The City of South Fulton Planning Commission recommended approval June 18 of a rezoning and special‑use permit that would allow a self‑storage facility and on‑site retail at a parcel on Fulton Industrial Boulevard.

Planning staff had revised its recommendation to approve with conditions. The commission’s motion, adopted after discussion with the applicant and staff, includes three written conditions: (1) the property must be subdivided and “developed substantially in accordance with the proposed site plan” submitted to the Department of Community Development and Regulatory Affairs on May 29, 2025; (2) any curb cut proposed onto Fulton Industrial Boulevard must be approved by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) before a land‑disturbance permit may be issued; and (3) proposed retail and restaurant uses must be constructed prior to, or contemporaneous with, the self‑storage building, and no building permit or certificate of occupancy for the storage facility shall be granted prior to issuance of permits and COs for the retail/restaurant uses.

Developer Brady McDonald told commissioners the project team had returned to the community and that community outreach indicated support; he described possible alternatives to the third condition offered to staff, including performance escrows, recorded use covenants, and recorded agreements to align finish quality across the three parcels. Reginald McClendon, managing director of Community Development and Regulatory Affairs, told the commission staff had reviewed the applicant response but remained “recommending those conditions.”

Commissioners voted first on staff’s findings of fact and then on the rezoning and special‑use permit. The commission approved the findings of fact and later approved both the rezoning (Z25‑001) and the special‑use permit (U25‑002) with the conditions listed above. The recommendations will be forwarded to mayor and council for final action at the July meeting listed on the record.

Why it matters: the conditions bind development sequencing and require GDOT signoff for access from a state‑owned arterial, limiting when the storage can be built and ensuring retail appears on site in tandem. That sequencing was the principal point of debate between commissioners, staff, and the developer.