Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Recycling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Point council delays decision on grease-recycling permit at 1577 East Taylor Avenue
Summary
After a public hearing, the East Point City Council left a proposed special-use permit for a grease-recycling storage/processing operation at 1577 East Taylor Avenue to a second reading following extended questions about odors, infrastructure risk and the city’s comprehensive plan.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Recycling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The East Point City Council on June 15 opened, heard and closed a public hearing on a special-use permit and distance variance for 1577 East Taylor Avenue — an application to locate a used‑cooking‑oil recycling center and processing plant at an I2 (heavy industrial) parcel.
Planning staff told the council the application (case P2026U-001-04 and P2026VC-001-04) proposed a recycling center with a concurrent variance to reduce the distance to nearby residences. Planning staff recommended denial, but the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to three conditions: adherence to commercial pre‑treatment water and sewer requirements, submission of an operations plan, and coordination with the city to mitigate any proposed noxious emissions.
Tiffany Solvent and Robert Solvent, the applicants, told the council they operate a used‑cooking‑oil collection company with a processing plant in Griffin and that the East Point site would initially be used for storage and short‑term staging only. “It doesn’t sit on our property no more than 24 hours,” Tiffany Solvent said, describing containers that would be collected by an 18‑wheeler and transported to their Griffin facility. The applicants said they hold a FOG (fat, oil and grease) license issued May 1, 2026, and said they would prioritize hiring East Point residents.
Residents who spoke opposed the permit. Marie Terry, who identified herself as a former restaurant operator, said she was concerned about odors and other neighborhood effects from recycled grease. “If you don’t have that grease trap right with the smell and the odor, I don’t think we need that in the neighborhood area,” Terry said.
Council members pressed staff and applicants on specific safeguards and neighborhood impacts: planning staff cited map buffers and said the nearest residences were roughly 873 feet to the west and about 677 feet to the east; the city’s water resources director described the requirement for an interceptor under the city’s commercial pre‑treatment ordinance to prevent illicit discharge to storm drains; and planning staff emphasized that, while the area is zoned I2 heavy industrial today, the city’s comprehensive plan designates the parcel as part of a town‑center sub‑area envisioned for long‑term change.
Council members also sought clarification about the applicants’ intended operations. The Solvents said the East Point site would serve as a storage hub to reduce long haul times to Griffin; applicants said storage would be the initial activity with processing coming later, and that they would not be collecting in‑ground grease traps or running heating/processing equipment at the East Point location at the outset.
After questions and discussion, council voted to close the public hearing but did not take a final vote on the permit or waive the required second reading. Because no motion to waive the first reading received a second, the item will return to the council for a second reading at a subsequent meeting before the council may vote to approve or deny the permit.
The council’s next procedural step keeps the matter open for further deliberation. Staff recommended the three conditions noted above if council moves toward approval; council members pressed staff to ensure any approval included clear operational controls, monitoring for discharged oils, and enforceable limits on odors and onsite retention time.
If the council takes the item up again, the record will include the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval with staff conditions, the applicants’ statements that storage would be temporary and limited to daily collections, and residents’ opposition citing odor and neighborhood protection concerns.

