Manchester, GA – The Manchester City Council work session on August 27, 2025, centered on a controversial special use application for 129 W. Main Street. The request sought approval for a detached kitchen structure to support a new restaurant at the site. After extensive debate involving council members, city staff, and the property representatives, the application was ultimately denied.

The Proposal

The property owners, represented by Suzanne and David Pingalley, petitioned the city for permission to construct a prefabricated detached kitchen behind the building. They argued that installing a full commercial kitchen inside the property would be cost-prohibitive, estimating an expense of $150,000–$200,000 compared to approximately $60,000 for the detached unit.

According to the Pingalleys, the proposed structure would be permanently tied to city utilities, equipped with its own grease trap, and custom-built for the site. They stressed that it would not operate as a mobile food truck but rather as a stationary kitchen serving the restaurant.

Council Concerns

Council members raised several legal and regulatory issues during questioning. Mayor and council noted that under Georgia Department of Public Health regulations, detached trailers and similar units are classified as “mobile food units.” State law requires such units to operate from a licensed base kitchen, which the applicants did not have in place.

Councilman discussions also highlighted local zoning definitions. Special use permits in Manchester’s commercial district typically allow for facilities such as nursing homes, daycares, or residential uses—but not detached kitchens. To authorize such a use, the city would need to pursue a lengthy zoning text amendment, potentially taking 7–9 months.

Council members also expressed frustration that the prospective restaurant operators themselves were not present to present their case, leaving questions about long-term commitment and responsibility unanswered.

Debate Over Solutions

Despite these concerns, the council made clear they want to see a restaurant succeed at the Main Street location. Several members suggested that a permanent addition or interior kitchen—rather than a detached unit—could satisfy both state law and local zoning requirements.

Some discussion also focused on financing options. The Downtown Development Authority’s 3% loan program was mentioned as a potential resource to help offset the high cost of installing a compliant indoor kitchen.

The Decision

After lengthy deliberation, the council voted on the motion to approve the special use request for the detached kitchen. The measure failed, with members citing state health regulations and zoning conflicts as the primary reasons.

While the denial prevents the detached kitchen from moving forward, the council emphasized their willingness to work with the applicants to find a legal path forward. Options such as constructing a permanent addition or pursuing available development loans remain on the table.

The session closed with acknowledgment of the economic importance of bringing new restaurants to downtown Manchester. As one council member summarized, “We want a restaurant in town, but we want it done right.”

Council member Danny Wadsworth was the lone vote for the restaurant.

*****************************************************************************

Summary of Public Hearing – August 27, 2025 (City of Manchester)

A public hearing was held regarding a special use variance request for the property at 129 W. Main Street, Manchester, GA. The owners, David and Suzanne Pengelly, applied for permission to install a detached, covered kitchen behind their building to support a new restaurant tenant.

• Planning & Zoning Board Decision:
  The board previously denied the request, citing conflicts with zoning ordinances and past precedent. The city’s building inspector, Will Hart, explained that granting approval would require exceptions in four areas:
  1. Allowing a mobile food trailer in a zone where it is not permitted.
  2. Operating outside the city’s food trailer ordinance.
  3. Overriding the Planning & Zoning Board’s denial.
  4. Reversing a prior denial for a similar request involving a cigar bar.
• Owners’ Position (David & Suzanne Pengelly):
  • They emphasized their efforts to save and restore historic downtown buildings, including 129 W. Main Street.
  • This would be their third attempt to secure a restaurant tenant.
  • The proposed kitchen is fully connected to utilities (water, sewer, electric, grease trap) and intended as a permanent solution, not a “food truck.”
  • They argued this would bring much-needed restaurants, business growth, and revitalization to downtown.
• Public Support:
  Several residents and neighboring business owners voiced strong support, including:
  • Bill Rollins (adjacent property owner) – stated it directly affects him and he has no objections.
  • James Mitchell – stressed the need for growth, noting Manchester’s decline and saying “sometimes you have to bend the rules.”
  • Diane Spencer – said Manchester needs more restaurants to thrive and urged approval.
  • Multiple letters/emails were submitted in favor from local residents and business owners (e.g., Wise Guys Wings & Pizza, Michael & Megan Steele, David McKeehan, Lee Daniel).
• City Council’s Stance:
  • The mayor and council listened without questions, as the session was for public input only.
  • They emphasized the importance of meeting deadlines and following protocol, noting that some letters of support arrived too late to be officially included.
• Outcome:
  The public hearing was closed at 9:27 AM. The council planned to continue discussions in their work session immediately after. No final decision was recorded in this document.

✅ Key Point Summary

• Hearing held for variance at 129 W. Main Street.
• Owners seek approval for a detached kitchen to support a restaurant.
• Planning & Zoning Board denied the request earlier.
• Owners highlighted historic preservation efforts and economic opportunity.
• Public comments overwhelmingly supportive, including neighbors and residents.
• Council stressed following deadlines/procedures.
• Hearing closed; decision pending council’s work session.

This articlee and summary were AI-generated to show an unbiased approach to the two meetings that took place on August 27th – AI sometimes causes erros in text for example not hearing names correctely, please contact us with any changes. Both videos can be found on the official city website ate https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558045493927