Neighbors support Dove Drive community produce farm; staff recommends denial while planning commission favors conditional approval

The council held a public hearing on Sept. 17 for an application to rezone 3.41 acres at 1880–1860 Dove Drive from R‑3 to AG‑1 and to amend the future land‑use designation to agriculture neighborhood. Staff recommended denial, citing the area’s residential platting and the long‑standing R‑3 zoning record; the planning commission recommended conditional approval that would require consolidation of lots to meet AG‑1 minimum acreage.

Applicant counsel Greg Hecht said the Oceans have invested in infrastructure and planting and that the farm now supplies produce and educational programming. He presented receipts and an expense summary — including a cited $65,000 of 2024 expenditures — and argued the city had previously issued an occupational tax (business) certificate that led the family to rely on city representations. He asked the council to avoid a constitutional‑taking claim and to recognize the farm’s community benefits. "We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars," Hecht said, describing the property as a "residential farm concept" with permaculture methods.

Neighbors including Lee (applicant), Demarcus Cummings, Sandra Standridge, Gilbert Ellis and Barbara Gilbert spoke in support, describing on‑site farming activity, deliveries of produce to seniors and a neighborhood preference for fresh food instead of more liquor or convenience stores. The applicant said they hosted community meetings (mailed roughly 1,500 flyers) and provided sign‑in sheets; the record includes those outreach materials.

Planning staff, represented by Reggie McClendon, said the property has been zoned R‑3 since Fulton County zoning records and that several nearby properties are R‑3 because the area had been platted for residential use. McClendon acknowledged the city’s issuance of a business license earlier and said that practice was later changed; staff offered to renew a license in 2024 but the applicants chose not to pursue that option.

Council discussion centered on neighborhood character, the city’s comprehensive plan and whether an areawide land‑use review might be appropriate given multiple residents’ accounts of agricultural uses on nearby lots. Councilmember Catherine Rao asked staff whether the properties are subdivided residential lots or historically agricultural; McClendon said they were platted residential. Councilmembers said they would seek additional input from nearby residents and noted the city’s upcoming review of the future land‑use map.

Decision and next steps: The item was presented as a public hearing and appears in the record as a first‑read rezoning ordinance (KZ25‑00x) on Sept. 17; planning commission approval with conditions and staff denial are both on record. Council did not adopt a final ordinance at the Sept. 17 meeting; members requested further follow‑up and district‑level engagement before final action.

Ending: Supporters urged the city to treat small‑scale community farms as a local asset and to coordinate with county and regional partners on senior food access programs; staff reiterated the zoning technicalities and noted options for future land‑use updates.

(Reporting note: article draws only on testimony and staff statements recorded in the Sept. 17 transcript.)