OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/South Fulton, Georgia/City Council & Public Facilities Authority
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Alcohol License and Zoning Public Hearings Meeting - City of South Fulton - October 28, 2025

City Council & Public Facilities Authority — Tuesday, October 28, 2025
BodySouth Fulton, Georgia
SessionCity Council & Public Facilities Authority
DateTuesday, October 28, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Original source
Transcript — Verbatim

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.

Speaker 1

0:00

To begin

Speaker 2

0:01

with their name and address.

0:04

Your time starts now.

0:06

All right.

0:07

Good evening, everybody.

0:08

My name is Brady McDonald.

0:09

I'm the developer for this project at the corner of Riverside Drive and Fulton Industrial Boulevard.

0:15

We just handed out a packet.

0:17

You can see there's three individual parcels within the development.

0:21

The development is just over nine acres.

0:23

And so three individually owned and developed and operated properties.

0:27

This is not under unified control.

0:29

And so the intention here is to have a self-storage facility, a restaurant pad, and a retail pad.

0:34

We have done extensive work.

0:36

This has been deferred many, many, many, many times, as you may know, to get this right.

0:42

We've met with Sand Town multiple times, although we do recognize this is not in Sand Town.

0:47

We've met with the closest residents and business operators in the area, all of which, uh most of which support.

0:55

In the package, you'll see 32 names of uh who support this full development, including the self-storage.

1:02

Um, you know, we've done an immense amount of research, you know, with regards to the the different uses and and the actual feasibility for uh particularly the storage component.

1:13

The closest storage, um, because this is the one aspect that we seem to be getting a little bit of pushback on, is uh the closest storage is over four point four miles away.

1:22

Um, a self-storage market itself is actually within three miles.

1:26

So people uh do not like to drive with uh further than that.

1:29

Now we have actually um spoke to some of the residents uh at the riverside um apartments that actually use the storage at the highway that's 4.4 miles away, and they don't feel safe going there.

1:40

So this is definitely a desired use here.

1:43

Um it is strategically parked uh you know on a in you know against industrial the industrial boulevard.

1:49

Obviously, it's a good transition from residential to the industrial uses that are along this highway.

1:55

And um, you know, often we get lots of questions with regards to who uses storage.

1:59

So I'm not gonna go into all of it, but it is in your packet there.

2:02

We've done a lot of uh research and due diligence.

2:05

And the one thing I'd just like you to note is the the renderings uh on page two of the packet is that this is a class A self-storage facility.

2:13

This is not you know the dark dungey, you know, garage doors types of things.

2:18

This is something that looks more like an apartment building than a storage facility.

2:22

Um, you know, so one of our biggest challenges with this was one of the conditions that you're that uh the staff um had on there.

2:30

We worked very closely with staff to come up with a condition that was amended um a few days ago that is suitable for us.

2:37

Um the language on the initially proposed is on the cover letter that does not allow us to get financing, and not just the storage component, but any the either the retail or the um restaurant pad.

2:50

Nobody will get financing, so this is making this site undevelopable.

2:53

The amended language that we've worked very closely with staff does allow us to do that.

2:58

So that's all I'll I'll I'll pause there for now and I'll I'll uh pass it to Jeff.

Unassigned speaker

3:06

Uh

Jeff Haymore · Speaker 3Inferred

3:06

good evening, council.

3:07

My name is Jeff Haymore.

3:09

I'm a land use attorney with the law firm of Dillard Sellers.

3:12

Our firm address is 1776 uh Peace Tree Street in Atlanta.

3:17

The comprehensive plan, and you spoke to that in your earlier meeting, uh, does support this uh rezoning.

3:23

It's consistent with your land use designation.

3:25

As you know, your professional planning staff as well as your planning commission have so found, and each uh recommends that you approve this rezoning.

3:35

Now they both recommend that you adopt three conditions, and we concur with conditions one and two regarding condition number two.

3:44

Uh, we have in writing from GDOT uh that access to Fulton Industrial Boulevard uh district will not be a problem.

Unassigned speaker

3:52

Uh

Jeff Haymore · Speaker 3Inferred

3:52

as you've heard, the original condition three language does prevent us from developing this property.

3:58

Now, last November I stood in front of this council uh on behalf of a different development uh in district three that had previously been approved but did require a change in condition in order to finance uh that project.

4:12

That was Donald Washington's project, uh the Courtney on Yates Road, and you kindly worked with us to modify that language, and I appreciate your working with us in that case.

4:23

And we're here to ask uh that you do the same thing with us here, that we find a reasonable compromise.

4:29

We've passed out that language uh is uh my client said, what you have before you in your staff report is that revised language that does work for us.

4:40

It achieves the intent of concurrency without being so rigid that the lenders will not lend.

4:47

Now, while conditional zoning in Georgia is lawful, um the Supreme Court has put some guardrails on that.

Unassigned speaker

5:00

And what it says is it must be adopted to ameliorate uh adverse effects of that rezoning on surrounding property owners.

Jeff Haymore · Speaker 3Inferred

5:05

Here, there are no surrounding property owners that have voiced any concern, quite the opposite.

5:12

They are here in support of this rezoning, and you'll hear from them hopefully in just a little bit.

5:18

Uh just to conclude, also wanted to point out that in your code as Section 804.04, it lists 16 types of zoning conditions that this body may impose on rezoning or special use permit approvals.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████69%
Community Engagement████████████19%
Economic Development█████8%
Emergency Management███4%
Summary of Proceedings

Alcohol License and Zoning Public Hearings Meeting - City of South Fulton - October 28, 2025

The City of South Fulton Alcohol License and Zoning Public Hearings meeting was held on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, at City Hall. Although the meeting was scheduled for 5:00 PM, it was called to order at 5:30 PM. The primary agenda item was a public hearing for Case Z25-001/U25-002, a rezoning and special use permit application for a mixed-use self-storage, retail, and restaurant development at 0 Riverside Drive. All seven council members and the mayor were present. The meeting included the public hearing, an executive session, and adjournment. No final vote on the rezoning application itself was taken during this hearing. Note: The agenda listed Randy Pimsler as the applicant, while the minutes and transcript identified the applicant/developer as Randy McDonald (per minutes) and Brady McDonald (per transcript) of Barefoot Land.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Applicant and Representatives (In Favor): Brady McDonald (Barefoot Land) and Attorney Jeff Haymore (Dilliard Sellers Law Firm) presented the application. They argued the development is consistent with the comprehensive plan and supported by the City’s professional planning staff and planning commission. McDonald stated the closest self-storage facility is over 4.4 miles away, that 10% of all US households use storage, and that 32 nearby residents support the project. The primary point of contention was Condition 3 of the staff recommendation, which the applicant argued prevents financing for the entire project. Haymore cited Georgia Supreme Court limitations on conditional zoning and requested the Council work with them on revised language, which had been discussed with staff.
  • Residents in Opposition: Alma Hill, a District 1 resident from the Promenade Oaks subdivision, spoke against the storage facility. She argued District 1 already has numerous storage facilities and the city has nearly 100. She stated storage facilities “don’t enhance the quality of life in our community… create very few employment opportunities, and… hamper good economic development,” characterizing them as “big beige boxes.” Jewel Johnson, also from District 1, expressed agreement with Ms. Hill’s comments.
  • Supporters via Packet: The applicant provided a packet with 32 names of individuals who signed in support of the full development.

Discussion Items

  • Case Z25-001/U25-002 (0 Riverside Drive): The council deliberated on the proposal for a self-storage facility (approximately 120,000 sq ft), a retail pad (20,000 sq ft), and a restaurant pad (7,500 sq ft) on a 9-acre site.
  • Condition 3 Dispute: Councilmembers discussed the conflict between the applicant’s need for flexible financing language and the staff’s proposed condition regarding concurrency. The applicant requested an amendment similar to one previously granted for another project (the Courtney on Yates Road).
  • District Feedback: Councilmember Rowell, the district representative, questioned the applicant about community engagement, specifically negative feedback from the Sand Town community regarding the storage component. The applicant acknowledged changes made in response, moving the storage to a less prominent part of the site.
  • Overlay Districts: A discussion clarified that the property is within the Fulton Industrial Business Overlay District, not the Sand Town Overlay District. Councilmember Willis further clarified that storage facilities cited by the opposition in the “Welcome All Road and Desert Drive” area are within the City of East Point, not South Fulton.
  • Safety and Operations: Councilmember Sebastian raised questions about self-storage versus cold storage, and inquired about power backup and gate access during outages, suggesting the developer investigate solutions for ingress and egress during power failures.
  • Mayor’s Closing Comments: Mayor khalid kamau addressed a “refrain” from developers regarding the difficulty of making entertainment or other amenities profitable in South Fulton. He noted the city has a median income of $84,000 and cited examples of retail and restaurant chains becoming “top grossing sites in the Southeast” in the city, expressing a desire for more diverse development like movie theaters and bowling alleys.

Key Outcomes

  • Public Hearing Closed: The mayor closed the public hearing for Cases Z25-001 and U25-002. The council did not take a final vote on the rezoning or special use permit during this meeting.
  • Executive Session: The council unanimously (7-0) voted to recess for an Executive Session at 5:57 PM regarding Real Estate, Personnel, Litigation, and CyberSecurity. They reconvened at 7:00 PM (7-0 vote).
  • Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 PM by a unanimous vote of 6-0. (The mayor did not vote on procedural motions).

Meeting Transcript

To begin with their name and address. Your time starts now. All right. Good evening, everybody. My name is Brady McDonald. I'm the developer for this project at the corner of Riverside Drive and Fulton Industrial Boulevard. We just handed out a packet. You can see there's three individual parcels within the development. The development is just over nine acres. And so three individually owned and developed and operated properties. This is not under unified control. And so the intention here is to have a self-storage facility, a restaurant pad, and a retail pad. We have done extensive work. This has been deferred many, many, many, many times, as you may know, to get this right. We've met with Sand Town multiple times, although we do recognize this is not in Sand Town. We've met with the closest residents and business operators in the area, all of which, uh most of which support. In the package, you'll see 32 names of uh who support this full development, including the self-storage. Um, you know, we've done an immense amount of research, you know, with regards to the the different uses and and the actual feasibility for uh particularly the storage component. The closest storage, um, because this is the one aspect that we seem to be getting a little bit of pushback on, is uh the closest storage is over four point four miles away. Um, a self-storage market itself is actually within three miles. So people uh do not like to drive with uh further than that. Now we have actually um spoke to some of the residents uh at the riverside um apartments that actually use the storage at the highway that's 4.4 miles away, and they don't feel safe going there. So this is definitely a desired use here. Um it is strategically parked uh you know on a in you know against industrial the industrial boulevard. Obviously, it's a good transition from residential to the industrial uses that are along this highway. And um, you know, often we get lots of questions with regards to who uses storage. So I'm not gonna go into all of it, but it is in your packet there. We've done a lot of uh research and due diligence. And the one thing I'd just like you to note is the the renderings uh on page two of the packet is that this is a class A self-storage facility. This is not you know the dark dungey, you know, garage doors types of things. This is something that looks more like an apartment building than a storage facility. Um, you know, so one of our biggest challenges with this was one of the conditions that you're that uh the staff um had on there. We worked very closely with staff to come up with a condition that was amended um a few days ago that is suitable for us. Um the language on the initially proposed is on the cover letter that does not allow us to get financing, and not just the storage component, but any the either the retail or the um restaurant pad. Nobody will get financing, so this is making this site undevelopable. The amended language that we've worked very closely with staff does allow us to do that. So that's all I'll I'll I'll pause there for now and I'll I'll uh pass it to Jeff. Uh good evening, council. My name is Jeff Haymore. I'm a land use attorney with the law firm of Dillard Sellers. Our firm address is 1776 uh Peace Tree Street in Atlanta. The comprehensive plan, and you spoke to that in your earlier meeting, uh, does support this uh rezoning. It's consistent with your land use designation. As you know, your professional planning staff as well as your planning commission have so found, and each uh recommends that you approve this rezoning. Now they both recommend that you adopt three conditions, and we concur with conditions one and two regarding condition number two. Uh, we have in writing from GDOT uh that access to Fulton Industrial Boulevard uh district will not be a problem. Uh as you've heard, the original condition three language does prevent us from developing this property.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com