Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Business License Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stonecrest ZBA defers appeal over floodplain parking restriction after competing engineering and notice claims
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals deferred deciding an appeal by the owner of a Lithonia Industrial Boulevard property who sought to remove staff conditions barring parking/storage in mapped floodplain areas; the board asked staff and the applicant for more documentation and will decide within 60 days.
The City of Stonecrest Zoning Board of Appeals on Oct. 21 deferred a decision on an administrative appeal by the owner of a Lithonia Industrial Boulevard property seeking to remove staff‑imposed conditions that bar parking or outdoor storage in mapped floodplain areas. The board voted to defer the matter for up to 60 days to allow staff and the applicant to provide additional documentation.
The appeal stems from staff placing a condition on a business license application that would prohibit parking or storage of equipment within the parcel’s floodplain. Deputy Director (name not provided) told the board staff recommended upholding the condition under the city’s floodplain management ordinance (referred to in the record as section 14‑4‑440), citing the city engineer’s authority and the need to protect sensitive waterways.
Henry Bailey, counsel for the applicant, said the property has been used for equipment rental and outdoor storage for decades and that the owner provided a NO RISE (no‑rise) study that was submitted on 07/29/2024 and — he said — approved on 10/04/2024. Bailey argued the study specifically analyzed the southern portion of the property that the owner wants to use and that denying full site use after that approval has caused substantial harm: "our damages exceed almost $3,000,000," Bailey said. He asked the board to reverse the condition so the tenant could operate.
City staff and the city attorney described a separate review path for business licenses and land‑disturbance permits and said the city’s engineer requested additional evaluation because the previously submitted NO RISE study may not have been prepared to evaluate the storage use the owner now proposes. Staff said there were multiple verbal conversations earlier with code enforcement about outdoor storage on the parcel and that documentation of prior enforcement and specific notes can be located in the city’s citizen survey portal.
Board members pressed both sides for written records of prior violation notices, clearer linkage between the NO RISE study and the requested storage use, and the timeline between the signed lease and approval of the business license. Given outstanding questions about what the NO RISE study analyzed and whether documented notices exist, one member moved to defer the appeal; the motion was seconded and carried. The board may render a decision in open session before the 60‑day statutory deadline.
The record shows the principal unresolved items are: (1) whether the NO RISE study explicitly evaluated the proposed storage use in the southern parcel area; (2) whether the owner or tenant received formal written violation notices before the current application; and (3) whether any engineer’s written clarifications or supplemental studies requested by the city have been completed. The ZBA asked staff to collect and provide any written enforcement records and to clarify what additional engineering analysis (if any) the city needs before the board issues a final ruling.
