In February, a Fulton County judge sent the Merrill Park rezoning back to the City with instructions: hold a hearing that complies with Georgia’s Zoning Procedures Law, then exercise its legislative discretion as its zoning code and comprehensive plan require. Residents allege the City didn’t follow those instructions, and they’re asking the court to send it back.
City’s motion to dismiss denied: September 9, 2026 · Next: mediation deadline, November 15, 2026
On April 9, 2026, after a single public hearing, the Chattahoochee Hills City Council voted 3–2 to rezone about 526 acres near South Fulton Parkway and Cochran Mill Road for the Merrill Park development. The land had been zoned Rural (RL), allowing 52 homes. The approval changed it to Village (VL), for roughly 2,000 homes and 2.5 million square feet of commercial and office space.
That vote came on remand from a court order. The City had unanimously denied the rezoning in 2024, the developer sued, and the parties negotiated terms in mediation. In February 2026 the court returned the matter to the City, with the City’s consent, and spelled out the steps it had to follow.
A group of residents, representing themselves, then petitioned the Fulton County Superior Court. Their amended petition states that their concerns are not offered to challenge “the policy merits of the Merrill project.” The question is whether the City followed the law, its own code, and the court’s order on the way to its decision.
The residents are asking the court to vacate the April 9 approval and send it back for a properly noticed, fully transparent, legally compliant public process.
Order of Remand, WHM Chattahoochee Hills Investments, LLC v. City of Chattahoochee Hills, Fulton County Superior Court No. 24CV013879, February 23, 2026. On remand, the City shall:
The order returned the decision to the City. It did not require the City to approve the developer’s proposal, and it did not make the process optional.
At the April 9 meeting, just before the public hearing opened, the City Attorney described the order to Council. From the approved minutes:
“the Court ordered that one public hearing take place prior to the Council vote.”
“We do not have the liberty or option of having a second public hearing, such as a public hearing before the Planning Commission.”
“We do not have the liberty of veering away from the clear instructions of the Court. Doing so could place the City at risk of being in contempt.”
The order itself calls for “a ZPL-compliant public hearing” and leaves the outcome to the City’s “reasonable legislative discretion.” It does not say “one” hearing, and it does not mention a second hearing or contempt. Residents allege this advice wrongly narrowed the public process and constrained Council’s judgment.
O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq. Requires published notice and a public hearing before a zoning decision, under hearing procedures and zoning standards the local government has adopted in advance. The remand order required a hearing that complies with it.
O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq. Allows closed sessions only for limited purposes, and requires the presiding officer to execute an affidavit about the closed session and file it with the official minutes (§ 50-14-4(b)).
The City’s enforceable zoning code. Sections 3-7 through 3-10 set notice and hearing procedures and require the record to be weighed against review standards: infrastructure and transportation impacts, nearby land uses, and conformity with the comprehensive plan.
The 2021 Comprehensive Plan sets the policy framework: preserving rural character, scenic views, and buffers alongside designated village and hamlet development. The remand order directed the City to act as its plan requires.
The approval includes a condition, added “at the request of the City,” that reduces the buffers along a portion of Cochran Mill Road to zero. Residents allege there was no prior public notice, staff report, or Planning Commission review of that change; that the public first learned of it when it was read into the record on April 9; and that the UDC required a separate public hearing for a buffer variance. The City attorney’s April 14 correspondence states the developer did not initiate the concept; it arose in discussions involving City representatives during mediation. The change covers a limited stretch south of South Fulton Parkway; other buffers remain protected.
The minutes show Council went into executive session at 9:05 p.m. and returned at 11:08 p.m., then took up the rezoning. Residents allege the Open Meetings Act affidavit for that session was not fully executed and was not readily available through the meeting record. The missing attachment to the minutes is not, by itself, the alleged violation; the concern is whether the required record is complete.
The petition alleges the City Attorney advised that the remand could be satisfied by a single public meeting and warned that deviating risked contempt, though nothing in the Zoning Procedures Law or the order limits the City to one. The revised plan was never reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and residents allege the public notice “did not adequately describe the materially revised project.” Residents were able to speak at the hearing; their concern is what the public was given to respond to.
The petition alleges the City approved the revised plan although “updated traffic, environmental, infrastructure, and fiscal studies were absent,” the kinds of factors the City’s zoning review standards call for, and questions how the buffer reduction was evaluated under those standards.
The development agreement setting out the transfer of development rights the project relies on had not been executed when Council voted, and four options for obtaining those rights were still under consideration. Residents question how Council and the public could weigh the claimed preservation benefits while those terms were unresolved. At the May 5 meeting the Mayor said, “We have not reached a new agreement yet. That agreement has not been executed, but it must be executed prior to building.”
These are the residents’ allegations, not findings by the court. The September 9, 2026 ruling denying the City’s motion to dismiss allows the case to proceed; it does not decide the merits. Case reference: Kelso et al. v. City of Chattahoochee Hills, Fulton County Superior Court, Civil Action No. 26CV006801.
The City Council denied the request to rezone 526 acres from Rural to Village (Item 23-044). Approved minutes
According to the City attorney’s public update, the developer filed suit after the denial (Fulton County Superior Court No. 24CV013879).
Mediation sessions on December 3, 2025 and January 20, 2026 produced negotiated zoning terms and conditions.
With the City’s consent, the court ordered ZPL-compliant legal ads, a ZPL-compliant public hearing, and a decision within 60 days as required by the City zoning code, comprehensive plan, and Georgia Constitution. Remand order
After the public hearing and a two-hour executive session, Council approved the rezoning 3–2 with conditions, including the zero-foot Cochran Mill Road buffer. Approved minutes
Council approved the written minutes of the April 9 meeting. The Mayor stated the development agreement had not yet been reached or executed, with four options for the needed development rights under consideration.
A group of residents, representing themselves, asked the court to review the April 9 approval.
The first amendment adds allegations about the executive-session affidavit, notice and public review of the Cochran Mill Road buffer change, and the reliability of the public record.
The City asked the court to dismiss the residents’ case.
Residents filed their opposition to the City’s motion to dismiss.
The court set a November 15, 2026 deadline for the parties to complete mediation.
Judge Cox signed the order September 9; it was entered September 11. The court found the service issue had been cured and that O.C.G.A. § 36-66-5.1(d) was not triggered because the City had not certified that a stay would create imminent peril to life or property. The case can proceed. This ruling does not decide the merits. Order denying dismissal
The City asked the court to certify its ruling for immediate review by the Georgia Court of Appeals, arguing the developer should have been named as a party under O.C.G.A. § 36-66-5.1, the same issue the court rejected. That request does not decide the merits either.
The parties must complete mediation by November 15, 2026. Contributions will support the legal fight, including preparation for this stage.
Last updated October 7, 2026.
Residents began this case themselves, without a lawyer. The fundraising effort will help pay for legal counsel and the expenses of asking the court to hold the City to the law.
Save Chatt Hills is a community fundraising effort supporting residents pursuing this case. This website is independent of the City of Chattahoochee Hills.
Contributions help pay for legal counsel and the expenses of pursuing the challenge.