Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
South Fulton zoning board defers developer’s appeal over denied Sandtown plat
Loading...
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals heard arguments from developer counsel and city attorneys over whether a staff denial of a land-disturbance/plat submission was arbitrary or based on an erroneous reading of a 2001 site plan; after public comment and extensive questioning, the board deferred the case to Jan. 15, 2026 for further review.
The City of South Fulton Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 18, 2025 deferred a decision on an appeal by developer Cortera over a planning denial tied to the Emblem at Sandtown project, giving the board 60 days to collect questions and evidence and return on Jan. 15, 2026.
Attorney Hakeem Hilliard, representing Cortera, told the board the company relied on a July 3, 2024 written confirmation from the city’s planning director that the 2001 zoning allowed up to 200 additional multifamily units in the northwest portion of the subject property. Hilliard said the developer followed staff direction through more than a year of reviews and that "the status was flipped from approved to denied" in the city portal without written findings or direct notice. He said Cortera "invested roughly $900,000" in planning and pursuit costs and asked the board to reverse the administrative action as arbitrary and unlawful.
City counsel Paul Mitchell told the board the question before members is narrow and legal: whether the administrative official’s action on Sept. 3, 2025, was based on an erroneous finding of material fact or was arbitrary, as required by the city code. Mitchell urged the board to "affirm the actions taken by the city" if those legal thresholds are not met, and repeatedly emphasized that no final land-disturbance permit had been issued to Cortera.
The dispute centers on how to read a 2001 site plan for the master development (zoning case Z0079) and a 2004 modification. The city’s position is that Pod F—where Cortera proposes 200 units—was adopted with a mixed-use/site-plan expectation that includes community services, commercial components and residential components ("loft apartments, townhomes and an assisted-living facility"). In the city’s view, Cortera’s most recent submission does not satisfy that pod-specific mix and so staff acted within its discretion to pause the permit process.
Cortera’s attorneys countered that the 2001 plan was "conceptual only," not site-plan-specific, and that staff repeatedly reviewed and accepted the developer’s plans during pre-conceptual and pre-development meetings. Ray Crocker, Cortera’s Southeast managing director, testified the team met with city staff multiple times, was directed toward consent-agenda readiness, and found their permit files moving through the city’s review portal before the change to a disapproved status.
Public commenters who live in nearby Sandtown urged the board to deny the appeal. Browning Jackson said the proposal "does not align with the existing neighborhood character" and that residents "do not want any more apartments." Donald Barnes, homeowners association president for Sandtown Center, said he spoke for about 323 homes that opposed additional rental units adjacent to their community.
Board members spent more than an hour asking detailed procedural and land-use questions of both sides: when the applicant had been told to rezone if it intended to deviate from the 2001 concept, what elements of the Pod F mix remained undeveloped, whether any prior approvals in the portal created vested rights, and whether the 2004 modification altered the legal obligations for Pod F.
The board voted to accept documentary submissions from both parties into the record and, citing the volume and complexity of evidence and competing legal interpretations, moved to defer the case for additional review. Dr. Blackshear moved to defer and the motion carried; the board set Jan. 15, 2026 as the date to reconvene for follow-up questions and a possible decision.
Next procedural steps: the board instructed members to assemble questions and submit them to counsel and staff so answers can be provided in public at the Jan. 15 meeting. The board noted that because this is a quasi‑judicial matter the decision must be made on the official record and that any further written material should be added formally to the file so it remains part of the appeal record.
The Zoning Board of Appeals did not rule on the merits at the Dec. 18 hearing; the matter will return to the board in January.
