The City of Stonecrest Construction Board of Appeals heard testimony on an appeal by Metro Green Recycling LLC over the city’s denial of certificates of occupancy for two buildings, and the board said it will issue a written decision within 30 days.

Metro Green attorneys told the board the company invested millions, completed two buildings in 2021, passed inspections including the fire marshal’s final sign-off, and is entitled to certificates of occupancy. "The buildings are finished. The buildings are up to code. The buildings are appropriate for occupancy, and the certificates of occupancy should have been issued," attorney Rachel Gage said.

City attorneys and staff countered that the property raises unresolved zoning and permit issues. Michael Heuning, representing the city, and Christopher Honeycutt, Stonecrest’s chief building official, said the permit and address records submitted for the requested certificates point to 5152 Snapfinger Woods Drive — an address the city says has no building — while the large metal building and a scale house stand on adjacent Miller Road parcels. "I could not issue a CEO on this property because all the permits and everything that's been addressed is to the 5152 Snap Finger, and there's just not a structure on that address or point," Honeycutt testified.

Joanna Kawi, the city’s redevelopment/planning official, told the board the site is made up of four separate parcels: three zoned M (light industrial) and one zoned OI (office/institutional). Kawi said staff generally requires parcels to be combined when a single business will operate across them and that the OI parcel at 5152 Snapfinger Woods Drive is vacant. She also noted that outdoor crushing equipment visible on aerial imagery would be treated as an accessory structure requiring separate permits. On whether access between parcels was protected, testimony indicated there is a recorded easement protecting access between the parcels.

Metro Green’s attorneys disputed the city’s characterization. Brian Easley said the city issued zoning confirmations and land-disturbance and building permits during 2018–2021, accepted permit fees ("Metro Green paid over $50,000 to the city for 1 of those building permits," Easley said), and that a Court of Appeals decision resolved earlier city claims against Metro Green in the company’s favor. Easley argued the ordinance requirements for issuing a certificate of occupancy had been satisfied and that the city’s new objections are barred or unsupported by the record.

City witnesses pointed to several practical problems that, they said, block issuance: permits tied to an address with no building; structures encroaching across multiple parcels (raising setback and access questions); and an apparent outdoor concrete-crushing operation that, under Stonecrest’s zoning rules, may not be permitted in the M (light industrial) district unless it is wholly within a building or in a different M‑2 (heavy industrial) classification. The city also noted the municipality’s process for verifying zoning prior to issuing land‑disturbance and building permits and said earlier approvals may have included errors or misrepresentations that still must be resolved.

Both sides asked the board to apply the city code and prior rulings. Metro Green urged the board to find that inspections and approvals met the code and to direct issuance of the certificates; the city urged denial or further review because the zoning classification, parcel assembly, addresses on permit records, and accessory equipment remain unresolved. Board Chair Clara DeLay said the panel will take up the evidence and render a decision within 30 days. The hearing was then adjourned.

The appeal centers on code interpretation, property assembly and permit records rather than an immediate operational determination; the board’s upcoming written decision will be the next formal step. The transcript and exhibits cited include zoning confirmation letters (2018), a land‑disturbance permit, building permits and inspection records from 2021, a Court of Appeals ruling referenced by Metro Green, and the city’s 11/13/2024 denial letter. The board did not take an immediate vote to grant or deny the certificates at the hearing.