Planning commission fails to approve Greystar warehouse permit after residents raise traffic, noise and community‑benefit concerns

Greystar asked the East Point Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday to recommend a special‑use permit and a variance to allow two warehouse/distribution buildings on a 21‑acre parcel listed on tax records as 0 Welcome Mall Road.

The applicant, John Hobart of Greystar, told commissioners the site is already graded and surrounded by industrial uses and that the planned buildings — two structures totaling about 219,090 square feet — are smaller than some nearby warehouses. “This project is surrounded entirely by other similar developments and is not the closest of its type to any residential home in the area,” Hobart said, adding the company expects the redevelopment to increase annual tax revenue substantially compared with the current vacant parcel.

Staff, however, recommended denial. Director Smith said the application raised “uncertainties about detailed traffic study information, potential environmental justice impacts, such as lights and noise, tractor‑trailer traffic, air quality, and water” for nearby residential neighborhoods. Smith read a list of conditions that staff said could make approval possible if the commission chose to recommend it, including a traffic study, sidewalks and ADA ramps along the full frontage, driveway radii and spacing, and adherence to the warehouse‑industrial district development procedures and a community benefits approach.

Residents and neighborhood speakers urged denial. Tom Wardlow, who said he lives at 1301 Mercer, told commissioners he previously opposed the project at a City Council meeting and said residents “do not want this” because of existing truck traffic and its impacts. Mary Terry said she was “not for it” and urged commissioners not to “let them come and destroy a neighborhood that have been there for years.” Andrea Caldwell, who described herself as living about a mile and a half from the site, asked whether Greystar would negotiate a community benefit agreement and called for proactive mitigation funds for road repairs, soundproofing and other neighborhood needs.

The applicant responded that the parcel was pregraded for industrial use and that no blasting was required. Hobart said the company had not received earlier requests for a community benefit agreement but was open to discussing contributions in other parts of the city. “If it is not granted a special use permit, it will most likely never be developed into anything else,” he said, calling the site unsuited to residential redevelopment.

After discussion, a motion to recommend approval with the conditions read into the record failed on a roll call. Recorded votes on the motion show three commissioners voting to approve with conditions and five voting to deny; the motion therefore failed. Director Smith said the item “failed” and that it will move forward to City Council.

The commission’s decision does not itself grant or deny permits; it forwards a recommendation (or lack of one) to City Council for final action. The record includes staff’s list of conditions the commission could have required if it had chosen to recommend approval, including a traffic study, full‑frontage sidewalks and ADA crossings, driveway spacing and driveway radii, and consideration of a community benefits agreement under the warehouse‑industrial district procedures.

The project drew sustained public comment on truck traffic, noise and whether the city should require a community benefit agreement. The commission did not adopt staff’s recommended approval conditions tonight and will forward the matter to City Council for final consideration.