South Fulton launches five-year comprehensive plan update; planning commission weighs several rezonings and tightens public‑participation rules

The South Fulton Planning Commission on Wednesday began the city'025 comprehensive-plan update and approved changes to how developers must notify and engage the public on zoning cases.

The meeting, held in the newly renovated city hall at 5440 Fulton Industrial Boulevard, opened with staff presentations on the comprehensive-plan timeline and community outreach, followed by public comments and a series of contested rezoning cases. The commission also voted to recommend amendments to the city—ode that will require developers to give earlier notice, hold in-person (or hybrid) meetings and provide records of those meetings to city staff.

The comprehensive-plan presentation: why it matters

Randy Gibbs of the Sizemore Group told the commission the update is required by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs for the city to maintain "qualified local government" status, which in turn supports grant eligibility through the Atlanta Regional Commission and the state. Gibbs said the update will include a parcel‑by‑parcel review of future land use, a report of accomplishments for the 2021 plan, and a new five‑year community work program with an implementation matrix showing responsible parties and high‑level cost estimates.

Gibbs said the consultant team aims to produce a draft by the end of June and a final package for ARC and the Department of Community Affairs by the end of October. He described a three‑phase public outreach schedule with listening sessions beginning Feb. 18 and Feb. 24, district workshops in early April and final recommendation hearings in late spring and summer, and said the project will include pop‑ups, a bus tour and an online engagement portal.

Reginald McClendon, director of Community Development and Regulatory Affairs, told the commission that a project website will be the central repository for materials, meeting recordings and public comments, and that staff will build a persistent distribution list pulled from existing contacts as part of the city—ffort to keep engagement materials available over time.

Public input and common concerns

During the public‑comment segment, residents raised consistent requests for clearer, earlier notices and for a range of meeting formats so older residents and those without internet access can participate. Multiple speakers asked that meeting notices be mailed with sufficient lead time, that in‑person and smaller neighborhood meetings be used in addition to online tools, and that the city publish all public comments and engagement results on the project website so residents can track how input is reflected in the plan.

Several speakers also urged that optional plan elements such as disaster preparedness, environmental resilience and green‑space protections be treated as priorities rather than extras, and that the planning process provide explicit channels for neighborhoods to propose parcel‑level changes (for example, preservation of agricultural land or new parks).

Votes at a glance (actions recorded in the Jan. 15 meeting)

- Approval of minutes (past 4 meetings): Approved by roll call. - KC24‑012 (SECC Land / 0 Hamilton Road): Applicant requested another deferral. The commission voted to defer the application to the February meeting (deferral recorded). Note: staff indicated the applicant had previously requested multiple deferrals and the commission discussed changed deferral policy; the transcript shows the commission ultimately voted to defer this item. - KC24‑025 (KMT Partners / 0 Roseville Highway): Applicant asked to rezone AG‑1 to M‑1 for a ~195,000 sq. ft. light industrial building. Staff recommended approval; the case was contested at the hearing. The transcript records a formal motion to deny that passed by roll call (ayes 3, nays 2). (Vote tally recorded from the transcript: Aye — Commissioner Raven Jones, Commissioner Gregory Bailey, Commissioner Devon; Nay — Commissioner Keith Perry, Commissioner Yvonne Boone.) - Z24‑027 (Solihan Real Properties / 380 Paxton Road): Applicant revised a proposed community unit plan from 47 to 42 single‑family detached homes after neighborhood negotiations. The commission voted to approve the rezoning with the neighborhood conditions reflected in the staff packet (approval recorded by roll call). - Z24‑029 (CHIPT Atlanta / 36100 Buffington Center Place): Request to rezone from O‑I to M‑1 for an ~80,000 sq. ft. light industrial building. The commission recorded a motion to deny; the motion carried by roll call (ayes 3, nays 2) and the denial was entered in the record as the commission ction. - Z24‑032 (WB Companies / 7995 Spence Road, "Atlas Green"): Applicant asked to rezone AG‑1 to a mixed‑use/residential zone for an 842‑unit apartment project and requested four concurrent variances (parking ratio, EV spaces, reduced buffers and parking‑island spacing). The commission voted to deny the application (denial recorded by roll call). - TA25‑001 (text amendment — public participation requirements): Staff proposed changes requiring developers to include meeting time/date/location in their public‑participation plan and to mail notice at least 30 days before a public meeting; staff also proposed that meetings be in‑person rather than purely virtual. The commission approved a recommendation to adopt the amendment and added recommendations: lengthen mailed notice from 30 to 45 days, expand the mailing/notification radius for affected property owners (the commission discussed increasing notice beyond the current 1‑mile radius), require the applicant to hold in‑person or hybrid meetings (in‑person plus virtual) and require recording or minutes be uploaded to city staff/the project website. The commission vote to forward the amendment with those recommendations passed.

What commissioners and staff said

- Reginald McClendon (Managing Director, Community Development & Regulatory Affairs) said the department is fully staffed for the first time in recent memory and that a targeted training program from the Carl Vinson Institute of Government is planned for late February/early March. - Randy Gibbs (Sizemore Group, comp‑plan consultant) emphasized the legal and fiscal importance of maintaining a state‑approved comp plan, noted the update will be parcel‑by‑parcel, and walked through the consultant eliverables and outreach schedule. - Multiple commissioners and residents urged that the city preserve agricultural areas and woodland buffers where neighborhoods requested protection, and that outreach be accessible to residents who do not use online tools.

Nut graf

The Jan. 15 meeting established the schedule and neighborhood engagement framework for South Fulton'025 comp‑plan update — a required five‑year review tied to state grant eligibility — and set new expectations for earlier and broader public notice on rezonings and major developments. While staff and the consultant framed the process and timeline, several rezoning applications drew opposition from residents who said proposed industrial or large residential projects threaten buffers, traffic capacity and air quality in neighborhoods near industrial corridors.

Background and next steps

- The comprehensive‑plan update replaces the 2021 plan and will include a report of accomplishments, a new future‑land‑use map with parcel‑level designations, and an implementation matrix with high‑level cost estimates and an action timeline. - Public listening sessions are scheduled to begin Feb. 18 and Feb. 24 (district locations listed in the consultant—riefing); Phase 2 workshops are proposed for April 1, 3 and 10; consultants plan to provide a draft by the end of June and final submittal to ARC and the Georgia Department of Community Affairs by the end of October. - The commission recommended the text amendment on public participation be forwarded to City Council with additional recommendations, including a longer mailed‑notice window and hybrid meeting requirements; staff said the city will host a project website to maintain documents and recordings and will include public‑participation materials in the staff packet for future hearings.

Ending

The commission moved quickly through a heavy agenda and scheduled some contentious rezoning items for additional review or appeal to the council; several applicants changed proposals after direct neighborhood negotiations. The planning department and consultant told commissioners they will return with draft comp‑plan materials and a public‑engagement calendar as promised, and asked residents who spoke to complete comment cards so staff can track individual submissions and append them to the comp plan record.

Speakers quoted in this article are from the meeting record. Transcript excerpts and roll‑call tallies are summarized above; exact verbatim quotes and roll‑call lines are available in the meeting transcript and the city packet.