Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? SEPTEMBER 4, 2002





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

September 4, 2002 at 2:00 P.M., on the 1st Floor of the Government Center

Annex, 420-10th Street. Members present were:







Mrs. Leah Braxton

Mr. Larry Phillips

Mr. David Fox

Mr. James Billingsley

Mr. Billy Edwards





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

Pitts, Recording Secretary.





CASES TABLED FROM THE AUGUST 7th MEETING.



Case No. 02-V124--Granted.



Gerald Parker, Southern Awning Company, presented the appeal of Wayne

Eldridge, 8350 Veterans Parkway, for a variance to reduce the side yard setback

requirement from 10 feet to 2 feet, in order to make an addition, a carport,

24? x 26?, to a single family residence. The property is zoned R-1.



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

Mr. Parker gave the following information: Mr. Eldridge would like to add a

carport over an existing concrete pad. On one side of the house, there is an

empty lot and the closest house on the other side is about 200 feet from the

property line. They have been using the empty lot next door for parking for 17

years.











BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because the carport will go over an existing slab, they are replacing a

carport. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO158--Granted.



Charles Michael Toole, 6311 Natha Avenue, presented his application for a

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

tile installation, Toole Tile Company. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips 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

materials at the residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO159---Denied.



There was no one present to present the application of J. Nathan

Wright, 5217 Boyd Drive, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation

for an office only for computer services, Wright Data Services. The property

is zoned R-1A.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

this application because there was no one present at two consecutive meetings.

Motion carried unanimously.















2

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-HO161--Granted.



Jay Kurtz, 7577 Timberdale Court, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for yard care, Jayman?s

Yard Care. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. 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 materials at the

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V98?-Denied.



A. H. Dudley III, 304 S. Lumpkin Road, and Sam Oates, Attorney, presented the

appeal for a variance to reduce the requirement for a 6 inch aggregate base to

existing base. The property is zoned M-1.



Leah Braxton: Mr. Dudley?s engineer and the City?s engineer were given 30 days

for the two parties to come together and come to an agreement.

Sam Oates: They arranged to meet this engineer out at Bud?s (Mr. Dudley?s )

place. It wasn?t until early last week we were able to get the two engineers

to agree to meet for the first time this past Friday. Mr. Mark Nolan is in

Ozark, Alabama, today and could not be here, but he basically reported to me.

He met with Ms. Newman, Assistant Director of Engineering for the City, at the

site. She basically told him that the ordinance calls for 6 inches of crush

and run or aggregate and that?s what she is going to require. We anticipated

and expected a good faith attempt on the part of the City to reach some sort of

middle ground with us.











3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Donna Newman: I met with Mark Nolan last Friday on site, and we looked at the

existing material that was out there. There still is a lot of sandy material

out there. I did give Mr. Nolan another option that was not listed in the

ordinance that I thought might work out. I suggested that he might want to

look at doing this whole park with cement type base. We would consider a

design on that if he could provide us with information showing that it would

work. Now the condition that I saw out there and the reason I was not in

agreement with what was proposed with the existing material is that there is

still a lot of sand and it is washing beyond the limits of the road in some

locations. There was still a lot of rutting going on out there, and there were

puddles. There is not a proper grade on the road for drainage purposes. I

didn?t feel like it met the requirements of the ordinance. I didn?t see any

type signage that said this is a one-way road. It is apparent that some roads

would probably be predominantly one-way and of sufficient width to accommodate

one-way traffic, but obviously some of the roads were going to carry two-way

traffic and they would not be wide enough for two-way traffic. He would

probably need at least an 18 foot wide road to accommodate two-way traffic.

Bud Dudley: I bought the property 10 years ago. I proceeded to improve the

property, and I knew it was going to be a long time thing. When we bought the

property, we spent $250,000.00 borrowed money and then spent another couple of

hundred thousand dollars out of our pocket. The City approached me one time

about buying the property. We are a little apart on the price. There isn?t

going to be a mobile home park out there at some point in the not-too-distant

future. It has put me in a position where I am stuck. The roads out there we

grade, they do drain and they will drain. The surface that is out there is, in

the real world, as good as what they are asking for. Now I?ve corrected a

couple of hundred feet out there that everybody?s been out there talking about

how bad the sand was on the south west corner back there and I addressed that

since the last meeting. Mark Nolan seemed to think it was less than a thousand

feet that actually needed any significant attention or any attention, when he

came in down there. These people are not going to be better off, I?m not going

to be better off, and the City is not going to be better off if we have to do

this. This is an enormous expensive thing that?s going to go for naught and

that?s why I?m down here pushing it.









4

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Sam Oates: When he became aware that this property would not continue to exist

as a mobile home park several years ago, he stopped his new development out

there. He had long term plans. There is plenty of area out there to renew

lots and move new homes in. That?s what he was in the process of doing, trying

to increase the cash flow so that he could improve the quality of the mobile

home park. When he realized what was occurring out there in that area, he had

just gotten it into a positive cash flow, but then figured well why do we spend

the hundreds of thousands of dollars that it?s going to cost in long term

development cost to improve it as a mobile home park when it?s very obvious

that it?s not going to be a mobile home park much longer. Now he has been in

this frozen mode for several years and barely in a cash flow situation. Now he

is confronted with the prospect of spending $75,000.00, which is not going to

benefit anybody. He is perfectly willing to maintain the roads out there and to

improve these that need to be improved. Mark Nolan testified last month that

those roads and that development are well maintained and are a substantial

equivalent, for the most part, of what the ordinance requires. There are only

just a few areas that we thought were in question.

Billy Edwards: Do you have a drawing or anything from Mr. Nolan on his

recommendations?

Sam Oates: We can certainly produce one. It was such a delay in his being

able to get Ms. Newman there that this didn?t occur until last Friday morning.

We thought that perhaps they would be able to agree on some areas and disagree

on some areas; that we might be able to narrow the issues down and at that

point present it to you all and maybe get a resolution on the disputed areas.

Larry Phillips: Donna, if you had a scale drawing of the lay out of streets

and lots and all out there, is there anyway to go out there and make a decision?

Donna Newman: A majority of it would not meet the criteria of the ordinance.

Regardless, if you?re looking at the material, a majority of it did not have a

crown so that the water would properly drain. You?re also talking about a very

highly erosive material, and it?s going to rut if not crowned and drained

appropriately. It?s going to continue to rut and wash board and















5

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





create a non-desirable riding surface, if you will, as well as potential

erosion. I noticed the other day that it?s closer and closer toward a ditch

section. I?m not sure where that ditch section goes or if it?s a major impact

or not. There was one section that was really bad the first time I went out

there where Mr. Dudley had come back and made a corrective action that was much

better when I went out there last Friday.

Bud Dudley: I specifically put it in out there. You can use an alternative

material to do something and I did.

Leah Braxton: I think we?ve given that 30 days for that to occur. It doesn?t

sound to me that we can sit here another month and you will come back with a

solution.

Donna Newman: Mark and I didn?t have any really previous conversation before

we met out there, but he didn?t bring forth any proposals other than leaving

what?s there there; and that?s certainly not acceptable to me.

Leah Braxton: When was this ordinance put in place? How long ago?

Rebecca Wiggins: August of 1999.

Leah Braxton: And they were given two years to comply?

Rebecca Wiggins: They were given 14 months which would have been October of

2000.

Sam Oates: We agreed when we were in here last month, there was an area that

needed improvement and Bud began working on that. We approached that in good

faith and he is in fact working to improve it.

Leah Braxton: The whole intent of that ordinance was to clean up mobile home

parks and certainly we?ve been successful at that. I would think we?re taking

a full step backwards if we just say that you don?t have to make these

improvements.

Rebecca Wiggins: There?s not any reason that it should not conform with this

ordinance while it is a mobile home park.

Sam Oates: It is obvious that this property will not remain as a mobile home

park. The City approached Bud and there were some ongoing negotiations about

purchasing the property. He was informed by Felton Grant that either he would

sell them the property or they would condemn it. Ultimately there was a letter

from the City stating there would be no purchase at this time. But he has

certainly agreed that since the value of that property is clearly going to go

upwards, it will not remain as a mobile home park for long.











6

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Leah Braxton: I think Bill Duck told me that we?ve had a couple of mobile home

parks which have chosen to shut down rather than comply with this ordinance.

Rebecca Wiggins: At least two, maybe more, because they couldn?t comply with

the ordinance, they have closed down.

Sam Oates: We?re requesting a variance for the reasons stated.



Decision?

Billy Edwards: Bill Duck was standing here last week and he was talking about

some middle ground, which they don?t seem to have reached, so what else can we

do?

Larry Phillips: I would like to make a motion to deny the case, Right now I

personally feel like everything has been represented to us on both sides, but

it still needs some middle ground because we really don?t have an understanding

of it. By denying the case they can easily resubmit it back to this Board with

new or different information. Hopefully that would happen instead of it going

to court. They could produce a nice drawing of the park and of the streets

they propose to leave like they are and streets they are going to do certain

things to and give us some specific things to put our finger on and say, ?O.K.

I?ve been there and looked at that; and, yes, that street will go and this one

won?t?. We don?t have what we were looking for. I don?t feel like I have the

authority to make the kind of decision that I?m asked to make on it.

Billy Edwards: If we deny it, can he come back to this Board?

Larry Phillips: With new information.

Billy Edwards: I second the motion.

Motion carried unanimously.



END OF CASES TABLED FROM THE AUGUST 7th MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 02-V138?-Granted.



Leon Chapman, 1900 Wellborn Drive, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the front yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 12 feet, in order to

make an addition, a carport, 12? x 20?, to a single family residence. The

property is zoned R-2.









7

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





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

Chapman gave the following information: This was an existing carport and he

was not aware that he needed a permit to replace a carport. The carport serves

for helping a handicap person (who lives at the residence) to get in and out of

the rain. It also serves as a bus stop to protect the school children in the

neighborhood from inclement weather.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this appeal because the carport will protect a handicap person from the rain.

Motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1 with David Fox voting against the motion.



Case No. 02-V139?-Granted.



Clay Allen, 2128 Smith Road, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce the

lot width requirement from 125 feet to 101 feet, in order to erect a single

family residence. The property is zoned A-1. Contingent upon Planning

approval.



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

gave the following information: He bought 18 acres of land and wants to give

his parents 1 acre of land so they can erect a house. He has 17 acres in the

back of his parents property and would like to erect a house also. His

frontage will be cut down to 101 feet after he gives the 1 acre to his

parents.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Planning recommends approval of this request.



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

contingent upon Planning?s approval because this is a large piece of property

and to separate one piece does not adversely affect the property. Motion

carried unanimously.















8

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-V140?-Granted.



Jimmy Weaver, Air Flow Awning, presented the appeal of Priscilla Johnson, 5555

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

8 feet to 2 feet, in order to make an addition, 16? x 25?, a carport, to a

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



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

Weaver gave the following information: Ms. Johnson would like to add a 16? x

25? carport to her home. The carport will be 2 feet off the property line. It

will have gutters and the water will be diverted to the back yard. Currently,

Ms. Johnson has 3 cars and a single carport. A slab will be poured and she

will have a new driveway. There are similar carports in the neighborhood. The

neighbor?s yard is about 8 inches to 1 foot higher than her property.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because this is an extension of an existing driveway that will have a cover

over it. The water will be controlled to the rear of the house. There was no

opposition to this case and this seems to be typical for the area. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V141--Denied.



Wallace Whitten, 2443 Elm Drive, presented his appeal for a variance to reduce

the front yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 10 feet and to reduce the

lot width from 75 feet to 50 feet, in order to divide an existing lot. The

property is zoned R-1A. Contingent upon Planning approval.



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

Whitten gave the following information: He has two houses and only 1 meter, he

would like to separate the houses so he can get a meter on the other house. He

would like to separate















9

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





the houses with a property line to subdivide the lot. There is a

garage/apartment in the rear. He will put up a fence between the two lots for

privacy. This will not destroy the property, but will beautify it. There will

be two separate driveways. The back lot is much longer than the front lot.



When the Chairman asked for opposition, George Wade and Jack Cadena came

forward. They had concerns with water drainage run off, the kind of tenants

that would move in, invasion of privacy, an increase in traffic and what is

actually going to end up on the property (i.e., duplexes or patio homes).



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

because there was opposition from neighbors, a hardship was not shown, and

there are other options. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V142?-Granted.



David Johnson, 7664 River Crest Drive, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 40 feet to 10 feet, in order to

erect a single family residence, 35? x 98?. The property is zoned R-1.



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

Johnson gave the following information: Because of the street address they

requested, the rear yard and the side yard have flipped flopped. They

requested a River Crest Drive address instead of Osbry Cove, which would be

fine according to the existing setback requirements. They would rather have a

River Crest Drive address because it is easier to say and it will be easier to

spell when his wife is on the phone ordering pizza and doing everyday normal

things. River Crest is now the front yard. They can not bring the house

forward to River Crest any further because there are two large dogs on the side

of their bedroom and they want to get as far from that as possible. On the

other side of the house, the terrain is flat and falls 9 to 10 feet.

















10

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this appeal because this is a nice home, they had an option of which street to

name, and they chose the one with the easier name. There is nothing wrong with

the layout of the residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V143?-Granted.



Paul Riddle, Humphrey?s Associates, and Don Duncan, presented the appeal of Dr.

Ehrman Eldridge Jr., 1100 18th Avenue, for a variance to reduce the front yard

buffer option #2-5 feet required 3 feet shown. Side yard buffer category

C-option #2-10 feet required, delete buffer due to 3 feet parking overhang.

The property is zoned A-O.



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

Riddle and Mr. Duncan gave the following information: This is a project they

started working on in 1998, when Dr. Eldridge first bought this property. This

project has been on hold since then. Since that time the buffer ordinance has

come into effect. They are asking to proceed further with this project. If

the variance is not granted, they would have to reduce 1 row of parking spaces

or make the building smaller. The project could not proceed. If the parking

spaces are reduced there wouldn?t be enough spaces for the patients and other

doctors. Dr. Ehrman will use the number of trees that are required. They will

put up a 6 foot wooden fence which is a part of the buffer ordinance

requirement.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

to reduce the front yard and side yard buffer option and to delete the parking

overhang because of parking considerations. Motion carried unanimously.



















11

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-V144?-Granted.



Rodney Milner, 4940 Hamilton Road, presented the appeal for a variance to

reduce the corner side yard setback requirement from 20 feet to 2 feet, in

order to make an addition, an awning, to an office/warehouse. The property is

zoned C-3.



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

Milner gave the following information: He has a tenant that has been there 10

years. They will put an awning over a concrete loading dock so that the water

retention will stay the same; he does have a retention pond. He previously got

a variance to put up a loading dock about 10 years ago. The tenant has

requested some improvements to the area and this is one of the improvements

they requested.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this appeal because the awning will not make a difference and there was no

opposition to this case. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V145?-Granted.



Gary Lisle presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, 2240 Fort

Benning Road, for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from

15 feet to 12 feet and to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 15 feet

to 10 feet and to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from

76 to 62, in order to erect two buildings (lot combination). The property is

zoned C-2.



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

gave the following information: They demolished a filling station on the front

side of the site which was erected on the property line. The new construction

is giving more room than previously existed. There are a set of apartments

behind the second building. There is a fair amount of buffer area in between

them and a fence. They need to push the buildings back as far as they can to

be able to get parking.











12

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





When the Chairman asked for opposition, Francis Woolfolk came forward. She

stated she had numerous problems with people using her back area for parking.

The previous tenants used her property.



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

because the property line is at an angle toward the building and if it was

straight it would be a lot more than 15 feet required. After Mr. Lisle

explained to Ms. Woolfolk what he was doing she was not in opposition. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V146?-Granted.



Robert French, 7300 Livingston Drive, and Tim Simpson presented the appeal for

a variance to reduce the lot area requirement from 15,000 sq. ft. to 7,493 sq.

ft. and to reduce the lot width requirement from 100 feet to 60 feet, in order

to subdivide an existing lot. The property is zoned R-1. Contingent upon

Planning approval.



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

French and Mr. Simpson gave the following information: They would like to

separate a 60? x 60? compound out from the 30 acres of land. They are

separating it because there is no traffic to the plat. They were told they

needed to separate this out from their 30 acres for tax reasons.



Planning recommends approval of this request.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this is a commercial use lot, so that the city can get some more

tax revenue. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V147?-Granted.



Jim Hilliker, The Complete Company presented the appeal of Gene & Marie Pearre,

6232 Birling Drive, for a variance to reduce the corner side yard setback

requirement from 25 feet to 20 feet, in order to make an addition, 12? x 32?,

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





13

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





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

Hilliker gave the following information: They are asking for a variance on the

side corner lot to make an addition of a bedroom. The setbacks are 25 feet on

the side and it comes over the line 1 to 2 feet and the other end is 5 feet

over. The materials used will match the house.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this appeal because with the addition there will not be any site distance

problems and there was no opposition to this appeal. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 02-V148?-Granted.



Tom Moore presented the appeal of Betty Robinson, 3220 Meadow Brook Drive, for

a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 5 feet,

in order to make an addition, 24? 4? x 46? 10?, to a single family residence.

The property is zoned R-1A.



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

gave the following information: Ms. Robinson has a 2 car aluminum metal type

awning for a carport. They are proposing to demolish it and replace it with an

attached carport. The addition will be even with the concrete wall. There is

a 4 inch block wall that is at the back of her property line.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this will be over an existing driveway and will be an

improvement over the aluminum cover that is already there. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 02-V149?-Granted.



Carl Hopp presented the appeal of Columbus Area Habitat For Humanity, 737

Lawyers Lane, for a variance to reduce the lot width from 50 feet to 25 feet,

in order to subdivide a lot. The property is zoned R-3A. Contingent upon

Planning approval.









14

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





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

gave the following information: They are trying to maximize the use of a large

lot that is over 15,000 square feet. They realized they could get two houses

on the lot if they sub-divide it. On the left side is where the driveway would

go, apartments are in the rear facing the side, on the back of the lot are

single family residences and on the right side is a vacant lot.



Planning recommends approval of this request.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

contingent upon Planning?s approval because the zoning indicates smaller lot

usage. They need to get a driveway to be sufficient on the lot. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V150?-Granted.



James McVay, Leary & Brown, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce the

rear yard setback requirement from 40 feet to 20 feet, in order to erect a

single family residence, 60? x 66? 10?. The property is zoned R-1.



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

gave the following information: They are negotiating with Ms. Karen Fielding to

construct a single family residence on this lot. She owns this lot and lives

on the property adjacent to this property to the right. The front building

line is 50 feet and the zoning calls for a 30 feet front building line. The

reason they didn?t apply for a front variance is because they inquired to the

City and DOT; they were told that Billings Road may at some point in the future

be widened and she would like to have her house as far back as possible on

Billings Road. The topography of the lot is a steep drop off from



















15

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Billings Road down to this lot. With the water run off they would need to be

this far from the road to control the water to get around the house. There is

a large buffer of trees in the front of the lot that they are going to keep if

possible to give her some privacy from Billings Road. There is approximately

15 feet of land from her back property pins to the lake which Ms. Fielding has

agreed to continue to keep up, as she is doing now. There are no homes directly

to her rear that she will infringe upon.



There was no opposition presented to this application.



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

appeal because this is a special lot that drops off from Billings Road and in

order to control the water the residence must set back as far as possible.

There is a 15 foot buffer between the rear of their lot and the lake. So there

will be no impact on anyone to the rear of this property. Motion carried

unanimously.



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



Case No. 02-HO186?-Tabled.



Charles Jones, 3715 Willow Ben Run, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for painting and

miscellaneous repairs, C. Edward Jones Contracting Company. 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 of his home

as an office only. He will not have any additional traffic in the

neighborhood. This will be full time work. He will have 2 employees.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

application until the October meeting so that Mr. Jones 2 employees can also

get a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation. Motion carried

unanimously.











16

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-HO187--Granted.



Alberta Hardy, 4947 Teak Drive, presented her application for a Certificate of

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

clothing/apparel (catalog sales), Fashion Solutions Boutique. 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 of 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 shipped directly to the client?s home.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO188?-Granted.



John Crump, 3607 15th Avenue, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a lawn service, John

Crump Lawn Service. The property is zoned R-3A.



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

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room of 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. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, 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

materials at the residence. Motion carried unanimously.











17

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-HO189--Granted.



Ulysses Gaines, 3439 Doyle Avenue, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for tile installation and

repair, Bud?s Tile. 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 of 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. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley 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 materials at the

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO190?-Granted.



Kevin Lee Kirby, 4515 Gatewood Avenue, presented his application for a

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

care business, Perfect Touch Lawn Care. The property is zoned R-2.



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

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room of 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. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, 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

materials at the residence. Motion carried unanimously.











18

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-HO191--Granted.



Kurt Miller, 6486 Georgian Way, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for computer

consulting/repair, Out Sourced Technology Services. 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 of 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

equipment stored at the residence and the work will be done at the client?s

home.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation

definition. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO192?-Granted.



Brian Morris, 2736 Ramsey Road, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a collection agency, H &

P Agency. 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 of his home

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

traffic in the neighborhood. She will meet the clients at their offices and

that is where the work will be done. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.

















19

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation

definition. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO193--Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Edith Salyer, 8

Northfield Court, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an

office only for selling jewelry and accessories (peddler), Selections by Edie.

The property is zoned R-1A.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

application until the October meeting because there was no one present to

present the application. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO194?-Granted.



Robert Lee Adkinson Jr., 4915 Bruning Street, presented his application for a

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

chauffeuring service, Lighthouse Transportation Plus. 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 of 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

use the client?s vehicle to chauffeur them.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation

definition. Motion carried unanimously.













20

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-HO195--Granted.



Sandra N. Cox, 6428 Adams Park Drive, presented her application for a

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

maternal child visits, Mother & Maternal Aid Services. 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 of 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 is a

registered nurse and she will see the clients at their residences.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO196?-Granted.



Mark Tarvin, 1920 Coventry Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

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

business, MLT Inspections Company, LLC. 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 of 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. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation

definition. Motion carried unanimously.













21

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-HO197--Granted.



Cheryl Goodrum presented the application for her husband Charles Goodrum III,

6009 Windsor Drive, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an

office only for a telecommunication company, Goodrum Telecom, Inc. The

property is zoned R-1A.



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

Goodrum gave the following information: He will be using one room of their 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. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO198?-Granted.



James Carter, 6932 Setter Drive, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a lawn care business,

Tru-Cut Lawn Care. The property is zoned R-2.



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

applicant gave the following information: He will be using one room of 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. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, 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

materials at the residence. Motion carried unanimously.











22

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-HO199--Granted.



Idella Johnson, 1200 Warren Williams Road, #206F, presented her application for

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

tutoring service, Ja Dennis Tutoring Service. The property is zoned R-4.



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

applicant gave the following information: She will be using one room of 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. She will

meet the students at the library or their residence.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Billingsley made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO200?-Granted.



Catherine Wilcox, 7205 Sesame Street, presented her application for a

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

design/advertising sales communication, Graphic Concepts-SouthEast. 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 of 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.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Billingsley made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant

this application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation

definition. Motion carried unanimously.











23

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-HO201--Granted.



Andy Saville presented the application for his brother Robert Saville Jr., 1800

17th Avenue, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office

only for a lawn care business, Saville Landscape Management. The property is

zoned R-3A.



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

Saville gave the following information: Robert Saville will be using one room

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. 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 materials at the

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO202?-Granted.



Clydie Farmer, 2301 Burnside Drive, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for sewing & alterations,

Anointed Sewing & Alteration Services. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Billingsley made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant

this application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation

definition. Motion carried unanimously.











24

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-HO203--Granted.



Jose Ramos, 5030 Eton Drive, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a painting contractor,

Jose and Fanny Ramos Paint Contractor. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Billingsley made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips 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 materials at the

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO204?-Granted.



Aletha Paschal, 1020 Watson Drive, presented her application for a Certificate

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

janitorial service, Percision Cleaning & Janitorial Services. 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. Billingsley made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant

this application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation

definition. Motion carried unanimously.













25

BOARD OF ZONINGS APPEALS ? 09/04/2002





Case No. 02-HO205--Granted.



Barbara Cunningham, 4972 St. Mary?s Road, presented her application for a

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

cash advance business, GIBLUES Cash Advance. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Billingsley made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO206?-Granted.



Willie James Pless III, 3512 Stratford Drive, presented his application for a

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

handyman business, Han-D-Man. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Billingsley made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, 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

materials at the residence. Motion carried unanimously.



END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.









26

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/04/2002









The minutes of the regular meeting of August 7th were approved as presented.



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

Larry Phillips, Danny Cargill

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary















































27