Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? MARCH 3, 2004





The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, March 3,

2004 at 2:00 P.M., on the 1st Floor of the Government Center Annex, 420-10th

Street. Members present were:





Mrs. Leah Braxton

Mr. David Fox

Mr. Willie Lewis Jr.

Mr. Billy Edwards





Also present were Mr. Danny Cargill, Secretary of the Board, and Ms. Veronica

Pitts, Recording Secretary.



Board Member Ralph King was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Edwards made a

motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to excuse Mr. King?s absence on today,

March 3, 2004, for personal reasons. Motion carried unanimously by the four

Board Members present for this meeting.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to approve

the Minutes of the Monthly Meeting, which was held on February 4, 2004. Motion

carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for this

meeting.



CASES TABLED FROM THE FEBRUARY 4th MEETING.



Case No. 04-HO15--Denied.



There was no one present to present the application of Kim Banks, 6730 Ranch

Forest Drive, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an

office only for medical office inspections & medical exams for insurance

companies, Medical Insurance Inspections & Examinations. The property is zoned

R-1A.



There was no opposition to this application.







BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis,

to deny this application because there was no one present to

present the application for two consecutive meetings. Motion

carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present

for this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO16--Denied.



There was no one present to present the application of Charlotte Anne Taylor,

5821 Manassas Drive, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for

an office only for interior decorating, C.A.T.?s Roomer. The property is zoned

R-2.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis,

to deny this application because there was no one present to

present the application for two consecutive meetings. Motion

carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present

for this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO20--Granted.



Stanley Richard, 2608 Courtland Avenue, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a

janitorial business, Cleaning Maid Easy. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work. He will

have a partner that lives in Harris County and he already has a business

license.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis,

to grant this application because it does meet the intent of the

Home Occupation definition. Motion carried by the affirmative

vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.







2

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Case No. 04-HO22--Denied.



There was no one present to present the application of Darlene & Michael

Balkcum, 1182 Cloverdale Road, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home

Occupation for an office only for a glassbead and stained glass business,

Balkcum Glassbeads & Stained Glass. The property is zoned R-1A.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis,

to deny this application because there was no one present to

present the application for two consecutive meetings. Motion

carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present

for this meeting.



END OF CASES TABLED FROM THE FEBRUARY 4th MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 04-V22--Granted.



Laura Burbrink presented the appeal of Brian Grier, Inc., 1001 Whitesville Walk

Drive, for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet

to 19 feet 11 inches, in order to erect a single family residence, 43? 6? x 70?

2?. The property is zoned R-2.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Ms. Burbrink gave the following information: There are only four floor plans

that are in this community and this lot is the last home that they will build

in this community. All of the homes have the driveways on the same side,

flipping this house would put the driveway on the opposite side of the other

homes.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

appeal because this is an odd shape lot and a planned subdivision. The

hardship would be to design a house that would not fit the subdivision, it

would have to be smaller than the other homes or placed in an odd way on the

lot. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present

for this meeting.





3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Case No. 04-V23?-Granted.



Jim Stucky, Hilyer Construction, presented the appeal of Annie Crenshaw, 4700

Velpoe Drive, for a variance to reduce the corner side yard setback requirement

from 25 feet to 14 feet, in order to make an addition, a family room, 16? x 19?

5?, to a single family residence. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Mr. Stucky gave the following information: They are trying to match the other

side of the house, the City has already issued a permit for the right side of

the home to be 16? x 35? for a double carport in the rear of the house. They

would like to add a family room.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to grant this

appeal because they are extending the side of the house and encroaching on the

side yard. It does not interfere with the line of sighting, even though it is

a corner, there is plenty of room to see. Motion carried by the affirmative

vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V24?-Granted.



Lamar Beck, 5709 Whitesville Road, presented the appeal from a Decision of the

Building Official that a roof sign is not allowed. The property is zoned C-3.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr. Beck

gave the following information: The sign is on the cable part of his roof.

From the building setback to the sign is 226 feet, so it is quite a ways from

the highway. The neighbor to the left is Walgreens and they can not see the

sign. The neighbor on the right is an insurance company that sits out

approximately 80 feet pass his building. The only neighbors that would be

impacted is Mr. Lynn, who is across the street and the Chevron gas station

owned by Mr. Fountain. This business is open from 8:00 a.m. ? 9:00 p.m. The

sign is off at 9:00 p.m. and closed on Sundays. This is the only sign that

advertises the wash. There is visibility from one side of the street. There

are several signs like that on some of the other washes in town and he didn?t

see a problem with the hip roof on it.





4

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Diane Hewitt, Sign Inspector, Inspections and Code, stated under the sign

ordinance roof signs are prohibited. Mr. Beck has a very exposed ground sign

that has a lot of visibility.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to grant this appeal,

although the Building Official is correct that a roof sign is not allowed, this

sign is not visible because of the building surrounding it. Motion carried by

the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V25?-Granted.



Robert Shelton, 1191 Cloverdale Road, presented the appeal for a variance to

reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 3 feet, in order to

make an addition, a garage, bedroom, bathroom and storage, 31? 3? x 37? 9?, to

a single family residence. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Mr. Shelton gave the following information: They will be coming off of the end

of their garage and making a bedroom and garage/storage room. The water will

flow to the street. They recently put in a type of french drain, they will do

additional grading to make sure any swells are enhanced so that it continues to

the street.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Lewis made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to grant

this appeal to make the addition to the home. Mr. Shelton stated if there are

any problems with the drainage that he will take care of it. Motion carried by

the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V26?-Granted.



Thomas Todd Jones, 6 Deland Court, presented the appeal for a variance to

reduce the corner side yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 15 feet, in

order to make an addition, a bedroom and bathroom, 14? x 30?, to a single

family residence. The property is zoned R-1A.







5

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Mr. Jones gave the following information: He would like to add a bedroom and

bathroom to the gable side of his house which is at a corner lot and the

nearest house is actually across the street. The same materials will be used

to match the house.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because on the front yard there is over 30 feet and there is no

encroachment or any obstruction of the view. He is extending the basic gable

end of the house for the addition. The same materials will be used to match

the house. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members

present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V27?-Denied.



Bill Weaver presented the appeal of Cars R Us, 5901 Veterans Parkway-A, from a

Decision of the Building Official that a sign is not allowed on a fence. The

property is zoned C-3.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Weaver gave the following information: They have a sign that is facing

Veterans Parkway that is approximately 26? x 43?. They painted the name of the

company and the telephone number on the sign for advertisement. Diane Hewitt,

Sign Inspector, Inspections and Code came out and told them the sign was

against the law. He doesn?t think the sign is considered dangerous or

offensive and it doesn?t interfere with traffic. He can?t afford to put a 50

foot high sign up in the air, so this is his sign board that he is using. All

they are advertising are cars for sale. The sign is not flashing and it is a

neat sign. There are other signs in the community that are very offensive.

Behind the sign is a chain link fence with a lot of meters on it that the gas

company owns, they asked if they could use the property and put up a fence to

make it look better.



Diane Hewitt, Sign Inspector, Inspections and Codes, stated, this is a sign

painted on a fence. The sign ordinance states under prohibited signs, that if

it is not exempt and if they are not able to get a permit for the sign then it

is prohibited. There is nothing in the ordinance that allows that sign to be

on the fence.







6

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





It does not meet the qualifications of getting a permit for it. He does have a

sign structure and he has ordered a sign to go on top of it (he will have the

sign in approximately 2 months), so he will have a ground sign.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Mike Hamby came forward. He was not

in opposition, but he made comments. He has a similar case coming before the

Board in April. He wanted to come down for support. That is the second time

he heard Mr. Danny Cargill (Inspections and Codes) say that the sign ordinance

does not address copy, color or design, but that was the major intent of the

sign ordinance from the beginning to address the signage in the City, how nice

it looks, how well it was designed, so on and so forth. He thinks Mr. Bill

Weaver is correct in his assumption that this sign ordinance is absolute

opposition with itself and it is extremely vague. There isn?t anything in

there that says a word about a sign on a fence, in the regulations it?s all

thrown in the number 12 on 17E4 which means if it isn?t in there it is not any

good. It is very vague and it does nothing but take people who are trying to

earn a living as well as property tax payers and business tax payers away from

their job and try to defend themselves. He doesn?t have a problem with

complying to make signs look nice or be nice or be designed properly or

colorfully.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to deny this appeal

to keep the sign, which is painted on a fence, because there are other options

and another sign has already been ordered which will be mounted on a pole. The

sign must be removed within 30 days. If this decision is appealed, it must be

made within 30 days. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V28?-Denied.



John Steed presented the appeal of Kar-Tunes Car Stereo, 5901 Veterans

Parkway-B, from a Decision of the Building Official that a sign is not allowed

on a fence. The property is zoned C-3.







7

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Mr. Steed gave the following information: We are located behind Cars R Us.

Because our building is blocked by the building (Cars R Us), it is difficult to

get to our building and see it. Cars R Us allowed us to put up a sign on the

fence. We want to let the people know where we are and how to get to our

business.

Diane Hewitt, Sign Inspector, Inspections and Codes, stated, there is a

portable sign and one portable sign is allowed per lot per street frontage.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to deny this

appeal to keep the sign which is painted on a fence, because there are other

options. The sign must be removed within 30 days. If his decision is

appealed, the appeal must be made within 30 days. Motion carried by the

affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V29?-Granted.



Brock Jones presented the appeal of Linda McLemore, 3405 Tomahawk Drive, for a

variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 7 feet, in

order to make an addition, a bedroom, sitting room and bathroom, 21? 3? x 25?,

to a single family residence. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Mr. Jones gave the following information: This is a pie shape lot and that is

why they are encroaching on the easement. Ms. McLemore would like to add a

bedroom sitting room and bathroom to her home. The same materials will be used

to match the house.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to grant this

appeal because this is an L-shape house and it encroaches 1 foot pass the 8

foot side yard. This is a pie shape lot and if it were a normal lot this would

not be an issue. They are using similar materials to match the house. Motion

carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for this

meeting.







8

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Case No. 04-V30?-Granted.



Dave Erickson presented the appeal of Pinnacle Homes, Inc., 8043 Sonoma Pointe

Drive, for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet

to 6 feet 10 inches, in order to erect a single family residence, 44? x 59?

5?. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Erickson gave the following information: Actually the house is 44? 10? and

they have a bump on one side of the house, which puts them in less than the 8

foot side line. They are requesting the variance in order to put the house on

this lot. They have a customer that would like to purchase this house and they

have to get a variance in order to meet the side setback. This is the

beginning of a trend that will be seen in a few years, they are getting smaller

lots and customers are asking them to put bigger homes on the lots.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because this is a narrow lot and the hardship would be to build a house

that is smaller than what is in the neighborhood or place it an odd way on the

lot. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the three Board Members with

David Fox abstaining from the vote.



Case No. 04-V31?-Granted.



Ken Levy and Wanda Scott presented the appeal of Steinbook Properties, LLC,

1117 20th Street, for a variance to reduce the number of off-street parking

spaces from 48 to 43 and Category C Buffer is required between C-3 and R-3A

zonings, no buffer is shown and to reduce the rear yard setback requirement

from 15 feet to 5 feet, in order to erect a commercial building. The property

is zoned C-3.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Levy and Ms. Scott gave the following information: They would

like to take a piece of commercial property in an area of town near the Medical

Center which is under a transition, where many of the lots are being rezoned

from R-3A to







9

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





C-3. They spoke to the Planning Department in this regard and it is ear marked

with comprehensive plans for these lots to eventually all be commercial. We

have a situation on our rear yard where we have a 15 foot alley and there are

five lots that back up to our lot. Three of them are C-3 and the last two that

are closer to the street are R-3A. Where we are backing up to C-3 we are

actually allowed to build right on the property line if we want to. We don?t

want to do that, we want to set the building line back 5 feet in order to have

space for air conditioning units and that sort of thing. We are placing

garbage cans in the back alley area inside our property. The way the zoning

ordinance reads is that technically, although it says 15 foot setback between

residential and commercial, the presence of the alley enables us to reduce that

to half which is 7? feet. Instead of a 7? feet setback, it will be 5 feet for

those two lots. We want to build a building straight across the back, this is

the most logical way to build it. There is no buffer required between C-3.

The presence of the alley where the R-3 is, we feel there is enough of a

buffer. We do plan on complying with the street frontage buffer. We want to

provide some tree wells and comply with the tree ordinance. We are asking for

43 parking spaces instead of 48.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to grant this

appeal to reduce the number of parking spaces because it allows them to enhance

with landscaping. Part of the property is R-3A and they need the rear yard

reduction in order to build the commercial building. There is a buffer between

the property with an alley way, but they are not able to use that as part of

their distance. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V32?-Denied.



Tom and Ann Griffin, 2733 Edgewood Road, presented the appeal for a variance to

reduce the rear yard setback requirement of an accessory structure from 5 feet

to 3 feet. The property is zoned R-1A.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. and Mrs. Griffin gave the following information: They would like

to put in a solar heater for a swimming pool. They







10

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





have four children with muscular dystrophy and the idea is to keep the pool

warm so they will be able to swim and exercise longer. When they bought the

house it did have a heater to go with it, but it was too expensive. The

structure will be well built, the panels will not be visible. The people

behind them are the only people who will see it. They can?t put the solar

panels on the roof because of trees, the sun wouldn?t hit it properly. Because

of the sewer drain in the yard, a walkway and pump lines, this would be the

best location for the solar panels.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Penny Greer who is speaking on behalf

of her mother Ruth Greer and Beth Thomas came forward. They also had 11

signatures of people who are opposed to this request. They stated the size and

proximity to the wall makes it impossible to include any acceptable visual

barrier, the structure detracts from the community aesthetics and the

architectural integrity of the neighborhood and it will devalue the property.

There is a company that makes solar panels that can be put in the ground, there

are alternatives.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to deny this

appeal because there are other options and there was opposition. The accessory

structure must be removed within 30 days. Motion carried by the affirmative

vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V33?-Granted.



Charles Stevenson and Georgia Brown, 1229 Cedar Avenue, presented the appeal

for a variance to reduce the setback requirement for an accessory structure

from 5 feet to 3 feet. The property is zoned R-4.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Stevenson and Ms. Brown gave the following information: They are asking for a

variance for the rear and side yard setback. They live on Cedar Avenue which

is multi zoned. Cedar Avenue is 1 block long between Wynnton Road and 13th

Street. They bought 4 lots as well as the adjoining side lot that they seek

the variance for. The adjoining rear lot is an office building with a parking

lot that comes within approximately 4 feet of the property line. They have an

existing garage located on the right rear or north west corner lot and the left

rear corner of the existing garage is over the lot line in the back about 3?

inches.





11

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





The right rear corner of the existing garage is on their property. They plan to

replace the existing garage with a new accessory structure in the same basic

location on the lot. Their first request is to reduce the rear setback from 5

feet to 3 feet. The left rear corner will be 3 feet, the right rear corner

will be approximately 5 feet from the lot line because of the angle of the

lot. Their second request is to reduce the side setback from 5 feet to 3 feet

and this side will be parallel to the lot line. Their driveway now is

approximately 1? feet from the property line.



The Board of Historic and Architectural Review recommends approval of this

request.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because they are going to tear down an existing garage that is over the

property line now and erect a new one. Motion carried by the affirmative vote

of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V34?-Granted.



Scott Turk presented the appeal of Mike Moon, 10000 McKee Road (Lot 1), for a

variance to reduce the lot area from 40,000 square feet to 7,448 square feet,

in order to replat a lot. The property is zoned A-1.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Mr. Turk gave the following information: They have property that is in

Muscogee County that they are trying to attach to a lot in Harris County. To

get the appraisal they had to add a little bit to it, so they were already in

the process of starting the house, they had to shift the amount of property

down and it turned out that part was in Harris County.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

Aronda Smith, Principal Planner, Planning Division, is attached and therefore

is considered a part of these minutes.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.







12

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to grant this

appeal to reduce the lot area in order to replat. This has approval of

Planning with the exception that no buildings will be erected on this lot in

Muscogee County because they are sub-standard. The majority of the lot is in

Harris County and a portion of the lot is in Muscogee County. Because Muscogee

County rules are not the same as Harris County, it is really to allow them to

clean up some title issues. These sections were actually deeded to the lots in

Harris County. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V35?-Granted.



Scott Turk presented the appeal of Mike Moon, 10000 McKee Road (Lot 2), for a

variance to reduce the lot area from 40,000 square feet to 29,970 square feet,

in order to replat a lot. The property is zoned A-1.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Mr. Turk gave the following information: They have property in Muscogee County

that they are trying to attach to a lot in Harris County. This is property

that is left over and they can?t do anything with it, so they are going to deed

it over to Jim McCray who lives in Harris County. He is the Sheriff Deputy and

he has permission to drive his car out there as long as he has property in

Muscogee County.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

Aronda Smith, Principal Planner, Planning Division, is attached and therefore

is considered a part of these minutes.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to grant this

appeal to reduce the lot area in order to replat. This has approval of

Planning with the exception that no buildings will be erected on this lot in

Muscogee County because they are sub-standard. The majority of the lot is in

Harris County and a portion of the lot is in Muscogee County. Because Muscogee

County rules are not the same as Harris County it is really to allow them to

clean up some title issues. These sections were actually deeded to the lots in

Harris County. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.







13

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Case No. 04-V36?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the appeal of Lori Eanes, 3320 12th Avenue,

for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 6

feet, in order to make an addition, a bathroom and closet, 13? 4? x 13? 6?, to

a single family residence. The property is zoned R-3A.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to table this appeal

until the April meeting because there was no one present for this meeting.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-V37?-Granted.



Kenneth Janke, 311 Double Churches Road and Scott Allen presented the appeal

for a variance to increase the height requirement of an accessory structure

from 14 feet to 24 feet. The property is zoned A-1.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Janke and Mr. Allen gave the following information: This is an

accessory structure which is approximately 120 feet off the front yard curb and

over 70 feet on the side yard on a wooded sight. The front eave of the

structure that faces the front yard is approximately 11 feet. The 24 feet

comes into play because as you move to the back of the structure we are carving

into the yard so the structure can be accessed from the rear and that part

faces north west toward the back of the lot.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to grant this

appeal because the topography has the structure below the main house and the

architecture of it is similar to the house structure. The hardship is the

topography. In order to make it look the same you have to do a two story side

on one part of the storage building and that raises the height up. Motion

carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for this

meeting.





14

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Case No. 04-V38?-Granted.



James Johnson presented the appeal of Columbus Housing Initiative, Inc., 2829

Colorado Street, for a variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement

from 20 feet to 12 feet and to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces

from 2 to 1, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is

zoned R-3.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Mr. Johnson gave the following information: This is a 25 feet lot and they

were not able to purchase the two lots on either side. They wanted to put one

of our smaller homes there. The reason they want to reduce it from 20 feet to

12 feet is so that they would be in line with the other houses. There are 10

to 15 houses on that street and they are similar in size and

style.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant

this appeal because the existing houses on the street are already set up that

far roughly 12 feet instead of 20 feet and that way the home will conform with

the neighborhood. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V39?-Granted.



James Johnson presented the appeal of Columbus Housing Initiative, Inc., 2818

Thomas Street, for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 50 feet

to 49.81 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is

zoned R-3.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Johnson gave the following information: These are two lots that they replatted

into 1. The tax map showed them as 25 feet and they came up short.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from Aronda

Smith, Principal Planner, Planning Division, is attached and therefore is

considered a part of these minutes.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



15

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

appeal to reduce the minimum lot requirement from 50 feet to 49.81 feet. The

existing houses on the street are already set up that far roughly 12 feet

instead of 20 feet and that way the home will conform with the neighborhood.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-V40?-Granted.



Charles Hayes presented the appeal of Edgewood Assembly of God, 2020 Morris

Road, for a variance to increase the size of a sign from 15 square feet to 48

square feet. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Mr. Hayes gave the following information: The property has been there since

1948, since that time their address has been 1934 Morris Road. Morris Road is

suppose to be widening in the future and when it does, the present sign will be

taken down and it will have to be moved back at the City?s expense. The church

was able to secure some money and buy a new sign. They can not put a portable

sign out in the front yard for any kind of event that they have, but the new

sign will give them visibility to show the upcoming events. The existing sign

is ugly and much larger than the new one that was purchased 10 years ago. It

will be a nice attractive sign. The neighbors are not in opposition of the

sign.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

appeal even though the new sign is larger than what the zoning permits, it is

smaller than the existing sign. They are going to relocate anticipating that

the road will be widening in front of their church. They are replacing a sign

that they didn?t like. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four

Board Members present for this meeting.



END OF VARIANCES.





16

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





HOME OCCUPATIONS.



Case No. 04-HO32--Granted.



Dmitriy Spector, 1514 Forest Avenue Apt. 19, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for an

installation service and selling telecommunication equipment, Phonet

Communications, LLC. The property is zoned R-4.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work. There

will be no deliveries to his home. The cables will be stored in a storage

unit.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





Case No. 04-HO33--Granted.



Patricia Ann Evanger, 668 Courtenay Drive, presented her application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for child and

adolescence counseling, Building Blocks For Families. The property is zoned

R-1A.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using one room in her

home as an office only. She will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work. No

clients will come to her home, she will go to them.



There was no opposition to this application.







17

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis,

to grant this application because it does meet the intent of the

Home Occupation definition. Motion carried by the affirmative

vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO34--Granted.



Gail Baker Page, 7137 W. Wynfield Loop, presented her application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling

stationary supplies, First Lady. The property is zoned R-2.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using one room in her

home as an office only. She will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work. Orders

will be dropped shipped to the customers.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



CaseNo. 04-HO35?-Granted.



Stanley McDowell, 4015 Wilbur Drive, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling

shutters and blinds, Stan McDowell Shutters & Blinds, LLC. The property is

zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. No clients will come to his home.

This will be full time work.



There was no opposition to this application.







18

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO36?-Granted.



James Davis, 6479 North Branch Court, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a

painting business, Davis Painting Company. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work. There

will be no supplies stored at his home.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO37--Granted.



Juanita Foster, 1245 Alta Vista Drive, presented her application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling

t-shirts and bumper stickers, Novel T-Shirts. The property is zoned R-1A.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using one room in her

home as an office only. She will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work. All of

the work will be done at the print shop and she will deliver the t-shirts to

the customers.



There was no opposition to this application.





19

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO38?-Granted.



Markeith Horace, 4715 White Oak Street, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a

photography business, Horace Photography. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO39--Granted.



Robert Murray, 2214 Airport Thruway, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a

pressure washing business, Handyman. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his home

as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no additional

traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.









20

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO40?-Granted.



Darryl Carter, 386 Victoria Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a real estate

investment company, C and H Urban Investors. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO41--Granted.



William F. Rhodes III, 8410 Midland Springs Court, presented his application

for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a

lawn care service, Rhodes Lawn Care. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work.



There was no opposition to this application.







21

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition,

but with the stipulation that there will be no storage of work material at the

residence. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members

present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO42--Granted.



Joe Carpenter, 736 Robins Nest Court, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a home

inspection business, Carpenter Certified Inspections. The property is zoned

R-3B.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO43?-Granted.



William T. Evans Jr., 933 Ashland Avenue, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a lawn

care service, Evans Lawn Care. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.







22

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition,

but with the stipulation that there will be no storage of work material at the

residence. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members

present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO44--Granted.



Jeremy Reed, 4770 Old Macon Road, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for an electrical

business, Reed Electric. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO45--Granted.



Gregory George, 5818 Morningside Drive Apt. 2, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for an

internet marketing company, George International. The property is zoned R-4.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work. He will

sell toothpaste, toilet paper, furniture and all types of items. All items

will be dropped shipped to the customer?s house.



There was no opposition to this application.







23

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO46?-Granted.



Phillips Chandler, 3910 Gray Fox Drive, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a lawn

care and pressure washing business, Phillip?s Lawn Care. The property is zoned

R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition,

but with the stipulation that there will be no storage of work material at the

residence. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members

present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO47--Granted.



Brent Tanamachi, 1545-B 15th Avenue, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a

paintball equipment distributor, Tanamachi Paintball. The property is zoned

R-3A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work. No

equipment will be stored at his home.



There was no opposition to this application.







24

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO48--Granted.



Elaine Powers, 4634 Kimball Court, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a painting business,

American Design Painters. The property is zoned R-1A.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using one room in her

home as an office only. She will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO49?-Granted.



Michael Flynn, 5700 Old Dominion Road, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for pressure

washing, concrete surface design and minor home repair, Grime-Away Pressure

Washing and Repair. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work. He would

like to take off doing minor home repair and change the business name. He will

only do pressure washing and concrete surface design and the new name of the

business is Grime-Away Pressure Washing.



There was no opposition to this application.







25

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO50--Granted.



Gail Womack, 1400 Maplebrook Drive, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a nursing service,

Gail?s PRN Home Health Nursing Service. The property is zoned R-3B.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using one room in her

home as an office only. She will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO51--Granted.



Maureen Collars, 4418 Royal Oak Court, presented her application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling

security equipment, Lilahk?s. The property is zoned R-1A.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using one room in her

home as an office only. She will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.







26

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO52?-Granted.



Brian Keith Sanders, 6325 Moon Road, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a travel

agency, Kingdom Life Vacations and Cruises. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO53--Granted.



Kevin Oneal Howard, 1333 Glenwood Road, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a

janitorial and lawn service, Oneal?s Janitorial/Lawn. The property is zoned

R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.







27

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004







Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition,

but with the stipulation that there will be no storage of work material at the

residence. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members

present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO54--Granted.



Nathaniel Turner, 2306 Heard Street, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for graphic

design, Mayo Imaging. The property is zoned R-3A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his home

as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no additional

traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO55?-Granted.



Randal Dale Herring, 4937 Basswood Drive, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for tile

installation, minor home repair and pressure washing, Columbus Home

Enhancements. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work. The tile

will be stored on the job site.



There was no opposition to this application.







28

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO56--Granted.



Pino Wells Davis, 4921 Cedar Ridge Court, presented her application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling

accessories, handbags and jewelry (sold away from the home), 2 of a Kind!. The

property is zoned R-2.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using one room in her

home as an office only. She will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO57--Granted.



Saiju Sara Mathews, 8193 Orchard Glen Drive, presented her application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling

jewelry (sold away from the home), Sara Fashions. The property is zoned R-1A.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using one room in her

home as an office only. She will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.







29

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO58?-Granted.



Ronald Mark Martin, 5720 Spring Hill Avenue, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for minor

home repair, Martin Remodeling. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his

home as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work. There

will be no work material stored at his home.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO59--Granted.



Katrina Culpepper, 10375 County Line Road, presented her application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a

cleaning service, Mrs. Clean Cleaning Services. The property is zoned A-1.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using one room in her

home as an office only. She will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.







30

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004





Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO60--Granted.



Thomas Chappell Williams, 627 Morris Road, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for a music pre-production

recording studio, Voc@LTech Music Solutions. The property is zoned M-1.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room in his home

as an office only. He will have no employees and there will be no additional

traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Edwards made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.





END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.







31

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/03/2004









There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

David Fox, Danny Cargill,

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary











32