Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
South Fulton zoning board stands by Feb. 3 reversal but leaves mixed‑use responsibility unclear
Loading...
Summary
The South Fulton Zoning Board of Appeals voted to stand by its Feb. 3 decision on an appeal by Courterra Development but did not resolve differing city and developer interpretations of Condition B, which references mixed use in Pod F; the developer says the reversal allows its residential plan to proceed, the city says Quaterra must provide the commercial component.
The South Fulton Zoning Board of Appeals voted Thursday to stand by the decision it issued on Feb. 3 in an appeal by Courterra Development, after hearing 15-minute presentations from both the developer's representatives and city attorneys and temporarily recessing for an executive session.
Joe Siegelman, counsel for the appellant Courterra Development, told the board that it had "reversed the city's zoning denial," and that the developer had interpreted that reversal "as a green light to move forward with the project as designed," subject to the board's conditions. Siegelman asked the board to clarify or remove Condition B, which references "mixed use as depicted in Pod F from the original plan," because the city had told the developer the condition required a wholesale redesign.
Ray Crocker, the developer speaking for the parcel Courterra plans to purchase, said the words of Condition B were the source of the dispute and argued that "Condition B doesn't change the zoning" and that the remaining portion of Pod F was already zoned mixed use; he said Courterra is not a commercial developer and had not expected to be required to build the commercial component shown on the original master plan.
Paul Mitchell, speaking on behalf of the city of South Fulton, told the board that while the words of the Feb. 3 decision were clear, the issue was how to interpret their practical effect: whether Quaterra/Courterra must build 200 apartments and also the mixed‑use shown in the original plan, or whether the developer may build the apartments and leave the commercial portion to another party.
Carlos Alexander, assistant city attorney, summarized the city's plain-language reading: "Quaterra is responsible for Condition A and Quaterra was responsible for Condition B," meaning the city understood the developer to be responsible for providing the commercial/mixed‑use as depicted.
After a short executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation, a board member moved that the board stand by its Feb. 3 final decision; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The board then closed public discussion and adjourned the special-call meeting.
The procedural outcome leaves the core interpretive dispute unresolved in the public record: the developer said it interpreted the reversal as authorization to proceed with its residential design and requested either clarification that the condition did not require a redesign or removal of Condition B; the city said it read the plain words to require the developer to provide the commercial mixed‑use shown in Pod F. Siegelman said litigation had been filed to preserve the developer's rights but was currently tabled pending the board's action.
The board did not set out a detailed, public finding on who must build the commercial component; city counsel and the developer acknowledged they may need to pursue further legal steps to resolve the disagreement. The meeting was called to order by the chair, proceeded through the timed presentations, recessed for executive session, then reconvened and voted to uphold the earlier decision.
