Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? APRIL 6, 2005





The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, April 6,

2005 at 2:00 P.M., on the 1st Floor of the Government Center Annex, 420-10th

Street. Members present were:





Mr. Billy Edwards, Acting Chairperson

Mr. Willie Lewis Jr.

Mr. David Fox

Mr. Ralph King



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

Pitts, Recording Secretary.



Board Member Leah Braxton was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Fox

made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. King, to excuse Mrs. Braxton?s absence

on today, April 6, 2005, for personal reasons. Motion carried unanimously by

the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Mr. Lewis made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to approve the Minutes

of the Monthly Meeting, which was held on March 2, 2005. Motion carried

unanimously.





CASES TABLED FROM THE MARCH 2nd MEETING.



Case No. 05-V44--Denied.



Robert Aiken, 522 Vista Drive (Lot 13), presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet, in order to erect a

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



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

gave the following information: He owns one lot and is trying to split another

lot so he will have three lots. He would like to split the 100 foot lot into a

50 foot lot. He will not personally live there, but he does own the lot.







BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition Robert Walden, Frank Lawrence, Herman

Wire and Mark Adams came forward. Their concerns are: they don?t want a lot of

patio homes in the neighborhood, this would not be consistent with most of the

houses in the subdivision which are 100? x 200?, they don?t want congestion and

all of their property meets R-1A qualifications on the front lot width

requirement they feel everyone else should meet the requirement. There was a

list of over 20 signatures of property owners who also oppose this

request.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

Planning is attached and therefore is considered a part of these minutes.



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

because there were several people in opposition and the lot can be utilized at

75 feet instead of 50 feet. Motion carried by a vote of 3 to 1 with David Fox

voting against the motion.



Case No. 05-V45?-Denied.



Robert Aiken, 522 Vista Drive (Lot 13A), presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet, in order to erect a

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



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

gave the following information: He owns one lot and is trying to split another

lot so he will have three lots. He would like to split the 100 foot lot into a

50 foot lot. He will not personally live there, but he does own the lot.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Robert Walden, Frank Lawrence, Herman

Wire and Mark Adams came forward. Their concerns are: they don?t want a lot of

patio homes in the neighborhood, this would not be consistent with most of the

houses in the subdivision which are 100? x 200?, they don?t want congestion and

all of their property meets R-1A qualifications on the front lot width

requirement they feel everyone else should meet the requirement. There was a

list of over 20 signatures of property owners who also oppose this

request.



2

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from Planning is

attached and therefore is considered a part of these minutes.



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

because there were several people in opposition and the lot can be utilized at

75 feet instead of 50 feet. Motion carried by a vote of 3 to 1 with David Fox

voting against the motion.



Case No. 05-HO72?-Denied.



There was no one present to present the application of James Wharam, 8507

Galena Road, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office

only for a foundation business, L.R.W. Construction. The property is zoned R-1.



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 MARCH 2nd MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 05-V68--Granted.



Carlton Williams, 9148 Garrett Lake Drive, presented his appeal for a variance

to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 21 feet, in order

to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned SFR2.



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

Mr. Williams gave the following information: The house is already built, when

it was completed it was 4 feet closer to the road. It was brought to his

attention at the closing of the house. It didn?t cause a problem with the

closing, but he didn?t want it to become a problem later.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.





3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





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

appeal to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 21 feet

because the house is already built. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of

the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V69?-Granted.



Edgar Hughston, Edgar Hughston Builder, Inc., 2007 Bunker Way Drive, presented

his appeal for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30

feet to 12 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is

zoned R-2.



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

Mr. Hughston gave the following information: There is a steep hill going up

from the street and to get a level spot they had to move the house back 45 feet

off of the street. The hill is much steeper on the right side, they had two

houses on this hill, they got the other one to work and this one didn?t work

because of the corner.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this will be an encroachment of the left rear corner of the

house. This is a very hilly lot and the builder didn?t have any other options

to place the house in order to put the driveway where it needs to be. Motion

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

meeting.



Case No. 05-V70?-Tabled.



This case is tabled because the address on the building application was

incorrect. Stanley Merritt, 1101 Neill Drive (A), for a variance to reduce the

lot area requirement from 6000 square feet to 4100 square feet, to subdivide a

lot, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned RMF1.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

until the May meeting at the request of the appellant. Motion carried by the

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



4

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





Case No. 05-V71?-Tabled.



This case is tabled because the address on the building application was

incorrect. Stanley Merritt, 1101 Neill Drive (B), for a variance to reduce the

lot area requirement from 6000 square feet to 4300 square feet, to subdivide a

lot, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned RMF1.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

until the May meeting at the request of the appellant. Motion carried by the

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



Case No. 05-V72?-Tabled.



This case is tabled because the address on the building application was

incorrect. Stanley Merritt, 1101 Neill Drive (C), for a variance to reduce the

lot area requirement from 6000 square feet to 5000 square feet, to subdivide a

lot, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned RMF1.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

until the May meeting at the request of the appellant. Motion carried by the

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



Case No. 05-V73--Granted.



Carl Dickerson, 5103 Buena Vista Road and Adam Rosenburg, Sign Makers, Inc.,

presented the appeal for a variance to increase the size of a ground sign from

6 square feet to 77.5 square feet. The property is zoned SFR2.



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

Dickerson and Mr. Rosenburg gave the following information: The sign will be

for a Day Care Center. They would like the sign to be increased to advertise,

6 square feet is too small. The sign will be concreted in the ground. It will

not be lighted. The whole area is surrounded by businesses with the exception

of 2 houses.





5

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition Diane Hewitt, Inspections & Codes,

Sign Inspector, came forward. She stated the church next to the Day Care has a

nice size sign. The 77.5 square feet sign for the Day Care will be too large.

Next to the Day Care is a church and on the opposite side is a couple of

residences, across the street is a hair care business and next to it is

residential houses. There are houses also across the street.

Joe Denson who lives across the street came forward. He stated he does not

have a problem with the sign. Mr. Dickerson has a little sign that can not be

seen, but he would like to know if the sign will be flashing all

night.



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

appeal because this is an area in transition and it is for a Day Care that will

sit several hundreds yards off of the road way. It is elevated from the road &

the signage is probably appropriate because this is a highly traveled road.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V74--Granted.



Chrystal Hodges and Mark Cantrell presented the appeal of St. Jude Hospital, 42

Meadow Valley Court, from a Decision of the Building Official that a temporary

sign is not allowed in a residential zoned district and for a variance to

increase the area of a sign from 6 square feet to 117 square feet and to

increase the height of a sign from the required 6 feet to 15 feet 0 inches.

The property is zoned SFR2.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Ms. Hodges and Mr. Cantrell gave the following information: They

would like to put up a temporary sign to thank the people who donated to St.

Jude during the dream home giveaway. The sign will be up no more than 30 days.

It will have the St. Jude logo and a list of all the people who donated

material. The giveaway is April 17th, the sign will come down May 1st. They

would like to change the area of the sign to 96 instead of 117 and change the

height from 15 to 12 feet.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.





6

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





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

appeal because this will be a temporary structure, 96 square feet, 12 feet in

height, to be removed by May 15th. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of

the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V75?-Granted.



David Stanton, 4301 Sherwood Avenue, Gail Aderhold and Shaun Warren of Action

Buildings presented the appeal from a Decision of the Building Official that an

accessory structure is not allowed in the side yard. The property is zoned

RMF1.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Aderhold and Mr. Warren gave the following

information: A new employee was hired by Action Buildings and he was

responsible for making sure the accessory structure was put in correctly. He

allowed the accessory structure to be put up without a permit. He was doing

unacceptable work and he has been terminated. The accessory structure is

already in place, Inspection & Codes have been made aware that the accessory

structure is in the side yard and was put in without a permit. The accessory

structure is 16? x 24?, there is only 8 feet of rear yard. There are other

structures in the area that are in the side yard. The house was purchased one

year ago and if the new employee would have done his job he would have known

within a few days of the signing of the contract that there was a problem and a

variance was needed. The house will be used as rental property. The accessory

structure will remain and a portion of the accessory structure will be used for

signs for his real estate business.



Danny Cargill, Inspection & Codes, stated the property is zoned

residential and the use of it for the real estate signs will not be

allowed.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal, although the Building Official is correct, the house is situated

on this lot with a very small rear yard. They had to put the accessory

structure on the side because of the way the house is configured on the lot.

The accessory structure is to be used only by the renter or occupant of the

home only. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members

present for this meeting.



7

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





Case No. 05-V76--Granted.



Aaron Doleman, 3600 Stratford Drive, and Richard Jessie, Builder, presented the

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

to 7 feet, in order to make an addition, 2? 6? x 3? 6?, water heater closet, to

a single family residence. The property is zoned SFR3.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Doleman and Mr. Jessie gave the following information: They would

like to make a small addition to their home. They are taking the water heater

from the laundry room and putting it in the new addition. That will be the

only thing that will be in the addition area.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this is a little box area for a water heater. Motion carried by

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



Case No. 05-V77?-Granted.



James L. Lee, 601 Parkhill Drive and Jeff Key of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson,

presented the appeal for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement

from 8 feet to 3.3 feet, in order to subdivide a lot. The property is zoned

SFR2.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Lee and Mr. Key gave the following information:

Mr. Lee originally had four lots, he wants to re-subdivide them into four lots

again. The lot widths meet zoning regulations, but the existing residence on

the property would infringe on the side setback line. They would like to

reduce the side setback on the existing structure to 3.3 feet and they are

going to add a 12.7 setback line on the other lot so the overall distance

between the 2 houses will be 16 feet. It will have a gable roof.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from Planning is

attached and therefore is considered a part of these minutes.





8

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition Herman Wire came forward. He stated

he does not want overcrowding.



Frank Lawrence and Bob Walden also came forward. They were not in

opposition, but had questions. They wanted to know if Mr. Lee was going to

stay in the house? If the house will stay on the lot? If the present house

will be torn down and if another one will be built in its place.



William Rembert, the contractor, came forward. He stated the existing

house will eventually be torn down and a new house will be put there within the

next 6 to 8 months. There will be 4 new houses.



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

to subdivide the lot. The houses will have 16 feet between them. Planning

recommends approval of this request. This variance applies to the existing

structure, it does not apply if this structure is torn down and another one is

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V78--Granted.



Don Duncan and Chris Losonsky presented the appeal of SPEAKEASY/Mercury Drive

Associates, 3123 Mercury Drive, for a variance to reduce the off-street parking

requirement from 79 to 56. The property is zoned NC.



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

Duncan and Mr. Losonsky gave the following information: They would like to add

an addition that has no affect on the seating capacity. The addition will be

used for storage and they are enclosing a cooler freezer. They want to enhance

the front of the building by eliminating some parking & putting in landscape.

They have a letter from the property owner across the street to allow customers

to park on their property. There will be adequate parking, they will pick up

23 extra parking spaces.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.





9

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





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

appeal because this will be a positive improvement to the area. They are

enhancing by spreading more green space and they will be allowed to use

adjacent parking from another property owner. Motion carried by the

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



Case No. 05-V79--Granted.



Wright Wade, 4006 Foster Lane, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce

the minimum lot width requirement from 35 feet to 30.20 feet, in order to erect

a single family residence. The property is zoned SFR-3.



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

Mr. Wade gave the following information: He developed a subdivision, he owns

all of the lots except 6 of them. There were 4 house plans designed to go in

the subdivision. Lot 13 has 35 feet on the front. Lot 12 is 60 feet wide and

the person buying it wants the widest house. He is asking to reduce the lot

width requirement from 35 to 30.20 feet. It will not have an affect on lot 13

because they have a permanent maintenance driveway. Lot 13 will use this

driveway. There is not going to be a driveway on the 30 feet front to get back

to lot 13. There will be 1 curb cut for the back lots. The driveway easement

will be maintained & owned by the 5 lot owners (13, 14, 15, 16 &

17).



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Planning recommends denial of this request. The memorandum from Planning is

attached and therefore is considered a part of these minutes.



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

appeal, although Planning has recommended denial of this request. This road

structure will be used to service the lots that are adjacent to it and the back

lot (lot 13). There will be no more curb cuts to Anglin Road & Foster Lane to

supply a roadway to the homes. The 5 foot easement needs to be recorded and

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

present for this meeting.





10

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





Case No. 05-V80--Granted.



Alex Griggs, JRA Architects, presented the appeal of Peabody

Redevelopment Partnership, LP, 1100 27th Street, for a variance (phase

2-offsite housing) to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 20 feet to

10 feet, (block 7) to reduce the front & side corner yard setback requirement

from 20 feet to 10 feet and reduce the parking space requirement from 62 spaces

to 39 spaces, (block 8) to reduce the front and side corner yard setback

requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet and reduce the parking space requirement

from 87 to 63, (block 9) to reduce the front and side corner yard setback

requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet and reduce the parking space requirement

from 88 spaces to 66 spaces, (block 9 bldg. 13) to reduce the front yard

setback requirement from 20 feet to 15 feet and reduce the rear yard setback

requirement from 30 feet to 12 feet, (block 10) to reduce the front and side

corner yard setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet and reduce the parking

space requirement from 56 to 45, in order to erect new apartments. The

property is zoned R-4.



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

Mr. Griggs gave the following information: They represent Integral Properties,

Columbus Housing Authority and Boulevard Group who is the master plan of all

this. This is phase II of the Peabody Redevelopment Project and Phase I was

approved with virtually the same request that they asked for in Phase II. The

primary issue on this is they are providing on-street parking for the housing.

The apartments sit on the setback line. Ten feet off of it is the right of

way, the sidewalk and then on-street parking. Those streets will be deeded back

to the City so they cannot count the parking spaces that they are building on

the street. They exceed the parking requirement for the development. They

have requested the variance for the off-street parking, they will have

on-street parking that meet the requirement. It will be the same unit type as

Phase I, there is one new unit in phase II. They are requesting 10 feet off of

every side, however they are not doing that in all instances so that they can

provide larger planning in some areas.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.







11

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





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

appeal because this is the second phase of the Peabody Redevelopment. There is

on-street parking provided and designated that would probably compensate for

any reduction in parking. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four

Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V81--Granted.



Lee Fly presented the appeal of Retirement Housing Foundation, 419 Farr Road,

for a variance to reduce the off-street parking requirement from 113 to 57 (1.5

spaces per one bedroom & 2 spaces per two or more bedrooms). The property is

zoned RMF2.



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

Mr. Fly gave the following information: They are requesting a reduction in the

amount of parking from 1.5 spaces for a one bedroom and 2 spaces for a two

bedroom. The project is a 3 story elderly retirement housing. They would like

to expand the green space around the property by reducing the amount of parking

they are required to have. There are 75 total units with 74 one bedroom and

one 2 bedroom unit, the two bedroom unit will be utilized by him, the property

maintenance manager. The exterior will be a 3 story building with a mix of

siding and cultured stone. It will be one big building versus no open

breezeway, it will be a common corridor with two elevators. The owners have

done a survey of the other properties that they own and how many spaces are

provided and how many spaces are being actually utilized. One project in Cobb

County Georgia, they are providing 90 spaces and only 33 percent of those are

being utilized. In Milledgeville, Georgia they are providing 50 spaces, 30

percent of those are being utilized. In Norfolk, Virginia they are providing

30 spaces with 83 percent of those being utilized. In Chesapeake, Virginia

they are providing 56 spaces with 39 percent of those being utilized. In

Norfolk, Virginia they are providing 40 spaces with only 50 percent of those

being utilized. They have one that is very similar to this project, it?s 73

units with 54 spaces provided and only 40 percent of those are being

utilized.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.







12

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





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

appeal because this type of housing is for seniors and generally the parking is

not used in its entirety. Usually the households are reduced down to one

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

present for this meeting.



END OF VARIANCES.



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



Case No. 05-HO74--Granted.



Ronald W. Self, 513 Broadway, presented his application from a Decision of the

Building Official that a law office is not permitted under Section 3.2.39-I.8

(prohibits home occupations that depend upon or attract clients to the

occupation). The property is zoned H.



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

applicant gave the following information: He has been at this address for 9

years. In the block where he lives there are two law offices. There is a

travel agency and 2 multi-unit apartment complexes, one directly across the

street. The houses on either side of him have been divided into apartments

(one with two apartments and one with three apartments). Over the last four

years he has gradually reduced his practice of law, he hasn?t had a secretary

for the last three years. His last law partner left two years ago and last

year he sold his office building and closed out his professional corporation.

He wants to practice occasionally at his house. He teaches at Columbus State

and practice law 2 to 5 hours a week. He does primarily insurance defense work

and workers compensation. He will see the client?s at their location or other

lawyer?s offices. Rarely does any clients need to come to his office. This

will be part time. He has no employees, no signage and intends not to have any

employees or signage. He talked to one of his neighbor?s on the side of him

and she has no problem with it at all. He has not talked to the other

neighbors in the apartments. He will be using one room in his home as an

office only.



There was no opposition to this application.









13

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005





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

application, although the Building Official is correct, it will be for an

office only, no employees, no clients will come to his home and no advertising

(signs) at his residence. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four

Board Members present for this meeting.

END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.





14

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 04/06/2005







The minutes of the regular meeting of March 2nd were approved as presented.



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

David Fox, Danny Cargill,

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary













15