East Point residents press council over recent warehouse approvals, cite health and property concerns

Residents from multiple neighborhoods used the council’s public-comment period May 5 to urge the East Point City Council to reverse or limit recent approvals of warehouse development in Ward D and other parts of the city.

The speakers said warehouses and related industrial uses reduce property values, increase traffic and noise, and do not bring meaningful benefits to nearby neighborhoods. Several called out a vote in April that they said approved a warehouse project despite resident opposition and a proposed community benefit being removed.

“Why do you, those who voted for the warehouses, consider the residents unworthy of development that’s beneficial to the community?” Lakeside Preserve resident Barbara Jackson asked the council. Sonia Lowe of Heritage said the warehouse vote was “not in the best interest of the residents” and noted ongoing disruption around a recently built Microsoft site. Andrea Caldwell of Savannah Walk said she had repeatedly attended zoning and planning meetings and left feeling “sad” because residents’ concerns were heard and then dismissed. Miriam Taylor and Anthony Douglas also spoke from Lakeside and Ward D, saying the council’s decisions turned neighborhoods into a “dumping ground.”

Council members responded during the council-comments portion. Council member Butler explained that the council’s hands were limited by the city’s quasi‑judicial processes and existing zoning rules. Butler read from an ordinance that controls special‑use permit procedures and stressed that decisions must be unbiased and follow due process.

Council member McCommen (speaking from the dais) and others described the legal and historical context: the city’s Light Industrial zoning (I‑1) allows warehouses subject to a special‑use permit, and the council must weigh applications under those criteria. Council members pointed to an ordinance adopted after prior controversies requiring new industrial uses be at least 5,280 feet — one mile — from residential property; the recent application sought exceptions to those standards.

Speakers and some council members discussed the removal of a proposed “community benefit” during the prior deliberations. Andrea Caldwell said Greystar (the developer) had indicated willingness to fund a facility the community could use, but “six of you all voted no,” she said, referring to the April vote. Multiple residents emphasized they wanted alternatives for the site — such as retail, recreation or other developments — rather than warehouses that they see as harmful to long‑term neighborhood health.

Council members acknowledged residents’ frustration and described structural limits on what the council could legally require or deny. Butler and others said some elements of the site are preexisting industrial land that became adjacent to residential after annexations and historical rezoning decisions.

The council did not take a new vote on warehouse zoning or use at the May 5 meeting. Several residents said they will press the issue in upcoming elections and future hearings.

The discussion closed with council members urging continued civic engagement and noting legal constraints on retroactive changes to zoning or permitting.