Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? AUGUST 7, 2002





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

7, 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 JULY 3rd MEETING.



Case No. 02-V98?-Tabled.



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.





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

Dudley and Mr. Oates gave the following information: Mr. Dudley is requesting

a variance to use the existing base because he believes the existing base is

equivalent to the specification called for by the City. Over 90 percent of the

people out there signed a petition stating they are satisfied with the current

condition and quality of the roads in Orchard Grove. They realize that what

they are being asked to do, in relation to what is out there now, is not going

to be any better for them or the City. It is going to be an expensive

process. There is a considerable amount of roads out there. Mr. Nolan,





BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





who is a professional engineer, is en-route to the meeting. He has done some

tests to testify that they have the equivalent of what the City is asking for.



Sam Oates (Attorney): There is a 4 to 6 inch base of river rock out there

already that?s been there a long time. It?s got a sand covering that is

properly sloped so that there is no drainage problem. A portion of it is hard

pan. There?s roughly 6,000 linear feet of roadway out there that would have to

be covered with gravel. I know several of you are in the construction business

and you are certainly aware of the expense that would be involved. It is

pretty evident that this property will not be a mobile home park very long.

There have been on-going negotiations with the City, the Consolidated

Government, for some period of time concerning the purchase of the property.

Others have expressed interest in purchasing the property as well. To put Mr.

Dudley, as owner of the development, in a position of having to pay anywhere

from $50,000 to $75,000 for complying with this ordinance would be unfair to

everyone involved. Mr. Dudley would have to spend the money and he would be in

a position of having to increase the rent of the 55 tenants on the property.

The expense would have to be passed on to who ever purchases the property,

which more than likely may be the Consolidated Government. We are asking that

you allow Mr. Dudley to maintain the status quo.



Rebecca Wiggins, Inspections and Codes Enforcement Division: In August of 1999

Council enacted a new mobile home ordinance which required all parks to be in

compliance by October, 2000. I met with Mr. Dudley in January, 2000, to go

over the deficiencies that existed there. In September, 2000, the City did

negotiate with Mr. Dudley about purchasing the mobile home park, but in

February, 2001, I was informed that the City was not interested in buying the

park. I have copies of letters that were sent to Mr. Dudley from the City

telling him that they were not interested in buying the park. They could not

come to terms on the price, as I understand. During all of this time that park

was and is a mobile home park that should be in compliance with the ordinance.

I contacted him and he said he would do the required work, that being the

installation of additional street lights and making the roads meet the

ordinance.

Larry Phillips: Wasn?t there a compromise to repair certain parts of this

without doing every street?



2

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





Rebecca Wiggins: There are probably some parts of the road that would meet the

intent of the ordinance; other parts don?t meet that part of the ordinance at

all. They are very sandy and they are several inches deep in sand.

Larry Phillips: I took some photos also that the Board can look at. I?m going

to say that these are unbiased. I?m going to say the photos that we received

from Mr. Dudley represented a good example of the good parts; and let?s

convince ourselves that yours, Rebecca, represent a good example of the bad

part. So let?s look at mine since they represent all of it. You say there was

some compromise of repairing certain areas and not the whole thing?

Rebecca Wiggins: It?s not a compromise in that some areas of the park do meet

the requirement. It?s not really a compromise, it?s just that all of the park

roads have to meet the requirements. I believe that you all have what the

ordinance requires. He did, after we went to court, agree to do a test strip,

which was about 150 feet long where he had the deep sand scraped off and put in

5 inches or so of crush and run that met the ordinance. He told the court in

May that he would do that in the rest of the park and subsequent to that did

not and chose to come here instead. He met with me, Deputy City Manager

Richard Bishop and the Chief Building Official Bill Duck at the site. That was

on April 26th of this year. We walked all over the park, looked at the places

that were O.K., and looked at the places that were very deep in sand. At that

time he agreed to meet the ordinance and said he would do a test and have me

look at it. I inspected that May 3, 2002. This is not an adequate rolling

service, it does not meet the criteria of the ordinance. In some places it?s

probably deeper, in other places it?s not as deep.

David Fox: I noticed only two really pronounced spots where there was sandy

traction problems. Are you implying that there are more than two places that

are not in compliance.

Rebecca Wiggins: Yes, there are some areas that are not deep in sand, but do

not meet the criteria as well. One is where the asphalt ends and the drive

continues to go up the hill. There are some places that are very packed down.

They may not need the 6 inches of compacted grated aggregate base, however they

are packed down and sometimes the more it rains the better off it is out

there. What we are asking this Board for is that



3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





he be required to meet the ordinance as have all other parks that have chosen

to stay open. It would be unfair, we think, for him not to have to meet the

ordinance and all the rest of the mobile home parks that chose to stay in

business to meet the requirements and in some cases that required that some of

the parks have to do this same thing. In those cases, at least two cases, they

used asphalt.

Leah Braxton: Rebecca, you were implying that not all of this would

necessarily need to be replaced. If you were just guessing a number, if you

said 6,000 linear feet of street, would you care to guess in your mind how

much? I think all of us have gone out there.

Rebecca Wiggins: I would say at least half would need to be replaced.

Larry Phillips: Properly placed the river stone, in the proper amount, with

the proper amount of sand over it, could that meet at least the intent of what

the city wants as far as the operating surface or driving surface for the

people who live there? Some of it looks pretty good as far as an unpaved

street. Some of it was rough that needed some sand on it to smooth it out.

Some of it was too soft that needed some type of base under it.

Rebecca Wiggins: We contend that the sand is not an adequate rolling surface

in some places. There are some places that are very deep. In other places it

is O. K. Then in other places it?s so hard that it?s rocky and not smooth at

all. Perhaps a back blade through there may take care of that. I don?t think I

would recommend putting sand on top of anything because it?s going to wash, it

will wash down to where all the sand collects and you will have the same

problem. It?s very sandy out there. The sand continues to wash down probably

from the property adjacent to him or either the top of his property that is at

the top of this road here. I think he will always have a sand problem.

Bud Dudley: We did a test dig and it is sandy on top (in some areas) for the

very reason she said, it washes down. We have a difference of opinion as to

whether or not the sand makes a good running surface or not. Nothing

whatsoever is wrong with the sand on top, in fact it helps us to smooth it

out. There is equipment in good functioning working order on site to do that

all the time. When I was out there with Richard Bishop and Bill Duck there

wasn?t very much of a compromise. They were out there

4

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002



with their person Rebecca Wiggins, they were backing her up, they were doing

their job. We can correct the minor problems. As far as linear footage, my

interpretation is that there is probably less than 1,000 feet without going

into very much expense. When you?re talking 3 or 4 thousand linear feet and

putting 6 inches of crush and run, compacted, some of you that are in

construction have enough experience to know, these are working blue collar

people. It is beyond comprehension to believe that some government entity

would not like to own that property in the not- too-distant future.

Leah Braxton: This ordinance was passed in order to upgrade things. When we

upgrade building inspection issues, if you were to ask tenants, ?do you want to

pay for this?? they would say, ?no.? Some things just need to be done and

people are never going to want to pay for them. If there is a way you guys

could work out what the distance is and come back and tell us how much, that

would be something that would be submittable to.

Rebecca Wiggins: I thought we had done that before. I thought that when he

did his test strip and went into court and told the judge that he would do that

and that was acceptable. He told the judge that he would do it, but then he

changed his mind. We have not been able to get the deed done nor agree on what

needs to be done.

Bill Duck: I think that is the important issue. As far as working with him,

we have no problem working with him. Certainly there are some areas out there

that would be acceptable the way that it is. One of the issues, is drainage of

the road. Some areas where it is probably O.K., but the drainage needs to be

dealt with also. But I think the key factor in all of it is that we have been

dealing with this for almost two years. The ordinance gave him fourteen months

to come into compliance. He said that he would come into compliance when we

first met with him. He has worked to come into compliance with everything but

the road. No effort has been made on the road whatsoever. It forced us to a

point to have to take him to court and try to get him to comply. In court and

talking with the judge then he dealt with those issues Richard Bishop and I

went out and looked at it with him. He did a test strip, he went back into

court and we accepted that. We said, ?Yes that?s adequate, that would take

care of it.? I certainly don?t feel that he needs to do that 100% over the

entire park. I think there is a happy medium there



5

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/7/2002





that could be struck. Maybe one of the ways is to let our engineering guys

that deal with road work, work with his (Mr. Dudley?s) engineer and them make a

decision on what portions of the road need to be dealt with and what portions

are adequate, and then move on from there. Once that determination is made and

it has been agreed upon by the two engineers that this is what has got to be

done, then Mr. Dudley would agree to proceed immediately to go ahead and get

those areas corrected. Then we could come back before the Board next month and

say that it has been reviewed and what the agreement is and set a reasonable

time limit.



Mark Nolan (an engineer): As part of the evaluation we took a back hoe

and on every road way we did at least one test where we actually dug up

material and checked it. A lot of the roadway where the river rock is, is

probably 4 inches thick at least of river rock sand mix, as hard as a rock.

Below that is hard to determine. I did a lot of probing around the areas. The

thing that I saw was where the test strip was done, and I know one of the

concerns is that the sand is not a good running surface. I think whether you

put the base down or not, you?re going to have sand as running surface because

when it rains, sand from all of the property that Bud owns up to that roadway

washes into the roadway. You?re going to have sand build-up even with base

situations like she saw. It?s got to be cleaned out of the roadway. I don?t

think the hard pan in that area is as hard as a base course would be. It?s

really more of a matter of maintenance, when heavy rains come. The sand washes

up into these areas below the pave line and in that other back road area. The

problem is keeping the sand graded off to a level that is rideable and doesn?t

rut. When I was out there the first time it had rained the night before. The

area below the roadway was rutting up, but after the maintenance was done, it

doesn?t rut up now. They did the maintenance on it, you can drive across it,

and it doesn?t rut. There is an area on the back road that still has some sand

that needs to be pulled away, but the material under the sand is hard as a

rock.



There was no other opposition voiced at the meeting.



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

to allow the city engineer and Mr. Dudley?s engineer to try to facilitate a

compromise. Motion carried unanimously.

6

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





Case No. 02-HO147--Granted.



David Shult, 5238 Ray Drive, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a vinyl siding business,

Lonewolf Siding & More. 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. This will be full time work. There will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. He will have a partner that also has a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation. (See Case No. 02-HO175, George

Faircloth, 1017 Vineville Street)



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips 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. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO151---Granted.



June Love, 4480 Utica Circle, presented her application for a

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

crystal, porcelain figurines and pottery (internet sales), B. Love. 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.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips 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 CASES TABLED FROM THE JULY 3rd MEETING.



7

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





VARIANCES.



Case No. 02-V116?-Granted.



Billy Joe Strickland, 2723 West Britt David Road, presented the appeal for a

variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 5 feet to 3 feet, in

order to erect a workshop/storage building, 18? x 30?. The property is zoned

C-2.



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

Strickland gave the following information: He would like to build a

workshop/storage building. He demolished the original storage building and

didn?t know that he needed a permit for the new one.



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 existing structure was demolished and he put up another

one. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V117?-Granted.



Janet Carty, 2318 Lancelot Place, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce

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

addition, 12? x 24?, a carport, to a single family residence. The property is

zoned R-2.



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

Carty gave the following information: She has an existing driveway and pad,

over which she would like to erect a carport. The materials will match those

of the house. The neighbor?s house is sitting back on his lot so he has no

objections.



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 be over an existing pad. The materials

used will match the house and the neighbor?s house is 16 feet from the property

line. Motion carried unanimously.

8

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002



Case No. 02-V118?-Granted.



Mike Hale, 478 Old Double Churches Road, presented the appeal from a Decision

of the Building Official that an accessory structure, a swimming pool, 20? x

40?, is not permitted in the side yard. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

gave the following information: He would like to put his swimming pool in the

side yard. The swimming pool can not go in the rear yard because of large

trees and wet terrain. There is a slope in the rear yard. This is the only

suitable place for the pool.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because of the large trees and wet terrain. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 02-V119?-Granted. (Lot A)

and

Case No. 02-V120--Granted. (Lot B)



Deborah Little, 6759 Standing Boy Road (Lot A), and Ben Moon presented the

appeal for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 28 feet

to 10 feet and to reduce the lot area from 40,000 square feet to 29,620 square

feet, in order to subdivide a lot. The property is zoned A-1. Contingent upon

Planning?s approval of R-1 zoning.



Deborah Little, 6759 Standing Boy Road (Lot B), and Ben Moon presented the

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

50 feet to 30 feet and to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 28 feet

to 10 feet, in order to subdivide a lot. The property is zoned A-1.

Contingent upon Planning?s approval of R-1 zoning.



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

Little and Mr. Moon gave the following information: There are no close

neighbors. They have three acres and want to subdivide it into two lots. If

their request is approved, it will comply with the requirements of R-1 zoning.



9

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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 this is a large site and the

subdivided lots will be appropriate for the neighborhood. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 02-V121?-Granted.



Stanley & Hazel Slater, 4962 Bonnybrook Way, presented the appeal for a

variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 4 feet, in

order to make an addition, 10? x 10?, to a single family residence. The

property is zoned

R-1A.



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

Mrs. Slater gave the following information: At the end of the carport they

would like to rebuild a room on an existing foundation. The previous room had

a temporary tin roof that leaked. They will use materials which will match the

house.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because the original addition was demolished because the roof was leaking;

there is an existing foundation; and the materials will match the house.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V122?-Granted.



Steve Fitts, The Fitts Company, presented the appeal of CB&T, 6480 Milgen Road,

from a Decision of the Building Official to allow an additional sign, only 1

sign is allowed per 300? road frontage, 267.69 shown. The property is zoned

C-3.



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

gave the following information: They are asking for an additional sign. The

existing sign is 90 square feet; the additional sign will be a little less than

24 square feet; and, the sign ordinance allows a total of 250 square feet for

one location.



10

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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 new development on a large site and there aren?t

a lot of signs there now. This would not comply with the Sign Ordinance, but

would look all right. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V123?-Granted.



Ed Adams and Mike Daniels, presented the appeal of Adams Properties of

Columbus, Inc., 6701 Veterans Parkway, for a variance to reduce the required

number of off-street parking spaces from 48 to 27, in order to occupy an

existing building. The property is zoned C-3.



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

and Mr. Daniels gave the following information: Mr. Daniels would like to

operate a business (Perk Avenue, a coffee house) in the building. The bottom

floor will be used for the business and the top floor will be used for bible

study once in a while. The building contains about 1800 square feet, but a lot

of the space is taken up by merchandise.



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 existing building, but the use is changing. This will be

good for the area. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V124?-Tabled.



There was on one present to present 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.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.





11

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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

appeal until the September meeting because there was no one to present the

appeal. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V125?-Granted.



George Williams, 3847 Rockdale Drive, and Chris Spires, Building Contractor,

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

from 8 feet to 3 feet 9 inches, in order to make an addition, a carport, 12? x

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



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

Williams and Mr. Spires gave the following information: Mr. Spires would like

to erect a carport over an existing slab. The same materials will be used to

match those of the house. The water will flow to the front. The house next

door is 6-8 feet from the property line.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this will be an improvement to the property and the materials

will match the existing house. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V126?-Granted.



Allen Biggs presented the appeal of Rose Singleton, 6159 Valencia Drive, for a

variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 4 feet, in

order to make an addition, a carport, 10? x 40? 2?, to a single family

residence. The property is zoned R-3A.



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

gave the following information: Ms. Singleton would like to add a carport to

her home. The materials used will match those of the house. The water will

run off to the street. The house next door is 50 feet from the property

line.





12

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because the materials used will match the house and the water drainage

will be taken care of properly. The house next door is about 50 feet away from

the property line. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V127?-Granted.



Aljaz Khalid, 708 23rd Street, and Larry Phillips presented the appeal for a

variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 16 feet

and to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 12 feet to 5 feet and to

reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 40 feet to 6 feet, in order to

erect a Doctor?s office, 31? x 90?. The property is zoned A-O.



Larry Phillips excused himself as a Board Member because he is the general

contractor.



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

Khalid and Mr. Phillips gave the following information: This is a narrow lot,

which is virtually unusable with the normal setback lines. There are other

doctors? offices that are similar in size and shape in this area. The parking

lot is adjacent to another doctor?s office.



When the Chairman asked for opposition, Ms. Catherine Watson, owner of the next

door property, and her daughter came forward to ask questions, however, they

had no opposition to this appeal.



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

appeal because this will be an improvement to the area and the lot is too

narrow for normal use. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members, with Larry Phillips abstaining from the vote.







13

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





Case No. 02-V128?-Granted.



Billy Edwards presented the appeal of R.A.E. Construction Company, Inc., 1267

Canaan Court, for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from

30 feet to 20 feet, in order to erect a single family residence, 39? x 44?.

The property is zoned R-1A.



Prior to presenting his appeal, Mr. Edwards excused himself as a Board Member

since he is the general contractor.



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

Edwards gave the following information: This is an odd shaped lot. This is

the best way to place the building on the lot in keeping with the

neighborhood. He can?t put the driveway on the left nor push it farther to the

right because of the slope of the lot. It slopes about 6 feet.



There was a letter of opposition from Harvey Hatcher. He stated the lot is not

big enough to build a house on it.



Carrie Eakin came forward because she wanted to know where the lot would be

located.



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

this appeal because this is an improvement to the area. This is an odd shaped

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

Billy Edwards abstaining from the vote.



Case No. 02-V129?-Granted.



Kimberly Brown presented the appeal of Alphabet Train, Inc., 1332 Wynnton Road,

appealing the decision of the Board of Historic & Architectural Review that the

proposed type of fencing is not allowed in a Historic District. The property

is zoned A-O.





14

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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

gave the following information: The Day Care that was there before took their

fence down when they moved. Alphabet Train put up a chain fence in the same

location. She did what was stated by this Board, to go back to BHAR and offer

some type of compromise to put up some type of wooden fence attached to the

chain link on the side. The case was denied again. She showed them three

different types of fences, but they either wanted the whole thing covered or

the fence to be taken down.



Teresa Tomlinson, Vice Chairperson BHAR, stated this case has been denied twice

by BHAR due to the fact that it does not meet our objective criteria for fences

in the Historic District. We offered it the last time because there was a great

deal of confusion as to the way it came back to BHAR. We didn?t have a letter,

we didn?t understand what this Board had instructed or advised or what guidance

had been provided. In an attempt to try and facilitate the applicant?s

situation, we offered to allow them to put the pre-fab board on all three sides

of the chain link. Remembering the chain link is not allowed by our criteria

or by our precedent on BHAR. The applicant refused that compromise wanting to

only put it on one side of the three sided fence. It was unanimously defeated

the second time by the Board. The applicant conveyed to BHAR that this Board

had reviewed what we had denied, reviewed her situation and considered her

circumstances and recommended that we approve pre-fab board on one side. That

doesn?t meet our criteria either and we denied that. But we did offer to allow

the pre-fab to be attached to all three sides of the chain link fence as a

compromise, but the applicant refused that compromise. Our ordinance is very

clear that hardship can not be considered when the hardship is a result of the

applicant?s act. In this case what the applicant was saying is that she already

paid to put up the fence, remembering that the fence would be illegally

constructed. The fence did not have a permit before it went up, so it was an

illegal fence. It violated the ordinance at the time. We can not consider the

fact that the applicant incurred expenses to put up an illegal fence as an

excuse or as a hardship to excuse the fence that does not







15

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





comply. We would not need by the strict language of the ordinance a hardship.

These are our guidelines and they are copied after the U.S. Department of

Interior guidelines. The fact that it was taken down for whatever reason, I

don?t know; but when it was put back up again, it is now under the jurisdiction

of the ordinance and it doesn?t meet the guidelines.



David Fox: So the guidelines state and again I haven?t seen them. I?m just

referring to the green book. The green book more less implies that storm

fencing or this type of fencing is permitted or it?s under the BHAR discretion

to accept it or not to accept it. But you?re saying the guidelines for this

particular area says no, if anyone wants to put a fence up it can not be chain

link what so ever.

Teresa Tomlinson: We?ve established the ordinance gives us authority to adopt

guidelines. Our precedent in applying those guidelines has been to not allow

chain link fencing because it?s industrial, because it is as the Department of

Interior describes it inappropriately stark for this type of Historic District

and because there is alternative fencing, such as a wood fence. I understand

that the applicant has a requirement that there must be a fence on the property

because it is a child care center. They can absolutely have a fence on the

property, in fact I think the fence can be up to 6 or perhaps 8 feet in

height. It simply can not be a chain link fence.



Leah Braxton: Section 8, Landscape Guidelines, you have some that are

appropriate and not appropriate. Metal fencing either of the picket or chain

link variety is not appropriate fencing material for front yard spaces. Rear

yards would be more appropriate for this material.



Teresa Tomlinson: This is in a rear yard, but is clearly visible from the

street. Even if it was not visible from the street, our precedent has been to

not allow chain link if there is alternative fencing. Remembering that we

can?t take into consideration the fact that an applicant constructed a fence

without a permit. We have to treat this application as if there was no fence

there at all and the applicant is coming forward and asking us if they can put

up a chain link fence. The response is ?no? because there is alternative

fencing.



Larry Phillips: That?s why our compromise was to put the appropriate fence on

the street side because this allows the inappropriate fence on the back side.

I still don?t understand why that wasn?t understood.

16

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





Teresa Tomlinson: Because two sides of the fence are visible from the side

street. The third side of the fence is visible from a shared driveway and from

a residential property on the other side.



Larry Phillips: But it is in the back yard.



Kimberly Brown: He has a chain link fence in his yard.



Teresa Tomlinson: It is existing though.



Kimberly Brown: The people behind us is our landlord?s son and he has no

problem with it either. We also have a good relationship with the church we

share parking lots. We use their parking lot during the week, they use our

parking lot on Wednesday nights and Sundays.



Teresa Tomlinson: We simply can not change the ordinance and the law because a

residence or two residences or three residences don?t believe the law should be

applicable. There was City funded notices sent to every property owner prior

to this becoming a Historic District. Every property owner was canvassed with

notice that this was going to be a Historic District. It was played before

City Council on a public station. It was in the newspapers and there were

other community meetings. The property owner had personal knowledge. The

Board of Zoning Appeals can affirm, reverse or modify a holding by the BHAR

only on an abusive discretion. An abusive discretion is an unreasonable

unconscionable inarbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the

fact and laws pertains to the subject matter. I don?t believe the applicant

can show that our actions met that standard. I?ve also pulled for the Board,

should they wish to look at it, a recent Supreme Court case involving a zoning

issue where it says, on appeal from a zoning issue, it?s not the appellate

board?s duty to re-weigh the evidence but only to see if the holding of the

lower board was arbitrary unconscionable or contrary to all the evidence.

There are other holdings, but I will say that the hardship language that we

were talking about is in Section 6 of the ordinance itself. It says an undue

hardship shall not be a situation of the person?s on making. So the fact that

it may be costly to remove the fence and put up another fence or even to put up

three sides of this pre-fab fence. We just couldn?t take that into

consideration because hardship is being created by putting up an illegal fence

to begin with. The pre-fab fence is a compromise by the BHAR as





17

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





long as it is put on all three sides because that would not be allowed

normally. We attempted to strike that as a compromise and the applicant only

wanted to put it up on one side. Since the creation of BHAR there have been

more complaints about this fencing than any other application that has ever

been before BHAR. We received approximately 50 phone calls, Board Members were

being called at home and at work and the Department of Economic Development was

receiving phone calls complaining about this fencing.



Leah Braxton: Mark, could you validate that for us, 50 is the number that I

heard from her the other day in my conversation with her. We had people come

up earlier that you saw that had questions, but they weren?t generally

opposed. Would you characterize that 50 people who called were violently

opposed to this.



Mark McCollum: They were, because the fence was both in the front yard and the

rear yard.



Leah Braxton: Now that the front fence was taken down, which was the cause of

most of the opposition, the remaining chain link fence would look out of

character.



Mark McCollum: The opposition was to chain link fence, period.



Kimberly Brown: I keep hearing about 50 phone calls, in the first meeting it

was, oh we?ve gotten so many phone calls, but yet every time I go to either

BHAR or BZA no one ever comes. Out of 50 people I would think if there was

opposition to it, at least 1 out of 50 would come and oppose it. We discussed

at the last BHAR meeting that the wooden fence, we would bake because there is

no trees or shade, it?s asphalt. With the wood all the way around, the sun

beats down on it. There would be no wind or air circulation by putting up the

wooden fence. I gave three options, but they told me the picket fence was

absolutely not. We have eight kids so far. We pay $2,000.00 for rent. I went

into this business to provide child care for peach children, state children,

that kind of thing. We?re trying to get on the BUSDA program to provide

quality care for children because there is not a lot of it out there. There

are not a lot of quality day care for parents who can afford it. I provide a

quality child care and only charge the parents between $75.00 and $85.00 a

week, which includes all of their meals, snacks and everything. I would have

to borrow the money to put up one side.



18

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





There was no other opposition voiced at the meeting.



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

appeal because BHAR abused it?s discretion in reaching their decision.

According to the BHAR guidelines, back yards may be permissible for chain link

fencing. There was inadequate consideration for other circumstances such as the

type of business, the fact that it is a commercial site. If Alphabet Train

goes out of business, the fence must be removed. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V130?-Granted.



Jimmy Weaver, A Air Flow Awning, presented the appeal of James Boyette, 5207

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

feet to 4 feet, in order to make an addition, a carport, 21? x 21?, to a single

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



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

Weaver gave the following information: Mr. Boyette would like to put a carport

over an existing slab. The water will flow to the street. There are similar

structures in the area. The materials used will 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 the carport will go over an existing slab. The same materials will be

used to match the house. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V131?-Granted.



Billy Hanson and Anthony Williams presented the appeal of Friendship Baptist

Church, 831 6th Avenue, from a Decision of the Building Official that a 3rd

sign is not allowed in a C-1 zone. The property is zoned C-1. Contingent upon

The Uptown Fa?ade Board and The Board of Historic & Architectural Review

approval.





19

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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

Hanson and Mr. Williams gave the following information: They have a Day Care

Center and would like to put up a sign that has changeable copy in order to

advertise the Day Care Center.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

contingent upon Planning?s approval. Motion carried unanimously. Also,

contingent upon The Uptown Fa?ade Board and The Board of Historic &

Architectural Review.



Case No. 02-V132?-Denied.



Robert Teasley, Signs Inc., and Loeticia Knapp, presented the appeal of El

Zapata Mexican Restaurant, 6100 Veterans Parkway, from a Decision of the

Building Official that a 3rd sign is not allowed in a C-2 zone. Two signs are

allowed. The property is zoned C-2.



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

Teasley gave the following information: The shopping center is built like the

letter L; and this space is in the rear corner. The storefront is not visible

from Veterans Parkway. There is no additional space on the existing

sign.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because there is another option. It does not appear to be financially

burdensome to get rid of one of the original two signs, which would leave only

one sign. A second sign could be erected, which would not require a variance.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V133?-Granted.



Robert Teasley, Signs Inc., presented the appeal of Tire King, 5403 Veterans

Parkway, for a variance to increase the maximum size of an existing sign from

300 square feet to 456 square feet. The property is zoned C-2.





20

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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

Teasley gave the following information: Originally, they were asking for an

additional sign (45 ft. height) that was rejected by the Board of Zoning

Appeals. They appealed to City Council who advised them to try to compromise.

They will move the Michelin sign down, using the same framework. The sign they

had on 13th Street will go on top. They?re adding the Tire King Logo on top of

the existing sign.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal with a vote of 4 to 1 with David Fox voting against the motion.

Motion carried unanimously.

Case No. 02-V134?-Granted.



Don Bowman, 2001 Oak Avenue, and Billy Bray presented Mr. Bowman?s appeal for a

variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 5 feet and

to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 5 feet and to

increase the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 39%, in order to make an

addition, a carport, 42? x 59?, to a single family residence. The property is

zoned R-1A.



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

Bowman and Mr. Bray gave the following information: Mr. Bray would like to

build a carport on the side of the house. They had photographs to show the

house and surroundings.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because it was well presented with plenty of photographs, the neighbors did not

object and this is typical of that area. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V135?-Granted.



Robert McKenna presented the appeal of George Adams Co., Inc., 2875 Weems Road,

from a Decision of the Building Official that a cemetery is not permissible in

an R-1 zone. The property is zoned R-1.

21

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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

McKenna gave the following information: One (1) year ago they were granted a

variance to put a 1 acre cemetery next to the George Adams farm house on Warm

Springs Road. They decided to move it over slightly to the west of the

original location. They will have the same access drive. This is a family

cemetery.



When the Chairman asked for opposition, Bill Snelling, Jack Lane and Charlie

Stein, of Summerchase Subdivision had questions about the location, but they

were not in opposition to this appeal.



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

because this is a reapplication of a previous approval to create a family

cemetery. They are moving the cemetery a little to the west. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 02-V136?-Granted.



Robert Landi, 8220 Midland Road, presented the appeal for a variance to

increase the maximum height of an accessory structure, 36? x 54?, a barn, from

14 feet to 16 feet. The property is zoned A-1.



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

gave the following information: He has a barn and he would like to increase

the height of it. The barn is located in the middle of the lot, which is a

large piece of property.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because this is a large piece of property and a rural area. This will make the

barn more usable and it looks better. Motion carried unanimously.







22

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





Case No. 02-V137?-Granted.



Steve Cummings presented the appeal of Francis Kilpatrick, 1603 Elmwood Drive,

for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 5 feet to 1

foot 6 inches, in order to make an addition, a garage, 12? x 17?, to an

existing accessory structure. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Cummings gave the following information: He has a letter of approval from

BHAR. The existing structure is 1? foot off of the property line, which is a

chain link fence. The addition will be made to an accessory structure.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because Mr. Cummings is making an addition to an accessory structure. He has

approval from BHAR. Motion carried unanimously.



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



CaseNo. 02-HO158?-Tabled.



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 not have any additional traffic in the

neighborhood. This will be full time work. He has one employee that will not

be working for him August 20th.



There was no opposition to this application.







23

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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

application until the September meeting so that Mr. Toole?s employee can also

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

unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO159--Tabled.



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. Fox to table this

application until the September meeting because there was no present to present

the application. Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 02-HO160?-Granted.



Michael Marshall, 5815 McCaghren Court, presented his application for a

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

snacks, snow balls, ice cream & cones (sold from an ice cream truck), J & M

Snacks & Cones. 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 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. Fox, to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.







24

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





Case No. 02-HO161--Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Jay Kurtz, 7577

Timberdale Court, 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.



There was no opposition to this application.





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

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

present the application. Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 02-HO162?-Granted.



Elizabeth N. Coil, 6824 Copper Oaks Drive, presented her application for a

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

design, Elizabeth Coil Interiors. The property is zoned R-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 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.



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.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO163--Granted.



L. Roy Goodwin Jr., 1514 Forest Avenue Apt. B, presented his application for a

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

child safety equipment for vehicles (internet sales), Wellgood Enterprises.

The property is zoned R-4.



25

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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. Fox to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 02-HO164?-Granted.



Sandra J. Stelmack, 3922 Winkfield Place, presented her application for a

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

design, SJS Contracting. 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 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.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO165--Granted.



Brenda Morris, 6201 Williamsburg Drive, presented her application for a

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

cleaning service, Brenda?s Cleaning Service. The property is zoned R-2.









26

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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. 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.

Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 02-HO166?-Granted.



John Moon, 3912 Ashmore Drive, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for computer consulting,

Computronics, 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 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. Fox, to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO167--Granted.



William Gardner, 3102 Glenwood Drive, presented his application for a

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

service, William Lawn Service. The property is zoned R-2.









27

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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. 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.



CaseNo. 02-HO168?-Granted.



James Mixon, 4841 Oak Ridge Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for drilling holes into

bowling balls (sales & service), Jim?s Pro Shop. 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 would like to drill holes in

bowling balls inside of his storage building. 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. Fox, to grant this

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

but with the stipulation that the work (drilling holes) can only be done in the

confines of the home. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO169--Granted.



Robert Weekley, 1834 Celia Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

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

audio equipment (internet sales), Weekley Discount Audio. The property is

zoned R-1A.



28

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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 a letter of opposition from William Turman. He is concerned with the

amount of noise and loud music.



Mr. Phillips 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 Mr. Weekley can not play or test equipment at his

home. Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 02-HO170?-Granted.



Brandon Bridges, 3742 Winkfield Place, presented his application for a

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

landscaping, Bridges Landscaping. 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. 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 material at the

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO171--Granted.



Mary Smith Worth, 2464 Wise Street, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for making gift baskets

(sold at flea markets), Love, Peace and Joy. The property is zoned R-2.



29

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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.



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. 02-HO172?-Granted.



Carolyn Miller, 5369 West Wood Drive, presented her application for a

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

cleaning service, One Touch Cleaning 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.



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. 02-HO173--Granted.



Shane Woodham, 5279 McCaghren Drive, presented his application for a

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

repair & consulting, Shane?s PC Paramedics. The property is zoned R-2.









30

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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.

Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 02-HO174?-Granted.



David & Fay Henry, Sandstone Court, presented their application for a

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

design, Imagen Decor. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

home as an office only. There will be 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.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO175--Granted.



George Faircloth, 1017 Vineville Street, presented his application for a

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

siding business, Lonewolf Siding & More. The property is zoned R-3A.





31

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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 have a

partner that also has a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation. (See

Case No. 02-HO147, David Shult, 5238 Ray Drive)



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 material at the

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



CaseNo. 02-HO176?-Granted.



Zachery Ellis, 5807 Luna Drive, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a lawn service, Ellis &

Morgan 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. 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 material at the

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO177--Granted.



Lori Whitman, 4724 Winged Foot Way, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling jewelry (sold

at craft shows), Southern Distinctions. The property is zoned R-1A.

32

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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. This will be part time work. UPS will come to her home

twice a month.



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. 02-HO178?-Granted.



Jody Blankenship, 5745 Carlton Avenue, presented his application for a

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

janitorial service, JB?s Cleaning. 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. 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. 02-HO179--Granted.



Patricia Farr, 2010 17th Avenue, presented her application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a handyman business, The

Fixit Company. The property is zoned R-3A.





33

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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.



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. 02-HO180?-Granted.



Larry Phillips presented the application of Alton Real, 6526 Middleburg Drive,

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

general contractor, Real Construction. The property is zoned R-2.



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

Phillips gave the following information: Alton will be using one room in his

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. 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. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members,

with Larry Phillips abstaining from the vote.



Case No. 02-HO181?-Granted.



Daniel East, 8206 Lantern Lane, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for promoting bass

tournaments, dba Audio Storm Bass Tournaments. The property is zoned R-1A.







34

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO182?-Granted.



Jean Shiver, 1710 Talbotton Road, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for a beauty salon, Jean Beauty Salon. 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 have no employees. This

will be part time work. She will have clients coming to her home 2 days out of

the week (Tuesday and Thursday).



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. 02-HO183?-Granted.



Timothy Wolfe, 3910 Armour Avenue, presented his application for a Certificate

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

Wolfe Painting. 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.



35

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002



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 material at the

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO184?-Granted.



Gregory Houston, 4815 Freeman Court, presented his application for a

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

telecommunications, NetQure Technologies, 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 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.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO185?-Granted.



Krista Brown, 4932 Sterling Ridge Court, presented her application for a

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

service & pressure washing business, Brown?s Service Company. The property is

zoned R-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.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox 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.



END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.



36

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 08/07/2002





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



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

Larry Phillips, Danny Cargill

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary















37