Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

South Fulton Alcohol License and Zoning Public Hearings Special Meeting - April 15, 2026

City Council & Public Facilities Authority — Wednesday, April 15, 2026

BodySouth Fulton, Georgia

SessionCity Council & Public Facilities Authority

DateWednesday, April 15, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

Meeting Thumbnail

⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim

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

Speaker 1

0:00

District council person is

Sharonda Raming · Speaker 2Inferred

0:01

in support of

Unassigned speaker

0:02

that.

Unassigned speaker

0:02

So

Speaker 3

0:05

can I have just district courtesy?

0:07

Yes,

Speaker 1

0:07

thank you.

Speaker 3

0:09

So originally when the deferral was made, my understanding was that they had not had the hearing.

0:15

They actually had a full hearing on this.

0:22

So they did have a hearing.

0:23

They did not come to a conclusion, so they're going back, so they've actually met the requirements in terms of having a public hearing.

0:33

Now, as it relates to this, this is the hearing that's advertised for us to hear this case, which is why I didn't have objections.

0:42

But again, um the the reason was because they didn't get to a decision.

0:46

It was not that they didn't have a public hearing

Speaker 4

0:49

at the last uh

Speaker 3

0:50

plan of commission meeting.

Speaker 1

0:55

All right, so there is a motion.

0:58

Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize.

Speaker 5

1:01

So I just want to make it clear that um so everything that um councilman Rao just said is absolutely correct.

1:11

But what I want everyone to understand, including on this council, is that you know this is a very controversial and it's been very contentious.

1:21

And um the unfortunate part about that is that our planning commission, you can't just decide to defer something because you can't decide.

1:33

Um in the conversations that I've had with Councilman Rao, there are times that even um staff has come to no recommendation, and even though it's we we have discussed this before, even though it will say deferral on our agenda, and this was something that was discussed, I believe, at that particular hearing, it doesn't mean that it's not coming before us.

1:56

So, you know, what my issue is is I don't like wasting people's time.

2:03

I don't like wasting our time, and I don't like people just kicking the can down the road trying to figure out another stall tactic on this matter, you know, or another way to um less delay and come up with something else and come up with a stumbling block on this matter.

2:19

I've seen it happen.

2:21

Um, and what I'm just saying is in the future, even when we see that it says deferral from the planning commission, it's always the council um the district representatives say prerogative or you know um their pleasure to hear it or not, but in this case, I think that this is a this is a tactic, and this is something that the planning commission

Unassigned speaker

2:48

um

Speaker 5

2:48

that I believe CDRA is trying to work with the planning commission to make sure that they have the proper education so that they don't decide to defer just to delay making a decision because maybe making a decision goes over their heads, or it's something that with the contention and all the pressure, they really just don't feel comfortable making.

3:12

But we have to understand that these are legal proceedings, and we can't play with people's time, and we can't play with maneuvers when it comes to these type of cases.

3:24

So I just want to make sure everybody's cognizant on that, and I'm not disregarding anyone on this council who may not be prepared based on you know what they um their impressions of I mean, but I I here's the thing.

3:39

I don't know who told you that, but you know, there are people from CDR here that can speak to this, and this is an issue, and we have to make sure that we can not wind up in this stumbling block over and over again.

3:53

Um, just because we have to know that even though the planning defer commission says deferral, you got to know why they said it or the fact that the legal requirement has been met, and this case really should go forward.

4:09

But I I've said my piece.

Speaker 1

4:11

Thank you.

4:13

Councilwoman uh Williams Brown

Speaker 6

4:18

Bugging

Unassigned speaker

4:19

Casey

Speaker 1

4:20

Council Case

Speaker 7

4:22

Yes.

4:24

So it seems to me that there's probably there's two issues being conflated together.

4:31

There is the issue of what perhaps what constitutes a hearing, and then

Unassigned speaker

4:42

the

Speaker 7

4:42

planning commission making a decision, I think is what I'm hearing.

Unassigned speaker

4:48

A hearing was held, which technically meets the letter of the law, but a decision was not reached, and they then deferred it for whatever their reasons were, and I I I have my thoughts and my opinions about that.

Speaker 7

5:07

And I I have my thoughts and my opinions about

Unassigned speaker

5:10

that.

Speaker 7

5:13

I think the difficulty is, which brings me back to points that I've made about the planning commission previously.

5:28

We have a staff that's giving a legal opinion.

5:58

And therefore, then making us the bad guy.

6:02

When we go back to the legal opinion of the staff.

6:17

But if something's put on the agenda and it's listed as a deferral, unlike everybody else, if it says it's a deferral and I check and I'm told it's going to be deferred, I'm not reading

Unassigned speaker

6:32

that.

Speaker 7

6:33

Because my expectation is going to come back to me at some point and I can move on to the next

Unassigned speaker

6:41

thing

Speaker 7

6:42

that I may have questions about, like making sure the math is mathy.

6:49

Um I'm not a I'm not necessarily opposed to hearing it if the count if councilman Rao wants to move forward with

Unassigned speaker

7:00

it,

Speaker 7

7:01

but like Councilman Sebastian and Councilman Johnson, I'm wholly unprepared because I was told this was being deferred.

Speaker 1

7:23

It's a motion on the floor, so let's um let's and it was second, so let's uh vote.

7:31

We ending discussion at this point in time.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Procedural█████████████████████████████████████████████63%

Zoning And Land Use██████████████████25%

Community Engagement████5%

Public Safety██3%

Pending Litigation█2%

Cannabis Regulation█1%

Transportation Safety█1%

Summary of Proceedings

South Fulton Alcohol License and Zoning Public Hearings Special Meeting - April 15, 2026

The City of South Fulton held a special meeting on April 15, 2026, for public hearings on alcohol licenses, rezoning applications, and zoning ordinance amendments. The meeting was called to order at 5:21 PM by Mayor Carmalitha Gumbs with a quorum present. The council addressed two contentious deferral requests and held public hearings on a nail salon ownership transfer, a proposed residential development, and an ordinance update for home-based businesses. An executive session was held, and the meeting adjourned at 7:43 PM.

Public Comments & Testimony

Case Z26-002 (Welcome All Road): Applicant Mike Lee spoke in protest of the proposed three-month deferral to July 14, citing significant carrying costs and a lack of notification regarding the deferral. He requested an earlier hearing date.
Case U26-004 (Nail Salon Ownership): John Dang, the applicant, requested a special use permit for the transfer of ownership of an existing nail salon. No members of the public spoke in opposition.
Case Z26-005 (Jonesboro Road Development):
- In Favor: Michelle Macauley (Gaskins+LeCraw) and Sharonda Raming (DR Horton) spoke in support of the project, detailing community engagement resulting in changes like enhanced landscaping, a mix of two-story and single-level homes, and amenity areas. Raming stated the homes are intended to serve entry-level buyers, teachers, and service professionals.
- In Opposition: Community members Alvin Reynolds and Michael Venable argued against the project. Reynolds voiced concerns over insufficient 5-foot setbacks between homes, safety issues, and the project not aligning with the future land use plan. Venable characterized the project as spot zoning and an inequitable densification of their district compared to others in the city.
Case T26-002 (Home-Based Businesses): Alvin Reynolds spoke in favor of the text amendment, stating it would help alleviate struggles in communities and provide clear support for residents.

Discussion Items

Case Z26-007 (Wallace Road Deferral): A significant procedural debate occurred regarding whether to hear this case or defer it to April 28. Councilmember Keosha B. Bell criticized the Planning Commission for deferring without a decision, calling it a "stall tactic" and a waste of time. A motion to hear the case immediately failed (2-4), with Councilmembers Rowell and Pritchett in favor, and Johnson, Sebastian, Bell, and Williams-Brown opposed. The council ultimately agreed to defer the case to the April 28, 2026 hearing by unanimous consent.
Case Z26-002 (Welcome All Road Deferral): The agenda recommended a deferral to July 14, 2026, due to the vacant District 3 council seat. Following Mike Lee's comments and council deliberation, a split emerged between wanting to wait for the new councilmember and a desire to be business-friendly. A compromise was reached to defer the case to May 12, 2026, allowing the applicant an earlier hearing date. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Case Z26-005 / CDP26-002 (Jonesboro Road Zoning): The council held a public hearing on the request to rezone 13.83 acres from AG-1 to CUP and amend the land use plan from Suburban II to Suburban I. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial. CDRA Managing Director Reggie McClendon explained the denial was based on the future vision for the corridor, which seeks higher density mixed-use development, and a new heightened scrutiny of CUP applications. Councilmembers questioned the density, noted setbacks (minimum 5 feet in the plan), and the legal weight of the pending comprehensive plan.
Case T26-002 (Home Occupation Ordinance): Staff presented a text amendment to repeal and replace existing home occupation regulations. Key changes include allowing non-residents to operate businesses at a home, clarifying vehicle and parking regulations, adding specific prohibited uses (e.g., auto repair, restaurants), and expanding home occupations to the AG-1 and MIX zoning districts.

Key Outcomes

Z26-007 (Wallace Road): Deferred to the April 28, 2026 Zoning Public Hearing. Motion to hear the case immediately failed (Yea: 2 [Rowell, Pritchett]; Nay: 4 [Johnson, Sebastian, Bell, Williams-Brown]).
Z26-002 (Welcome All Road): Deferred to May 12, 2026 (motion passed 6-0). (Note: The agenda specified a deferral to July 14, 2026, however, the council approved a deferral to May 12, 2026 following discussion with the applicant.)
U26-004 (Nail Salon), Z26-005 (Jonesboro Road), T26-002 (Home-Based Businesses): Public hearings were closed. These items are scheduled for final votes at the April 28, 2026 Zoning Public Hearing.
Proclamation: A proclamation was presented honoring Ms. Joan J. Robinson for her 80th birthday and extensive community service.
Executive Session: The council recessed into executive session at 6:34 PM to discuss litigation, personnel, cybersecurity, and real estate. They reconvened at 7:42 PM. The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 PM.

Meeting Transcript

District council person is in support of that. So can I have just district courtesy? Yes, thank you. So originally when the deferral was made, my understanding was that they had not had the hearing. They actually had a full hearing on this. So they did have a hearing. They did not come to a conclusion, so they're going back, so they've actually met the requirements in terms of having a public hearing. Now, as it relates to this, this is the hearing that's advertised for us to hear this case, which is why I didn't have objections. But again, um the the reason was because they didn't get to a decision. It was not that they didn't have a public hearing at the last uh plan of commission meeting. All right, so there is a motion. Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize. So I just want to make it clear that um so everything that um councilman Rao just said is absolutely correct. But what I want everyone to understand, including on this council, is that you know this is a very controversial and it's been very contentious. And um the unfortunate part about that is that our planning commission, you can't just decide to defer something because you can't decide. Um in the conversations that I've had with Councilman Rao, there are times that even um staff has come to no recommendation, and even though it's we we have discussed this before, even though it will say deferral on our agenda, and this was something that was discussed, I believe, at that particular hearing, it doesn't mean that it's not coming before us. So, you know, what my issue is is I don't like wasting people's time. I don't like wasting our time, and I don't like people just kicking the can down the road trying to figure out another stall tactic on this matter, you know, or another way to um less delay and come up with something else and come up with a stumbling block on this matter. I've seen it happen. Um, and what I'm just saying is in the future, even when we see that it says deferral from the planning commission, it's always the council um the district representatives say prerogative or you know um their pleasure to hear it or not, but in this case, I think that this is a this is a tactic, and this is something that the planning commission um that I believe CDRA is trying to work with the planning commission to make sure that they have the proper education so that they don't decide to defer just to delay making a decision because maybe making a decision goes over their heads, or it's something that with the contention and all the pressure, they really just don't feel comfortable making. But we have to understand that these are legal proceedings, and we can't play with people's time, and we can't play with maneuvers when it comes to these type of cases. So I just want to make sure everybody's cognizant on that, and I'm not disregarding anyone on this council who may not be prepared based on you know what they um their impressions of I mean, but I I here's the thing. I don't know who told you that, but you know, there are people from CDR here that can speak to this, and this is an issue, and we have to make sure that we can not wind up in this stumbling block over and over again. Um, just because we have to know that even though the planning defer commission says deferral, you got to know why they said it or the fact that the legal requirement has been met, and this case really should go forward. But I I've said my piece. Thank you. Councilwoman uh Williams Brown Bugging Casey Council Case Yes. So it seems to me that there's probably there's two issues being conflated together. There is the issue of what perhaps what constitutes a hearing, and then the planning commission making a decision, I think is what I'm hearing. A hearing was held, which technically meets the letter of the law, but a decision was not reached, and they then deferred it for whatever their reasons were, and I I I have my thoughts and my opinions about that. And I I have my thoughts and my opinions about that. I think the difficulty is, which brings me back to points that I've made about the planning commission previously. We have a staff that's giving a legal opinion. And therefore, then making us the bad guy. When we go back to the legal opinion of the staff.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com