Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? FEBRUARY 4, 2004





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

4, 2004 at 2:00 P.M., on the 1st Floor of the Government Center Annex, 420-10th

Street. Members present were:





Mr. David Fox

Mr. Willie Lewis Jr.

Mr. Billy Edwards

Mr. Ralph King





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

Pitts, Recording Secretary.



Board Member Leah Braxton was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Edwards made a

motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to excuse Ms. Braxton?s absence on

today, February 4, 2004, for personal reasons. Motion carried unanimously by

the four Board Members present for this meeting.



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

Minutes of the Monthly Meeting, which was held on January 7, 2004. Motion

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

meeting.





CASES TABLED FROM THE JANUARY 7th MEETING.



Case No. 04-V4--Granted.



Bobby Peters and Jim Smith presented the appeal of Muscogee Hotel Association,

LLC, 1325 Veterans Parkway, appealing the decision of the Uptown Fa?ade Board

denial of a sign. The property is zoned C-1.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Peters and Mr. Smith gave the following information: This is an

appeal from an approval, then a denial.







BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





This is an effort to remove a roof top sign that has been on top of Heritage

Inn on Veterans Parkway since 1968. Under the new regulations, roof top signs

are not allowed. The new owners, Muscogee Hotel, went before the Fa?ade Board

in 2001 because they bought the old Sheraton Hotel and Shannon Hotel, it has

been different hotels over the years and they wanted to take the roof top sign

and use it and change the wording to reflect the new ownership. They filed

their application and the Fa?ade Board in 2001 approved their application as

submitted which included new lettering, roof top sign and therefore, there was

nothing wrong with it. Later on they added, as far as the wording when the

construction started they added the restaurant as part of the sign and the City

said you can not add that wording and they cited them for that. Then they told

them in writing they needed to remove the sign within 60 days dated May 21,

2003, they said all of this has been approved. They went back to the Board and

the Board told them at that time that no signs were grand-fathered in, that the

sign does not meet the code and the lettering should have been raised

lettering. Mark McCollum (Secretary of the Facade Board) said at the meeting

it was not grand-fathered in and he told the Board it wasn?t grand-fathered

in. The City Attorney said yes is was grand-fathered in and so did Mr. Bill

Duck (Chief of Inspections and Codes). Now everyone is stating the sign is in

fact grand-fathered in. We have affidavits in the file from Bernie Quick,

Robert Teasley, Bill Duck and everybody else. Mark McCollum said there are new

members and they don?t like the sign on top of there and they don?t like the

lettering and it needs to be changed. We are asking this Board to approve the

original application. If this Board approves the original application then

they want to leave it just like it is shown in the picture (that the B. Z A.

Members have). The only thing discussed on the tape is that it would be red

white and blue like the Heritage for the name and there was one question if

there would be aluminum letters. Robert Teasley (Signs, Inc.) explained (to

Bobby Peters) that they would come in with a mesh and put the lettering on the

mesh and install the mesh on the board and it is acrylic paint really on the

mesh. Nothing is going to be added, nothing is going to be taken away, that

is exactly what they are asking to do.



Jaimie Deloach, Assistant to the City Attorney-The City agrees that the roof

top portion of the sign has been grand-fathered in. The March 17, 2003 Fa?ade

Board hearing specifically addresses their findings that they believe the sign

put up there was not the







2

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





one agreed to. It is my understanding from talking with Bill Duck, Chief of

Inspections and Codes, that acrylic lettering to him meant raised acrylic

lettering as opposed to flat paint. That would be the position of the City

that BHAR (Board of Historic and Architecture Review) would have the right to

establish the type of proper lettering used on the sign, although they totally

agree that the structure has been grand-fathered in.



Mark McCollum, Secretary of the Fa?ade Board-There is nothing that defines

raised lettering. What was presented per the application in written format and

then presented in the meeting itself when the applicant presented the request

to the Board was the lettering that was up there had been taken down and they

wanted to restore the lettering back up. Leaving the Board with the

understanding that it meant raised lettering or individualized lettering,

acrylic lettering. There was no in depth discussion as to a definition of

lettering, but that was the impression and understanding. There should be a

copy of the Certificate of Appropriateness and a copy of the minutes, it states

in there the application was approved as presented, which we don?t often times

due to limited space get into details of the nuts and bolts necessarily of all

they present because so often times the applications are lengthy and the items

that they are covering are lengthy. We have a blanket statement that says as

presented which means as the applicant presented to the Board and unless the

Board changes it, modifies it, it goes as presented and that is what was stated

on the Certificate of Appropriateness. Hopefully you have a copy of the letter

that was approved as well as the submission from my office that goes to the

applicant giving them the status of their application. It is dated December

2001 and basically states they were approved for the roof top sign as

presented, stated on the Certificate of Appropriateness that was issued as

well. The sign that was approved on December 17, 2001 was never installed. In

February 2003, they installed a sign that was not according to the Board?s

approval. They were cited for non-compliance and at that time I believe in

March 2003 they came to the Board and they stated due to the construction of

the highway that was on Veterans Parkway they needed to keep that location

present, keep the sign as is, the Board granted them permission to do that

until construction ended in May 2003. At that time they were instructed to

come back to the Board and apply for permanent signage. They came back in May

2003 and were denied. I informed them per my letter of that





3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





denial and gave them 60 days to remove the signage, not the structure, the

message that is there. That is what is required to be removed within 60 days

of the date of that letter. The citation they received was for non-compliance

for the Fa?ade Board ruling. They could have put anything up there and if it

wasn?t what was approved at the December 2001 meeting they were in

non-compliance.



Neil Clark-I am the current chairman of the Fa?ade Board and I was on the Board

when the original application was made. What we try to go back to is what was

asked for, what was approved. Bobby Peters stated we didn?t like the roof top

sign, really nothing could be further from the truth. In fact in their

original application the roof top sign was approved by the Fa?ade Board. What

was asked for on the original application is stated on the application and that

is new lettering, not a cover over the sign or anything resembling what is up

there now, but new lettering. Being on the Board and present at that meeting I

remember the discussion about that very clearly and questions were asked about

the lettering, what it would be applied to. There was discussion about the

fact that the existing lettering had been taken off, that there was no

lettering on it at the present time and that they wanted to replace the

lettering with Heritage Inn. I think the feeling at the Board at that time was

if there is a sign up there now we ought to let them at least just change the

name of the hotel, that was an appropriate thing to do and that is what we

approved. What we think was put up is not what the Board approved and that is

what we were talking about not whether there should be a roof top sign there or

anything like that. We feel like what the Board approved originally was the

individual lettering, there application states that it says acrylic lettering

and that is what the Fa?ade Board would like to see up there. I don?t think

there has ever been a move by the Fa?ade Board to remove that roof top sign.

It has been a continuing effort to try to get Heritage Inn to install what we

all agreed to at that meeting. There was nothing stated on their application

that said raised, buy there was discussion during the meeting about individual

letters being applied. Their application does say acrylic which to me says

some plastic type of synthetic material not a painted letter on a piece of

cloth stretched over a background.



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

appeal to overturn the denial from the Uptown Fa?ade Board, based on the fact

that the sign is in place and it meets the





4

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





guidelines of the Applicant Review List of the Uptown Fa?ade Board when they

approved the application on December 7, 2001. Motion carried by the

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



Case No. 04-V10--Withdrawn.



This appeal was withdrawn at the request of the appellant Allen-Simpson,

Inc.-Nixon Maxey, 6220 Williamsburg Drive, for a variance to reduce the lot

width requirement from 60 feet to 25 feet (at building setback line), in order

to replat a lot to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned R-2.



There was no opposition to this application.



Case No. 04-V11--Withdrawn.



This appeal was withdrawn at the request of the appellant Elana Crane, 706

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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



Case No. 04-V12--Withdrawn.



This appeal was withdrawn at the request of the appellant Elana Crane, 706

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

(for both sides) from 28 feet to 15 feet, in order to erect a single family

residence. The property is zoned A-1.



There was no opposition to this application.



Case No. 04-V13--Withdrawn.



This appeal was withdrawn at the request of the appellant Elana Crane, 706

Moore Road (Lot 3), for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement

from 28 feet to 20 feet (on the right side) and to reduce the side yard setback

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

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





5

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





There was no opposition to this application.



Case No. 04-V14--Withdrawn.



This appeal was withdrawn at the request of the appellant Elana Crane, 706

Moore Road (Lot 5), for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement

from 28 feet to 13 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The

property is zoned A-1.



There was no opposition to this application.



END OF CASES TABLED FROM THE JANUARY 7th MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 04-V17--Granted.



Steve Whatley (Whatley Oil Company), 7601 River Road and Tommy Chapman

presented the appeal from a Decision of the Building Official that a sign is

not allowed in an A-1 zone. The property is zoned A-1.

In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Whatley and Mr. Chapman gave the following information: This

location was a convenient store and they made a decision to change gasoline

suppliers. When the previous supplier took their sign down, Whatley Oil

Company went back to put their old sign up and realized the old sign was

grand-fathered in and it was zoned A-1. They are asking to put the sign back

up where the previous sign was. The sign will be similar in style just a

little smaller. This sign will be a single pole sign, the old one was a double

pole sign.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal, although the Building Official is correct that a sign is not

allowed in an A-1 zone, the new sign will be on the same foundation as the

previous sign. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.





6

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





Case No. 04-V18?-Granted.



Gary Lisle, The Lisle Company and Tim Thompson presented the appeal of First

Baptist Church, 1128 3rd Avenue, for a variance to reduce the sign setback

requirement from 3 feet to 1 foot and a sign is not allowed on a fence. The

property is zoned C-1.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Lisle and Mr. Thompson gave the following information: This is

working along 3rd Avenue right behind a curb that sits on the property line

and they want to do a sign panel between the two driveways which should be

encroaching on the 3 feet off the property line. The sign will be part of the

fence and they would like to hang some signage panel. The sign is a masonry

structure. The letters will be raised tin-mounted, not acrylic. The logo

will be a piece of granite that is engraved with the logo of First Baptist

Church. The design is in keeping with the existing architectural of First

Baptist Church. This has been approved by the Uptown Fa?ade Board.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because the sign will be done in good taste. If the sign was

behind the fence it would be hard to be seen. This sign was approved by the

Fa?ade Board. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members

present for this meeting.



Case No. 04-V19?-Granted.



Jill Suest presented the appeal of St. Jude Children?s Research Hospital, 10

Meadow Valley Court, for a variance to increase a temporary residential sign

from 6 square feet to 128 square feet. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

gave the following information: They are asking to have a sign up for 1 month

in order to thank sponsors and those who helped them erect a single family

residence. Their goal is to erect a house at minimum cost. Open house will be

in the month of March. There are currently only 5 homes within a 100 yard span

in this subdivision.







7

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because this will be a temporary sign, with the stipulation that the sign will

be taken down no later than April 15, 2004. Motion carried by the affirmative

vote of the three Board Members with David Fox abstaining from the vote.



Case No. 04-V20?-Granted.



Mitch Watts presented the appeal of St. Luke United Methodist Church, 301 11th

Street, for a variance to reduce the setback requirement for a sign from 3 feet

to 6 inches and to allow 3 signs, 2 signs are allowed and a sign is not allowed

on a fence. The property is zoned C-1.



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

Mr. Watts gave the following information: They would like to place some signs

on the property of their new ministry center. They have approval from the

Fa?ade Board.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because the signs are architecturally correct to the current architect

of the church. The Fa?ade Board approved this request. Motion carried by the

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



Case No. 04-V21?-Granted.



Les Cole, Cole and Cole Architects, presented the appeal of Epworth United

Methodist Church, 2400 Devonshire Drive, for a variance to reduce the corner

side yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 12 feet 10 inches, in order to

make an addition, a fellowship hall. The property is zoned R-2.



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

Mr. Cole gave the following information: They are expanding the current

fellowship hall on two sides and one of the sides is encroaching on the side

yard.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.







8

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





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

this appeal because the addition will be architecturally designed to blend in

with the church and should not interfere with traffic. Motion carried by the

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



END OF VARIANCES.



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



CaseNo. 04-HO15?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Kim Banks, 6730 Ranch

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

office only for medical office inspections & medical exams for insurance

companies, Medical Insurance Inspections & Examinations. The property is zoned

R-1A.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

the application. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.



CaseNo. 04-HO16?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Charlotte Anne Taylor,

5821 Manassas Drive, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for

an office only for interior decorating, C.A.T.?s Roomer. The property is zoned

R-2.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

the application. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.



9

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





Case No. 04-HO17--Granted.



John Henry Ford, Jr., 5951 Walters Loop, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for assembling craft items,

engraving, repair furniture, sell gift baskets and flower arrangements (items

will be sold on internet & away from the home), Lil John Wood Design. 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. He will have no employees and there will be no additional traffic in the

neighborhood, but with the exception of UPS deliveries once a week. This will

be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.





Case No. 04-HO18--Granted.



Alfonza Dunbar, 2706 10th Avenue, presented his application for a Certificate

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

Honest Al?s Appliance 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 in his

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

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

do the service work at the client?s home. There will be no appliances stored

at his home.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

to grant this application because it does meet the intent of the

Home Occupation definition, but with the stipulation that there





10

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





will be no storage of work material at the residence. Motion

carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present

for this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO19--Granted.



Jackson Amirtharaj, 6300 Milgen Road #1068, presented his application for a

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

& developing information technology projects, Victory Infotech. The property

is zoned R-4.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO20--Tabled.



Stanley Richard, 2608 Courtland Avenue, presented his application for a

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

janitorial business, Cleaning Maid Easy. 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. There will be no additional traffic in the

neighborhood. This will be part time work. He will have one employee.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

application until the March meeting because his employee needs to get a Home

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

present for this meeting.





11

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





CaseNo. 04-HO21?-Granted.



Rodrigo Arreola, 7200 Thimblewood Way, presented his application for a

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

pottery, art, gift accessories and cultural items (items will be sold away from

the home), Border Crossing. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO22--Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Darlene & Michael

Balkcum, 1182 Cloverdale Road, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home

Occupation for an office only for a glassbead and stained glass business,

Balkcum Glassbeads & Stained Glass. The property is zoned R-1A.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

the application. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO23?-Granted.



Patrick Hogan, 5107 Stonegate Drive, presented his application for a

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

construction company, Bryland Construction. The property is zoned R-1A.





12

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





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

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

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

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

building his own home in Harris County and he will sub all of the work out.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO24--Granted.



MaryAnne Armijo, 4219 Yates Drive, presented her application for a Certificate

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

LanOut Source. 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. This

will be an internet based business.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO25?-Granted.



Chea Mastroddi presented the application for Jermaine Bryant, 1725 Slade Drive

Apt. B, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only

for personal fitness training, Anotha? Level Fitness Training. The property is

zoned R-3A.



13

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





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

Mastroddi gave the following information: Mr. Bryant will be using one room in

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

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

training will be done at a fitness center.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO26--Granted.



Brian Woodworth, 5718 Stoneridge Drive, presented his application for a

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

janitorial cleaning & lawn service, B. W. Cleaning & Lawn Service. The

property is zoned R-3B.



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

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

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

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

will be stored at his church where he will be doing the work.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

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

present for this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO27?-Granted.



Dwayne Albert McCrary, 4842 Allegheny Drive, presented his application for a

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

photography & surveillance, D & M Aerial Service. The property is zoned R-1A.





14

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO28--Granted.



Stacey Wilson, 4714 17th Avenue, presented her application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for a beauty shop, Stacey?s. 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. She will have no employees. This will be part time work. She will work

Tuesday and Thursday from 9:00 a.m. ? 6:00 p.m., Friday 10:00 a.m. ? 3:00 p.m.

and every other Saturday 9:00 a.m. ? 2:00 p.m., 2 to 8 clients a day, no more

than one client at a time.



There was no opposition to this application.





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

application, but with the stipulation that she will have 2 to 8 clients a day,

no more than one at a time, Tuesday and Thursday 9:00 a.m. ? 6:00 p.m., Friday

10:00 a.m. ? 3:00 p.m. and every other Saturday 9:00 a.m. ? 2:00 p.m. Motion

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

meeting.



Case No. 04-HO29--Granted.



Carol Dunn, 6400 Thea Lane G-11, presented her application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling cotton candy

(sold away from the home), Fluffy?s Cotton Candy. The property is zoned R-4.





15

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





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

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

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

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

supplies will be kept at the Civic Center where she will also sell the cotton

candy.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.





CaseNo. 04-HO30?-Granted.



Mark Beckley, 9041 Travelers Way, presented his application for a Certificate

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

business, Mister B?s Photography. The property is zoned A-1.



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

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

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

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

take the photographs at different locations (away from his home).



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 04-HO31--Granted.



Corey & Shirisma Hickey, 2940 Vultee Drive, presented their application for a

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

design, Anointed Creation Graphics & Designs. The property is zoned R-2.





16

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 02/04/2004





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. They will have no employees and there will be no

additional traffic in the neighborhood. They will deliver the items to the

customers. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.





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

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

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

this meeting.



END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.











____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

David Fox, Danny Cargill,

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary









17