. So my proposal would be to for the board to um assemble all your questions and then u for this item to be on the agenda of the January board meeting just to answer those questions and then you would have additional whatever left of the 60 days to make a decision.

That sounds great. Okay. So, let me make a motion to uh defer this case for 60 days, but splitting that 60-day into a 30, first 30 uh with questions from the board and the second 30 for responses from the appelllet and our staff here and our attorneys. Miss Blackshire, is this is it okay if I make a suggestion?

Go ahead. Um, as far as um maybe a slight modification to the motion, um, having questions addressed in the January meeting and then having the February meeting. Yeah. As opposed to 60 days and figuring it out just that is the 30 and the 30 is the 60. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that it didn't alter our regular meeting days. No. Uhuh. The 30 and the 30 is going to happen. That's the 60, but it's gonna happen on our regular meeting days. Okay. Thank you so much. I think

that will be a part of that's what's been recorded. So, that will be a part of us. We should be getting that. If I'm correct, we will be getting your documents via electronically.

Yes. If if I can just address a couple of things really quick and attorney Hillyard and I just conferred. So, we we have both submitted uh documents in electronic format. We'll make sure that that gets dispersed to to everyone. Um, so that is part of the record, right? And and one thing that the two of us are uh concerned with is that this zoning board of appeals makes its decision on the record. In other words, correct? Correct. That the record that we provide, so the things that are properly submitted before you. And so I'll just go ahead and say and again we we we've conferred about this that whenever you do make your decision whether it's tonight I understand that there's a there there's a motion it sounds like it's about to be made

but whenever the decision is made it needs to be made on the record and only on the record correct

and so so that it's not subject to personal investigation or or things like that you're you're like a you're this is qua quai judicial you all are judges so you can't go uh drive by the property and come back. Well, I've looked at this and this is what I think. Because that's the natural tendency. Well, you know, I want to see what's on the ground and see how this looks. But anything that happens, and we're not saying it because we're concerned about it, but because the record, if the record is imperfect, the whole thing is upside down. We have to start over. And so, we're really be by extending the hearing, you're really leaving the hearing open and leaving the record open. And we're really the ones that are supposed to be providing the record to you. And you're not supposed to go investigate your own information. Am I Am I saying that correctly?

This is not from an investigor an investigative method for me. This is a lot of paperwork. No, dialogue communication. I I'm I'm telling you what you're not thinking about because it's your inclination uh to go, okay, let's see what they're talking about. Let me go look at it. And then your opinion is formed based on something you see that everybody doesn't have the benefit of together. That's

Yeah. No. I'm looking at and I would like the board as well. We're looking at the bigger picture. We're looking at the totality of everything. So, um I I guess I'll make a final motion um to wrap this up. We will uh I make a motion to defer this 60 days splitting the 60 into 30 in January on the um u meeting day next month in January which would be January 15th January 15th of 2026 uh where we would uh ask our questions and we would review and then the following 30 days

February 9th February 19th, we will then uh make our decision on this case. And I think that's just fair across the board for everyone involved since everybody's views are so different from both sides. Um I stand on that motion. That was long. Tight tighten the motion up for me so somebody can second it.

Okay. I make a motion to do a 60-day deferral, 30-day questionnaire, 30-day decision on this case. There was no case number. So, um on the emblem sand town, is there anyone that was motion has been made? Sorry. Point of clarification. Yes, Miss Patterson. Thank you. If there are questions, if if you I just want to correct the wording brief a little bit. Dr. black share.

If it would probably be better if we just say to defer the um the the the discussion till the next meeting which is January 15th because if the questions are asked and answered and a decision would be could be made on that day it may not require it may not require but that so just defer it and if you need to defer it another 30 we will do that. Okay. Was that your way of seconding? Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and second to defer this case to January 15th. All in favor say I. I. I. I.

Any oppose say nay. Hearing none. Motion has passed and this case is deferred until our January 15th meeting. Uh, having said that, uh, hope the parties are able to, uh, make it make it much easier for us when we come back in in January. And, uh, everybody have a good Christmas and happy new year. Uh, I will entertain another motion at this time, the best motion. Motion to adjurnn. Second. And properly moved and second to adjurnn the meeting. All in favor? I. I. I.

I. [laughter] Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me. We are journ