City of South Fulton Council Work Session - October 28, 2025

The City of South Fulton City Council held a work session on October 28, 2025, at 4:00 PM. The meeting featured two major presentations: an educational session on current trends in regulatory decision-making by Interim City Attorney Sara D.E. Kelly and UGA's Chrissy Marlow, and a Comprehensive Plan update timeline by CDRA Director Reginald McClendon. The meeting concluded at 5:29 PM, notably running beyond the estimated 4:59 PM adjournment listed on the agenda.

City Manager Items: Introduction of New Employees

• Routine Introductions: City Manager Sharon Subadan introduced five new employees, including a Revenue Manager, Facilities Architect, Senior Compliance Manager, and Buyer for procurement, filling positions the manager stated had been critical and long-awaited.

Presentations and Discussion Items

Current Trends in Regulatory Decision-Making

• Zoning Procedures Law (ZPL) Review: Attorney Kelly provided a detailed overview of OCGA 36-66, defining a zoning decision, the importance of a final majority vote, and the requirement of a public hearing. She noted that South Fulton exceeds the legal requirement by holding two public hearings (Planning Commission and Council).
• Public Comment on Zoning Votes: Kelly strongly advised against allowing public comment during the voting meeting on zoning items. She argued it could violate the ZPL by not allowing equal rebuttal time for the applicant, potentially invalidating the council's decision. Councilman Sebastian reinforced this point for clarity.
• Community Engagement on Zoning: Councilmember Willis emphasized that developers must engage the community before filing applications. She expressed support for the current two-hearing process for allowing adequate public input and criticized insufficient notification methods, stating the city fails to reach older demographics without mailers and robocalls.
• Mayoral Veto on Zoning Cases: Ms. Marlow discussed the governance implications of vetoing zoning decisions. She stated that while legal, such vetoes must be clearly tied to policy and the comprehensive plan to avoid appearing arbitrary and to preserve public trust.
• Council Position on Veto Policy: Councilmembers Gumbs and Willis expressed concern over vetoes being used without clear criteria tied to land use policy. They formally requested that Attorney Kelly bring back specific policy recommendations governing zoning vetoes, linking them to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning code to ensure legal defensibility.
• Charter and Veto Timing: The Mayor questioned whether past charter amendments violated state law (OCGA 36-34-2) regarding the separation of powers, specifically pointing to a 2022 amendment that reduced the time for the mayor to act on a veto. Councilmember Rowell initially disagreed, stating the charter had not changed, but the Mayor corrected that it had been altered in 2022.
• Comprehensive Plan Consistency: Councilmember Rowell and the Mayor argued against frequent spot-rezonings that undermine the Comprehensive Plan, requesting criteria for when the council will even consider future amendments.

Comprehensive Plan Update Timeline

• Proposal for Additional Engagement: CDRA Director McClendon proposed adding three community meetings (scheduled between Nov 10-21) at a cost of $25,000 to gather more public input before the council votes on sending the plan to ARC/DCA on December 9th.
• Concerns Over Notification and Timeline: Councilmember Willis strongly criticized the reliance on digital outreach (social media, email) for the engagement, arguing it fails to reach residents who rely on postal mail and robocalls. The City Manager acknowledged the directive but noted the tight timeline might limit mailer options. Councilmember Gumbs also recommended extending the timeline to allow for more thorough notification.
• Engagement Metrics: Councilmember Bell noted that only 8 comments had been received as of early in the week. The Mayor later updated that the number had risen to 42, but characterized it as "less than one-tenth of one percent of our population."
• Future Communication Direction: Council expressed the will to proceed with the engagement plan but pushed for a more comprehensive, multi-channel notification strategy, including mailers and direct coordination with districts. The Mayor suggested exploring a quarterly paper newsletter for the city.

Key Outcomes

• Policy Directive: The Interim City Attorney was formally directed by councilmembers to prepare a recommendation on zoning veto criteria, specifically requiring vetoes to be justified against the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances to prevent arbitrary decisions.
• Comp Plan Engagement Path Forward: The council generally agreed to proceed with the additional community meetings, but with a strong directive to the city manager to utilize direct mail channels and extend coordination with district councilmembers to improve public notification and participation.
• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:29 PM. The motion made by Councilmember Pritchett (seconded by Councilmember Rowell) passed 7-0.