South Fulton proposes new rules making it easier to site gas stations; residents push back

City staff on Feb. 2 presented a council-sponsored text amendment that would change how South Fulton regulates gas stations and convenience stores, drawing hours of public comment from residents who said the proposal was rushed and would harm neighborhood health and safety.

Reginald McClendon, managing director of Community Development and Regulatory Affairs, told a community zoning information meeting that the draft amendment (TA 26-001) would delete existing language in Section 302.15 of the zoning code and replace it with new rules placed in Chapter 7 of Title 12 (the business-license code). McClendon said the central change is to shorten the minimum separation between gas stations from three miles to 1.5 miles, while maintaining a 1,000-foot buffer from residential uses. "The new requirement that is being proposed for gas stations is that gas stations ... be no closer than a mile and a half," McClendon said.

McClendon said the draft is a "living document" and that stations that want to locate within 1.5 miles of another station or within 1,000 feet of residential uses would still be possible only by seeking a special-use permit. Those special-use applications would have to include a more extensive submission package, McClendon said, including an independent environmental impact study, a 35-foot tree buffer adjacent to immediately adjoining residential parcels, a lighting placement plan, paving standards, signage, external cameras, and a five-year compliance window for existing stations to meet the new requirements.

Residents filled the meeting room and raised objections across several themes. Adena Lofton, who identified herself as a District 2 resident, said she opposed rolling back the three-mile rule and urged the city to stick to published dates for public hearings. "We wanna stick to the 3 mile rule," Lofton said. Several speakers framed the change as a transparency problem and said the printed calendar and online postings showed different hearing dates. Residents also raised environmental and public-health fears: Sylvia Mohammed, a 20-year resident, said the amendment would put well water and children’s health at risk and urged officials to keep protections in place.

Other commenters described broader community impacts. Penny Webster Lewis, who said she lives in District 2, argued the amendment would "basically nullify" protections in Ordinance 2021-003 by allowing stations near homes through the special-use process. Multiple speakers asked the city to require developer contributions for brownfield remediation, to increase buffers around schools and daycares, and to require operating-hour limits and lighting-cutoff standards to reduce nighttime impacts.

City staff stressed the procedural steps that follow the informational meeting. McClendon reiterated that the CZIM is not a formal public hearing and that TA 26-001 will be presented to the Planning Commission at its Feb. 18 meeting (Welcome Mall Park) and to the mayor and council at a Feb. 24 hearing at City Hall, both of which will include time-limited opportunities for formal public comment.

The item remains a proposal. Staff said the draft will be revised, vetted by the law department and republished before the Planning Commission hears the case. Residents who oppose the change said they plan to organize for the two formal hearings and pursue legal review if the city does not address their concerns.

What happens next: TA 26-001 proceeds to the Planning Commission hearing on Feb. 18 and then to mayor and council on Feb. 24. The city’s CDRA staff said a completed, law-vetted ordinance text will be posted before those hearings.