Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



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





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

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

Street. Members present were:





Mrs. Leah Braxton, Chairperson

Mr. Willie Lewis Jr.

Mr. Billy Edwards

Mr. Ralph King





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

Pitts, Recording Secretary.



Board Member David Fox was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. King made

a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to excuse Mr. Fox?s absence on

today, February 2, 2005, for personal reasons. Motion carried unanimously by

the four Board Members present for this meeting.



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

the Minutes of the Monthly Meeting, which was held on January 5, 2005. Motion

carried unanimously.





CASES TABLED FROM THE JANUARY 5th MEETING.



Case No. 05-V10?-Tabled.



This appeal was tabled for the March meeting until it has BHAR?s approval.

Appeal of Robert Ashley, 1346 Buena Vista Road, for a variance to reduce the

front yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 20 feet and to reduce the rear

yard setback requirement from 40 feet to 22.81 feet, in order to erect a

duplex. The property is zoned A-O.



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 March meeting awaiting BHAR?s approval. Motion carried by the

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

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





Case No. 05-HO5--Granted.



Jasper Banks, 237 23rd Avenue, presented the application for him and his wife,

Barbara, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office

only for paintless dent removal and installing protective floor film, J. Banks

Enterprises, Inc. dba Banks Dent Pro. The property is zoned R-3A.



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

applicant gave the following information: They will be using one room in their

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

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

month?s B.Z.A. meeting, he stated his uncle would work with them. After

discussing it with his uncle, his uncle will not work with

them.

There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Mr. Banks will not have his uncle as an employee. Motion carried by the

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



Case No. 05-HO7--Granted.



Nathan Weatherby, 8216 Bryn Mawr Lane, presented his application for a

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

and handyman work, A-Z Marketing @ Services. 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 would

like to change his business name to A-Z Marketing and Services and add

appraisal to the type work that he will be doing.



There was no opposition to this application.





2

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





Mr. King 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. 05-HO18--Denied.



There was no one present to present the application of Charles Jernigan, 2914-B

Dawson Street, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an

office only for selling bodybuilding equipment and supplements, Jernigan

Enterprises. The property is zoned R-4.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. King 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 JANUARY 5th MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 05-V20--Denied.



John Lyles, J R Construction, 546 Wilder Drive (B), presented his appeal for a

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

to subdivide a lot, in order to erect a single family residence. The property

is zoned R-1A. (Cases 05-V20 & 05-V21 were presented at the same time)



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

Mr. Lyles gave the following information: These are vacant lots. He plans to

build a 3 bedroom, 2 bath single family residence. It will be comparable to

the houses in the area. It will be approximately 1300 or 1400 square feet.





3

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Robert Offert, Bob Walden, Frank

Lawrence and Fred Long came forward. Their concerns are: The drastic width

reduction will change the look and feel of the neighborhood. If the lot is

combined and meet the requirements, they would not be in opposition. The house

will be too small. They don?t want crowding. They have a list of signatures

of people who are in opposition.



Mr. Offert stated that he had signatures of people who were in opposition, but

he only had a list of typed names and addresses, no signatures.



Mr. Lyles stated the house he plans to build will be similar to other

houses in the neighborhood. He grew up in the area and will eventually move

into one of the houses.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

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



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

appeal because there was opposition and concerns with the property value. Some

of the owners have gone to the extreme of buying some of the narrow lots beside

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

for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V21?-Denied.



John Lyles, J R Construction, 546 Wilder Drive (A), presented his appeal for a

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

to subdivide a lot, 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. Lyles gave the following information: These are vacant lots. He plans to

build a 3 bedroom, 2 bath single family residence. It will be comparable to

the houses in the area. It will be approximately 1300 or 1400 square feet.







4

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Robert Offert, Bob Walden, Frank

Lawrence and Fred Long came forward. Their concerns are: The drastic width

reduction will change the look and feel of the neighborhood. If the lot is

combined and meet the requirements they would not be in opposition. The house

will be too small. They don?t want crowding.



They have a list of signatures of people who are in opposition.



Mr. Offert stated that he had signatures of people who were in opposition, but

he only had a list of typed names and addresses, no signatures.



Mr. Lyles stated the house he plans to build will be similar to other

houses in the neighborhood. He grew up in the area and will eventually move

into one of the houses.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

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



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

appeal because there was opposition and concerns with the property value. Some

of the owners have gone to the extreme of buying some of the narrow lots beside

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

for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V22?-Denied.



Joe Oliver and Sammy Hewitt presented the appeal of Big T Tire & Auto, 2217

Columbus Manchester Expressway, for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback

requirement from 15 feet to 2 feet, in order to make an addition, 28? x 30?.

The property is zoned C-2.



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

Oliver and Mr. Hewitt gave the following information: They would like to put a

steel structure awning type system over two new areas where cars will be worked

on to protect them from bad weather.





5

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Lawrence Smith and Barbara McIntire

came forward, there was also a letter from Rheba Battley. Their concerns are:

Loud noise (outside bell and paging speakers, working on automobiles, equipment

banging), equipment exposed, storing old tires which cause mosquitoes and

rats. They object to building anything that is in a no build zone. This is

commercial property that backs up to residential property. Cash registers and

other trash are on the property.



Mr. Oliver and Mr. Hewitt stated there are things that need to be cleaned up.

The used tires will be taken away. They plan to build a structure that will

not require a variance. They will build a dry storage area for any outside

tires that they will have. The greenhouse will be demolished. They had a 4

feet wall, but it didn?t prevent noise control. They have a phone that rings

so they can hear it outside. The rats come from another piece of property.

Ms. Battley stated in her letter a compromise would be to add a side and rear

wall made of some material that will help with the noise.



Mr. Oliver and Mr. Hewitt stated they would be willing to put up a wall to help

with the noise level.



Mr. Smith stated he would not be happy if a wall was put up for the noise level.



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

because there was opposition. There needs to be more construction directed

toward noise and aesthetics mitigation. With the excessive tires, it creates

bugs and health problems. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four

Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V23?-Granted.



Scott McGregor, Aquarius Pools, presented the appeal of Scott Self, 1725 Smith

Road, from a Decision of the Building Official that an accessory structure is

not allowed in the side yard. The property is zoned A-1.





6

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





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

Mr. McGregor gave the following information: Mr. Self would like to build a

pool, when traveling West the house is facing the pool (the house is up high, a

big addition was recently made adding a lot of stone). The pool will have a

stone wall built around it along with trees. The pool can not be seen from the

road. He is on 2 acres and owns the adjacent 5 acre property. Across the

street is wooded area.



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 that an accessory structure

is not allowed in the side yard. Because of the topography and the way the

house is positioned on the lot the pool will have to be placed in that

particular location. This is a large country lot and the pool will not be

visible from the road. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four

Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V24?-Granted.



Mark Martin presented the appeal of Pinnacle Homes, Inc., 633 Sonoma Court, for

a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 23 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.

Martin gave the following information: This house was purchased by a woman

who?s sister also purchased a home and they live next door to each other.

They both chose the house plan that was originally 10 feet longer, the house

was modified bringing the structure down 10 feet. Due to the unusual shape of

the lot it encroaches on the rear yard setback. This house will be in a

cul-de-sac. Sonoma Pointe is zoned R-2 with R-3 setbacks.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because if it is denied they will end up with smaller homes on the

same lots. With the less restricted setbacks they still can?t comply with

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

for this meeting.





7

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





Case No. 05-V25--Granted.



Mark Martin presented the appeal of Pinnacle Homes, Inc., 604 Sonoma Court, for

a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 15 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.

Martin gave the following information: They are reducing the rear setback from

30 to 21 feet instead of 15. Because of the unusual shape of the lot it has a

diagonal line. This was originally approved by Inspections and Codes, but it

had to be looked at again because of the diagonal line. They were not sure if

it was a side or rear setback and had to get a variance. A corner of the

covered porch encroaches on the setback. This house will be in a cul-de-sac,

away from everyone else.



Will Johnson, Planning, stated Pinnacle did the R-2 lots and a lot of customers

were requesting larger lots than what was anticipated in Sonoma Pointe, that is

why they went through the zoning. Instead of coming to the Board of Zoning

Appeals every month they went to zoning to get the R-3 setback.



Danny Cargill, Plans Examiner, looked at the site plan and stated the code

calls for the closest point and the closest point is actually 15 feet when you

measure it on a diagonal. The setback is from 30 feet to 15 feet not 30 feet

to 21 feet.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because this is an odd shaped lot and if it is denied they will end

up with smaller homes on the same lots. With the less restricted setbacks they

still can?t comply with them. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the

four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V26--Denied.



Richard Mobley presented the appeal of Fieldcrest Homes, Inc., 829 Wilder Drive

(A), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 50

feet, in order to subdivide a lot. The property is zoned R-1A. (Case No.

05-V26 & 05-V27 were presented at the same time)





8

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





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

Mr. Mobley gave the following information: They would like to subdivide the

lot. They believe the request is consistent with the surrounding market and

the demand for the area. They will build a 1300 square feet house in the

$120,000 price range.

When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Robert Offert, Bob Walden, Frank

Lawrence and Fred Long came forward. Their concerns are: This is an empty 100

foot wide lot and they can?t imagine how two houses will fit and be considered

consistent. They feel this will be inconsistent with the

neighborhood.



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

appeal because there was opposition. The present 50 foot lots are owned by

owners that have 100 foot lots. This would not be in line with what is already

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V27?-Denied.



Richard Mobley presented the appeal of Fieldcrest Homes, Inc., 829 Wilder Drive

(B), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet

and to reduce the lot area requirement from 10,000 feet to 9,925 feet, in order

to subdivide a lot. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Mr. Mobley gave the following information: They would like to subdivide the

lot. They believe the request is consistent with the surrounding market and

the demand for the area. They will build a 1300 square feet house in the

$120,000 price range.

When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Robert Offert, Bob Walden, Frank

Lawrence and Fred Long came forward. Their concerns are: This is an empty 100

foot wide lot and they can?t imagine how two houses will fit and be considered

consistent. They feel this will be inconsistent with the

neighborhood.



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

appeal because there was opposition. The present 50 foot lots are owned by

owners that have 100 foot lots. This would not be in line with what is already

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

present for this meeting.



9

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





Case No. 05-V28--Granted.



Garry Pound, 212 Seventh Street, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce

the off-street parking requirement from 20 spaces to 0 (1 per 75 square feet

gross). The property is zoned H.

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

Mr. Pound gave the following information: The legal address is 212 Seventh

Street. This is a turn of the century building and there is never any

parking. The caf? was originally part of a bed and breakfast which is why they

didn?t get a separate business license, that is why they need one now. All

parking is on the street. A conscious decision was made when the Seventh

Street development was started that all the curb cuts would be done away with

to keep people from parking on the city right-of-way, which is basically the

only place to park. The street on Seventh is actually wider than most of the

rest of the street. There is a car width extra on each side of the street.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal to reduce the off-street parking from 20 to 0 because this is in the

Historic District and no parking lots will be added there. Motion carried by

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



Case No. 05-V29?-Granted.



Doug Jeffcoat presented the appeal of Developers-Investors, Inc., 6367

Whitesville Road, for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 40

feet to 25 feet, in order to erect a commercial structure. The property is

zoned C-3.



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

Mr. Jeffcoat gave the following information: They have an on going retail

development off of Bradley Park Drive called the Shoppes of Bradley Park. A

portion of it fronts on Whitesville Road and they have an opportunity to extend

this retail area down the connector road that was built between Whittlesey and

Whitesville Road called Rollins Way. In order to do that and extend to some

retailers that want to build in that area and in order to meet the spirit of an

earlier zoning decision they would







10

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





have to limit the way the traffic flows through there. It forces them into a

situation where they would need to create a flag lot in order to take a piece

of real estate that is kind of toward the back of this area and make sure it

has access to public right-of-way. The request of the variance is to create a

flag lot that would ultimately have a shared driveway with the lot that sits

between the flag lot and Rollins Way. In order to make sure they don?t

landlock a piece of real estate, the real estate actually ties into Whittlesey

Road, but it ties into Whittlesey Road through an area that has a detention

basin and it?s really not practical to access it any other way than what they

are proposing.



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

attached and therefore is considered a part of these minutes.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because this would be the best use of this land considering the

detention pond. Planning recommends approval. Motion carried by the

affirmative vote of the three Board Members present for this meeting. Leah

Braxton abstained from voting and discussion of this case.



Case No. 05-V30--Granted.



George Woodruff, George C. Woodruff Company, and Bruce Jones presented the

appeal of 5600 Boby Drive Lot 400, for a variance to reduce the lot width

requirement from 75 feet to 55 feet, in order to erect a single family

residence. The property is zoned R-1A. (Case No. 05-V30 & 05-V31 were

presented at the same time)



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Jones gave the following information: About one

year ago they bought about 13 to 14 acres. When they bought them, the owner had

15 or 16 lots and wouldn?t sale to them. The owner made them buy the vacant

lots to get what they wanted. The subdivision is 54 years old and they decided

they would have a private urban renewal. They have cleared the lots and they

run 100 to 110 feet. They want to cut the lots in half. This property has

been rezoned to R-2, which is 60 feet frontage and they are asking to reduce

the lot width to 55 feet.







11

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Mr. Ernest Riley and Ms. Lillie

Morris came forward. Mr. Riley stated he owns this particular property that

Mr. Woodruff wants to build the houses on. He would like to table this case

until they resolve this.



Ms. Moore wants to know what is being built, will these be apartments.



After looking at the plat and more discussion, Mr. Riley realized that he does

not own this property, but other property on this street.



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

this appeal. There was a question of ownership of the property, the property

does belong to the George Woodruff Company. These lots are narrow in the front

and widen in the back due to the way the subdivision is layed out. Motion

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

meeting.



Case No. 05-V31?-Granted.



George Woodruff, George C. Woodruff Company and Bruce Jones presented the

appeal of 5600 Boby Drive Lot 401 for a variance to reduce the lot width

requirement from 75 feet to 55 feet, in order to erect a single family

residence. The property is zoned R-1A.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Jones gave the following information: About one

year ago they bought about 13 to 14 acres. When they bought them, the owner had

15 or 16 lots and wouldn?t sale to them. The owner made them buy the vacant

lots to get what they wanted. The subdivision is 54 years old and they decided

they would have a private urban renewal. They have cleared the lots and they

run 100 to 110 feet. They want to cut the lots in half. This property has

been rezoned to R-2, which is 60 feet frontage and they are asking to reduce

the lot width to 55 feet.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Mr. Ernest Riley and Ms. Lillie

Morris came forward. Mr. Riley stated he owns this particular property that

Mr. Woodruff wants to build the houses on. He would like to table this case

until they resolve this.





12

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





Ms. Moore wants to know what is being built, will these be apartments.



After looking at the plat and more discussion, Mr. Riley realized that he does

not own this property, but other property on this street.



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

this appeal. There was a question of ownership of the property, the property

does belong to the George Woodruff Company. These lots are narrow in the front

and widen in the back due to the way the subdivision is layed out. Motion

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

meeting.



Case No. 05-V32--Granted.



Will White presented the appeal of Woodmont Properties, 6500 Whittlesey

Boulevard, from a Decision of the Building Official that two additional signs

are not allowed. The property is zoned A-O.



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

Mr. White gave the following information: They presently have one entrance

sign in the island. Between the right-of-way and the apartments there is a

certain distance that varies around 30 or 40 feet. The existing sign is

approximately 181 feet from the city right-of-way. They don?t feel their

apartments are intrusive, they are not sitting right next to the right-of-way,

they set back a pretty good distance. They would like to construct two

monument signs that would be on each side of the entrance that would help the

identification of these apartments and to show that there is an apartment

community.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Pamela Motycka, Elizabeth Eustice,

Betty Smith, Jenny Howell and Joan Tyler came forward. They wanted to know if

the billboard will be lighted. They are not in opposition.



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

this appeal, although the Building Official is correct that two additional

signs are not allowed, the two signs will be below the allowable square footage

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

present for this meeting.





13

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





Case No. 05-V33?-Granted.



Bradley Jones, presented the appeal of Service Casket Company, 1014 14th

Street, for a variance to reduce the corner side yard setback requirement from

20 feet to 6 feet 8 inches, in order to make an addition, 40? x 143?, to a

warehouse. The property is zoned C-3.



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

Mr. Jones gave the following information: The existing building sits on the

property line as is. They are adding more warehouse space. The addition will

sit back farther from the curb than the existing warehouse. This will be a lot

more tasteful than what is already there.



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 addition will be as close as the existing building that

is on the lot. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.



END OF VARIANCES.



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



Case No. 05-HO23--Granted.



Christopher Bernard Epps, 3601 Vivian Lane, presented his application for a

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

promotions, party planning and marketing assistance, C. B. Epp?s Promotions.

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.





14

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





Mr. King 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. 05-HO24--Granted.



Francisco Pizarro, 1106 Piedmont Drive, presented his application for a

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

handyman and lawn care business, Pizarro Handyman. 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. King 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. 05-HO25--Granted.



Gary Abell, 1805 Iris Drive, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a linen supply service

(internet), Southern Linen Supply, Inc. 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

will be no delivery trucks, only 3rd party shipping.



There was no opposition to this application.





15

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





Mr. King 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. 05-HO26?-Granted.



Cathy Smith, 217 Springfield Avenue, presented her application for a

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

cleaning service, Tommy Butler Cleaning Services. The property is zoned R-3A.



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. King 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. 05-HO27?-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

lollipop trees, purses, gift baskets, t-shirts and decals, True-Love

Novelties. 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. There will be no additional traffic in the

neighborhood. There will be no employees. This will be part time work.

Printing of the t-shirts will be done away from the home.



There was no opposition to this application.





16

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





Mr. King 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. 05-HO28--Granted.



Roderick R. Dismuke, 6719 Stone Creek Court, presented his application for a

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

construction company, Benchmark Construction. 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. There will be no

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

material will be kept on site. He will sub out the electrical and plumbing

work.

There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. King 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. 05-HO29?-Granted.



Johnnie & Michelle Robinson, 3029 Longmont Lane, presented their application

for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for a beauty salon,

Michelle?s. The property is zoned R-2.



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

applicants gave the following information: Mrs. Robinson presently has a

beauty salon at a commercial location, she has thyroid problems and would like

to move the beauty salon to their home. There will only be one chair, 3 to 4

clients a day by appointment only. No new client?s will be accepted. Their

driveway can accommodate 4 cars.





17

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





There was a letter of opposition from Alvin Shaw and Shuresa Copleman who

reside at 3036 Longmont Lane. Their concerns are: the increase of traffic

will endanger children, a decrease in property value, mental anguish because

they will loose their privacy and sense of security and the business will be

almost directly across the street from their home.



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

application for a beauty salon with the stipulation that they will have 1

client at a time, no more than 4 a day, Monday thru Saturday. Motion carried

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



Case No. 05-HO30--Granted.



Carolyn M. Bivens, 6023 Crystal Drive #73, presented her application for a

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

service, Bivens Nursing Service (BNS). The property is zoned C-3.



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. She will

go to the client?s home.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. King made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, 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. 05-HO31?-Granted.



Andre Ray, 4219 Willis Street, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation to compose and produce music, Serv?um Up

Entertainment. The property is zoned R-2.







18

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





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. He will have no employees and there will be no additional traffic in the

neighborhood. This will be part time work. He has a keyboard and there will

not be a lot of noise.



There was a letter of opposition from Frank Turman and Wiliam Turman. There

concerns are: this is an elderly community and this business will draw more

traffic and violate the quiet enjoyment of the residents.



Mr. King made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, 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. 05-HO32?-Granted.



Rodney Trotman, 6089 Hunter Ridge Circle, presented his application for a

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

service, R & J?s Errand Service. 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. He will

do errands for the elderly and for people who don?t have time to do

them.

There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. King made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, 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. 05-HO33?-Granted.



Janice W. Fink, 821 49th Street, presented her application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for catalog sales (mail

order), Wishes Company. The property is zoned R-2.





19

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





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. King made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, 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. 05-HO34--Granted.



Judith Washington, 1409 15th Street, presented her application for a

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

educational consulting, EduServices. The property is zoned R-3A.



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. King made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, 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. 05-HO35--Granted.



Robert W. London, 6545 Villastone Drive, presented his application for a

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

handyman/lawn service, Williams Handyman. The property is zoned R-2.







20

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





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 change his business name to London?s Lawn/Handyman Service.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. King made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, 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. The name change was granted. Motion carried by the affirmative

vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO36?-Granted.



Bejewel Tutton Brown, 334 Henson Avenue, presented her application for a

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

Christian Books (internet), GPChristian Books. 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. King, 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. 05-HO37--Granted.



Ricardo U. Crosby, 4960 Aaron Drive, presented his application for a

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

catalog sales and a home inspection business, Quality Home Inspections. The

property is zoned R-1A.





21

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





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. King, 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. 05-HO38--Granted.



Jermaine D. Rayson, 3400 St. Mary?s Road Lot 253, presented his application for

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

inspection company, Triumphant Home Inspection. 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. King, 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. 05-HO39?-Granted.



James C. Smith, 7690 Lloyd Road, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a backflow prevention

assembly tester, Jim?s Backflow Testing. The property is zoned R-1A.









22

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005





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 change his business name to Jim?s Backflow Testing Service

Company.

There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

The name change was granted. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the

four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO40?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Sharon K. Thornton, 6142

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

office only for doing title searches, Tri-City Abstracting. The property is

zoned R-3A.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. King made a motion, which was seconded by Mr.

Lewis, to table this application until the March meeting because there was no

one present to present the application. Motion carried by the affirmative vote

of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.







23

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 02/02/2005









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



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

David Fox, Danny Cargill,

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary