Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? JANUARY 7, 2004





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

7, 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

Mr. Ralph King





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

Pitts, Recording Secretary.



CASES TABLED FROM THE DECEMBER 3rd MEETING.



Case No. 03-HO312--Withdrawn.



This application was withdrawn at the request of the applicant Robert Charles

King, 5001 Midland Trace, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation

for an office only for a floor covering business, KSQ. The property is zoned

A-1.



There was no opposition to this application.



Case No. 03-HO330--Granted.



Sherry Farrar, 2236 Lancelot Place, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a cleaning service

and photography business, Sherry?s Personal Touches. 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 full time work.







Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





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 unanimously.





END OF CASES TABLED FROM THE DECEMBER 3rd MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 04-V1--Granted.



Ray Brinegar, Brinegar, Inc., 8926 River Road, presented the appeal for a

variance to increase the maximum height requirement of an accessory structure

from 14 feet to 17 feet 5 inches. The property is zoned A-1.



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

Mr. Brinegar gave the following information: He would like to increase the

height of a garage/shop/pool house. The same materials used will match the

house and the roof line will 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 the accessory structure will match the house architecturally.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 04-V2?-Granted.



Gary Silva presented the appeal of German Silva Sr., 5331 Rockhurst Drive, for

a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 1 foot,

in order to make an addition, a carport, 10? x 46?, to a single family

residence. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Mr. Silva gave the following information: They would like to add a carport to

the home. They were previously approved for a variance to add a carport that

was 10? x 24?, they would like to make the carport larger. The roof line will

be the same as the house. The same materials used will match the house. The

water will flow to the front and back of the house.





2

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because the water will flow to the front and rear of the home and

should not cause any detrimental affect to the neighbor. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 04-V3?-Granted.



Scott McGregor, Aquarius Pools, presented the appeal of Craig Compton, 750

River Oaks Court, from a Decision of the Building Official that an accessory

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



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

McGregor gave the following information: Mr. Compton would like to put a pool

in his side yard. This is an L-shape home on the lot and it distorts the back

yard. The pool looks like it is in the rear yard, but technically part of it

is in the side yard. On the side where the pool will be located, there are

cedar trees for privacy.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

although the Building Official was correct that an accessory structure is not

allowed in the side yard, this is an odd shaped house and to move the pool to

the actual back yard would be a hardship because of the distance from the

home. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 04-V4?-Tabled.



The appellant asked to table this appeal for the February meeting.

Appeal of Muscogee Hotel Association, LLC, 1325 Veterans Parkway, appealing the

decision of the Uptown Fa?ade Board denial of a sign. The property is zoned C-1.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

until the February meeting at the request of the appellant. Motion carried

unanimously.





3

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





Case No. 04-V5?-Granted.



Stephanie East, 6238 Cape Cod Drive and Mark Caldwell presented the appeal for

a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 16 feet,

in order to make an addition, 22? 6? x 23? 5?, a bedroom and bathroom, to a

single family residence. The property is zoned R-2.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mrs. East and Mr. Caldwell gave the following information: They would

like to add a master bedroom and bathroom to the home. The roof line and pitch

will be the same as the house. 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 the only place the addition can be made. Similar

materials and roofing will match the existing house. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 04-V6?-Granted.



Brian Grier, Brian Grier, Inc., 5094 Boone Links Lane, presented the appeal for

a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 11 feet,

in order to erect a single family residence, 32? 5? x 64? 7?. The property is

zoned R-3A.



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

Mr. Grier gave the following information: The house will be in the Ballantyne

area where they have had variances before that allow the garage with the open

air breeze-way to connect to the rear of the home. This will be consistent

with the remaining houses in the community.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because this is common in this area to erect this type of house.

The hardship would be an un-building lot or unsuitable size home. Motion

carried unanimously.





4

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





Case No. 04-V7--Granted.



Franklin Douglas and Ken Levy presented the appeal of Fourth Street Towers,

Inc., 2805 Thomas Street, for a variance to reduce the side yard setback

requirement (for both sides) from 5 feet to 3 feet, in order to erect a single

family residence, 30? x 54?. The property is zoned R-3.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Douglas and Mr. Levy gave the following information: They have

two properties on Thomas Street (2801 & 2809), this lot is between these two

properties and they would like to put the same size house on this lot. This is

in the East Wynnton Park revitalization area where it has been re-platted. The

carports on the houses face the same direction.



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 lot is adjacent to other lots that have similar homes

surrounding it. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members with Mr. Lewis abstaining from the vote.



Case No. 04-V8--Granted.



Ben Moon presented the appeal of Woodruff Contracting Company, 384 Harco Drive,

for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 60 feet to 56 feet 5

inches, 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. Moon gave the following information: Two lots were platted and approved by

the Planning Board, but should not have been because they did not meet the

minimum requirements at the time they were submitted. They recognized it when

they started doing the site plans and they do not have a problem getting the

houses on the lot.



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.





5

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





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

this appeal because these are cul-de-sac lots and the shape of the lot dictates

where the house would sit on the lot. Without the variance it would pose a

hardship as to the size of the house or they would be lots that could not be

built on. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 04-V9?-Granted.



Ben Moon presented the appeal of Woodruff Contracting Company, 392 Harco Drive,

for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 60 feet to 45 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. Moon gave the following information: Two lots were platted and approved by

the Planning Board, but should not have been because they did not meet the

minimum requirements at the time they were submitted. They recognized it when

they started doing the site plans and they do not have a problem getting the

houses on the lot.



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

this appeal because these are cul-de-sac lots and the shape of the lot dictates

where the house would sit on the lot. Without the variance it would pose a

hardship as to the size of the house or they would be lots that could not be

built on. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 04-V10?-Granted.



Nixon Maxey and Zack Woodcock presented the appeal of Allen-Simpson, Inc., 6220

Williamsburg Drive, for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 60

feet to 25 feet (at building setback line), in order to replat a lot to erect a

single family residence. The property is zoned R-2.





6

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





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

Maxey and Mr. Woodcock gave the following information: They originally asked

that this case be tabled for next month because they would like an opportunity

to explain and show the plats, there seems to be some misunderstandings.

Because of the opposition they felt they needed to make a statement. They felt

this was a better situation if they had a flag lot, then they could maintain

more of a buffer between the existing neighborhood and the proposed addition to

the subdivision. These are 8 feet side lines based on the zoning. They are

going to end up with 33 feet between this lot and the others. They thought it

would be a better idea to come off of Williamsburg Drive not having to have a

utilities easement and still have the same situation instead of having the

access from Westover Drive.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Sammy Starlin, David Johnson and

Joseph Blair came forward. They also had a petition with over 100 signatures

of people who objected to this case. They stated City Council was going to

table this case and they wanted to make sure of that. They also stated they

would like to keep the park the way it is because it will lower their property

value. The appellants are talking about building houses on this land, which

are less than half an acre a piece. The houses are going to be too close

together. They would like to keep the park used as a park. The Board of

Zoning Appeals is hearing an appeal from a non-owner, the appellants don?t own

the property yet, all they have is a sales contract with the City. This land

was deeded to the City as a recreational park and it still states that on the

deed. The City Attorney told them this would be stopped and they were in

negotiations.



Danny Cargill, Secretary of the Board Of Zoning Appeals, stated the appeal is

for a request for reducing the lot width requirement only.



The BZA Members stated they only wanted to hear about the lot width requirement

and the other issues are not relevant.



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

until the February meeting. Motion carried unanimously.





7

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





Case No. 04-V11?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the appeal of Elana Crane, 706

Moore Road (Lot 1), for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement

from 28 feet to 13 feet (on the right side) and to reduce the side yard setback

requirement from 28 feet to 18 feet (on the left side), in order to erect a

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



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

until the February meeting because there was no one present to present the

appeal. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 04-V12?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the appeal of Elana Crane, 706 Moore Road

(Lot 2), for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement (for both

sides) from 28 feet to 15 feet, in order to erect a single family residence.

The property is zoned A-1.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

until the February meeting because there was no one present to present the

appeal. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 04-V13?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the appeal of Elana Crane, 706 Moore Road

(Lot 3), for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 28

feet to 20 feet (on the right side) and to reduce the side yard setback

requirement from 28 feet to 16 feet (on the left side), in order to erect a

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



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

until the February meeting because there was no one present to present the

appeal. Motion carried unanimously.







8

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





Case No. 04-V14?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the appeal of Elana Crane, 706 Moore Road

(Lot 5), for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 28

feet to 13 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is

zoned A-1.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

until the February meeting because there was no one present to present the

appeal. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 04-V15?-Granted.



Wes Driver, presented the appeal of Developers-Investors, Inc., 6401

Whitesville Road (Lot A), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement

from 40 feet to 25 feet, in order to subdivide a lot. The property is zoned

C-3.



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

Driver gave the following information: They originally intended for a road to

be cut from Whitesville Road through to Rollins Way and have smaller lots on

the main road to support different size buildings. Currently the out parcel is

under contract with a credit union that wants to go in there. Because of the

restrictions that have been placed upon us when this road was denied, we needed

to cut out to Whitesville Road to give them their land to give them access to

the street. At the same time we?re looking at another user to come into

Rollins Way, nothing will change from the design. There will be no additional

density to what is built there. They are asking to have two 25 feet flag

lots.



Will Johnson, Interim Planning Division Manager/Zoning Administrator, stated

when W. C. Bradley petitioned for this curb cut on Whitesville Road between

Rollins Way and Publix?s driveway, this was their concept to come out on

Rollins Way with a round about in the middle, they have been denied the curb

cut. This was going to be a public street, these parcels would have frontage

on this public street, now this is not going to be a public street, so they are

going to need road frontage somewhere, that is there hardship. They are trying

to get road frontage out on Whitesville







9

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





Road. The memorandum from Planning Division is attached and therefore is

considered a part of these minutes.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Charles Gilbert came forward. He

was not in opposition, he wanted to know what was going to be done.



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

because the egress is going to be based off of Whitesville Road and not Rollins

Way, this is the only way this lot can be accessed. It would create a hardship

if it could not be rezoned. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four

Board Members with Leah Braxton abstaining from the vote.



Case No. 04-V16?-Granted.



Wes Driver, presented the appeal of Developers-Investors, Inc., 6401

Whitesville Road (Lot B), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement

from 40 feet to 25 feet, in order to subdivide a lot. The property is zoned

C-3.



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

Driver gave the following information: They originally intended for a road to

be cut from Whitesville Road through to Rollins Way and have smaller lots on

the main road to support different size buildings. Currently the out parcel is

under contract with a credit union that wants to go in there. Because of the

restrictions that have been placed upon us when this road was denied, we needed

to cut out to Whitesville Road to give them their land to give them access to

the street. At the same time we?re looking at another user to come into

Rollins Way, nothing will change from the design. There will be no additional

density to what is built there. They are asking to have two 25 feet flag

lots.



Will Johnson, Interim Planning Division Manager/Zoning Administrator, stated

when W. C. Bradley petitioned for this curb cut on Whitesville Road between

Rollins Way and Publix?s driveway, this was their concept to come out on

Rollins Way with a round about in the middle, they have been denied the curb

cut. This was going to be a public street, these parcels would have frontage

on this public street, now this is not going to be a public street, so







10

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





they are going to need road frontage somewhere, that is there hardship. They

are trying to get road frontage out on Whitesville Road. The memorandum from

Planning Division is attached and therefore is considered a part of these

minutes.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Charles Gilbert came forward. He

was not in opposition, he wanted to know what was going to be done.



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

because the egress is going to be based off of Whitesville Road and not Rollins

Way, this is the only way this lot can be accessed. It would create a hardship

if it could not be rezoned. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four

Board Members with Leah Braxton abstaining from the vote.



END OF VARIANCES.



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



CaseNo. 04-HO1?-Granted.



Jimmy Ray Thorne, 8215 Rockbridge Court, presented his application for a

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

care service, Thorne?s Lawn Service. 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 unanimously.





11

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





CaseNo. 04-HO2?-Granted.



Sidney H. Adams Jr., 2107 Hunter Court, presented his application for a

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

maintenance, lawn service & janitorial business, Sid & Lou?s Home

Maintenance/Lawn Service/Janitorial. 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,

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 04-HO3--Granted.



James Alexander Hardy, 310 Oakley Drive, presented his application for a

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

advertising, marketing, entertainment, photography, logo?s, business cards,

resumes, catering, graphic design, painting, art work, selling bird baths, bird

wells and flower pots (items will be sold on internet & away from the home),

Jah II 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. The bird baths,

bird wells and flower pots will be made by his brother who lives in a different

state.



There was no opposition to this application.







12

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





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 unanimously.





Case No. 04-HO4--Granted.



James Bobo, 4210 Snellings Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a lawn service, Bo?s

Yard Work. 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 unanimously.



Case No. 04-HO5--Granted.



W. H. Evans Jr., 9749 Whitesville Road, presented his application for a

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

gas logs, fire places & equipment, ?Grate Fires?. The property is zoned A-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. No items

will be sold at his home, all items will be dropped shipped to the

customer.

There was no opposition to this application.





13

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





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 unanimously.



Case No. 04-HO6--Granted.



Patricia Gant, 3422 Marriott Drive, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling clothing &

jewelry (sold away from the home), Elevators. The property is zoned R-1B.



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. Items

will be sold on the internet and dropped shipped to the customer?s 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 unanimously.





CaseNo. 04-HO7?-Granted.



Michael Cain, 7172 Citation Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

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

Maintenance Service 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 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 unanimously.





14

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





Case No. 04-HO8--Granted.



Chad Norris, 6530 Gregg Drive, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a swimming pool service,

Premier Pool Service. 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

clean pools and replace liners. The liners will be dropped shipped to the

customer?s 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 unanimously.





CaseNo. 04-HO9?-Granted.



Latrina Patrick, 1204 First Avenue #406, presented her application for a

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

writing/grant consulting, Greater Vision. The property is zoned CRD.



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 unanimously.







15

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





Case No. 04-HO10--Granted.



Shirley Rogers, 1340 15th Street, presented her application for a Certificate

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

Rogers Cleaning Service. The property is zoned R-3A (H).



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 unanimously.





CaseNo. 04-HO11?-Granted.



Ralph Evers, 744 2nd Avenue, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for psychotherapy, Columbus Center For

Neurotherapy. The property is zoned H.



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

applicant gave the following information: He is a licensed therapist and he is

cutting back on his private practice. He will have 3 clients a day between 3:00

p.m. ? 8:00 p.m. by appointment only. His specialty is mainly with children.

He will have no employees. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Lewis 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 unanimously.



Case No. 04-HO12--Granted.



Jared Cohen, 6470 Fieldstream Way, presented his application for a Certificate

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

accessories, JVC & Sons Enterprises. The property is zoned R-2.





16

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





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

windshield covers and arm rests and they will be dropped shipped to the

customer?s home. The products will be made in Atlanta or Florida and

customized at a location in Columbus (away from his home).



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox 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 unanimously.





CaseNo. 04-HO13?-Granted.



Mark Shropshire, 1100 Vesper Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a floor covering

business, Southern Floor Covering. 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. He will

do installation only. He has a partner that already has his own business

license.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox 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 unanimously.



Case No. 04-HO14--Granted.



Mary Anderson, 6113 Raleigh Court, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a used car dealer,

Andersonlee Auto Sales. The property is zoned R-2.







17

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004





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

have specific clients that she will buy cars for. She will not have cars

stored at her home, she will take the car to the client.



There was no opposition to this application.





Mr. Fox 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 unanimously.



END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.







18

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/07/2004













The minutes of the regular meeting of December 3rd were approved as presented.



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.











____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

David Fox, Danny Cargill,

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary















19