Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? JANUARY 5, 2005





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

5, 2005 at 2:00 P.M., on the 1st Floor of the Government Center Annex, 420-10th

Street. Members present were:





Mrs. Leah Braxton, Chairperson

Mr. Willie Lewis Jr.

Mr. Billy Edwards

Mr. Ralph King

Mr. David Fox



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

Pitts, Recording Secretary.



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

the Minutes of the Monthly Meeting, which was held on December 1, 2004. Motion

carried unanimously.





CASES TABLED FROM THE DECEMBER 1st MEETING.



Case No. 04-V168?-Denied.



There was no one present to present the appeal of Mike Pylant, 7217 Midnightsun

Lane, for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to

1 foot, in order to make an addition, a carport, 16? x 30?, to a single family

residence. The property is zoned R-2.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because Mr. Pylant did not come back to show accurate plans of where the

property line was located. The carport must be removed by February 6, 2005.

Motion carried unanimously.





Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 04-V172?-Granted.



Richard Catrett, 8501 Fortson Road, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the lot width requirement from 125 feet to 61.36 feet, in order to

replat a lot. The property is zoned A-1.



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

Mr. Catrett gave the following information: He purchased this land and cut off

2 one acre lots and zoned it C-3, which he thinks is pending. The C-3 property

has been approved, but has not been platted because a variance is needed to

reduce the lot width requirement from 125 to 61.36 feet. A city street will be

put in so that there will be frontage there.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

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



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because this will allow the property to be used and there will be

enough right of way. Planning recommends approval of this request. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 04-HO304--Granted.



James E. Moore, 1251 Floyd Road, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a photographer, Fountain

City Photography. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.







2

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 04-HO307--Denied.



There was no one present to present the application of Douglas B. Northrup,

7321 Cedar Creek Loop, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for

an office only for a painting and home repair business, Extreme Remodeling.

The property is zoned R-1A.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

to deny this application because there was no one present to

present the application for two consecutive meetings. Motion

carried unanimously.



END OF CASES TABLED FROM THE DECEMBER 1st MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 04-V98--Granted.



Barry Wells, 1249 Gurr Avenue, and Attorney Karen Early presented the appeal

for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 4

feet 2 inches, on existing house in order to subdivide and create two lots.

There is a pending replat of this property. The property is zoned R-3A. (This

was the only case that needed to be addressed, Case No. 04-V170 did not have to

be addressed although it was on the Agenda)



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Wells and Attorney Early gave the following information: This

case was brought back before the B.Z.A. because of a clerical error (neighbors

didn?t receive notice of the previous B.Z.A. meeting 9/1/2004). He already has

his permit, approval from BHAR and the lot has been replatted. His permit was

pulled and he was told to stop until the case goes back before the Board. They

are asking to reduce the side yard setback requirement so that a lot can be

subdivided into two lots. He will build a house on one lot and remodel the

existing house on the other lot.

Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

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





3

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Mr. Larry Carr, Ms. Doris Carr and

Mrs. Alfred Bell came forward. Their concerns are: Whatever is built there

will encroach on the 8 feet setback limit already established by the City.

There should be some compelling reason encroaching on the 8 feet to split the

lot. If a house is going to be built, it should be positioned as far away from

the neighbor?s house as possible taking into account the 8 feet that was

established by the City. They do not want the houses too close

together.



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

appeal because Planning recommends approval and the house was built to close to

the lot line to start with, the lots were combined and now he wants to split

the lot. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V1?-Granted.



Johnnie Senior, 7720 Cartledge Road, and Steve Thorpe presented the appeal for

a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 28 feet to 15 feet,

in order to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned A-1.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Senior and Mr. Thorpe gave the following information: This lot

falls to the back and off to the side and half of the lot is in the lake. The

only place to build is in the corner where there is a flat area. The next door

neighbor has a big lot and he has no objections. The lot will not be split in

the future because of the topography and the septic tank situation. The house

built will be approximately 1800 square feet heated.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because of the topography. This is the optimum place for the house to

be located because of the lake that covers half of the lot. The lot falls off

on the right side and to the rear. Motion carried unanimously.







4

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 05-V2?-Granted.



Rufus McCrary, 829 Ewart Avenue (Lot 140), presented his appeal for a variance

to reduce the lot area requirement from 6,000 square feet to 4,505 square feet

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

reduce the off-street parking from 2 to 0, in order to replat a lot. The

property is zoned R-3A. (Case 05-V2 & 05-V3 were presented at the same time)



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

McCrary gave the following information: He has four apartments on Ewart Avenue

and Eighth Street, Eighth Street runs into Ewart Avenue. The set of apartments

are close together, they are only a few yards apart. They are on one deed and

he would like to separate the apartments and put them on two separate deeds.

He recently became ill and he would like to sale the apartments and the only

way to sale them is if they are on two separate deeds.



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

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



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because there are several existing buildings on one lot and this will clear up

the property lines and put the different buildings on different lots. Motion

carried unanimously.

Case No. 05-V3?-Granted.



Rufus McCrary, 829 Ewart Avenue (Lot 141), presented his appeal for a variance

to reduce the lot area requirement from 6,000 square feet to 3,678 square feet

and to reduce the required lot area per family from 12,000 square feet to 3,678

square feet and to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 20 feet to 11

feet and to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 4 feet 9

inches and to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 4 feet 7

inches and to reduce the off-street parking from 8 to 0 (2 spaces per family

dwelling required), in order to replat a lot. The property is zoned R-3A.





5

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





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

Mr. McCrary gave the following information: He has four apartments on Ewart

Avenue and Eighth Street, Eighth Street runs into Ewart Avenue. The set of

apartments are close together, they are only a few yards apart. They are on

one deed and he would like to separate the apartments and put them on two

separate deeds. He recently became ill and he would like to sale the

apartments and the only way to sale them is if they are on two separate

deeds.

Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from the

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

minutes.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because there are several existing buildings on one lot and this will clear up

the property lines and put the different buildings on different lots. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V4?-Granted.



Masoud Arabi, 1424 Cherokee Avenue, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 7 feet, in order to

make an addition, 15? x 15?, to a single family residence. The property is

zoned R-1A.



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

gave the following information: He has a 14? x 14? patio and would like to

cover the patio. He gets a lot of water after it rains and this will help with

the water problem. The house was non-conforming when the patio was added. He

does have approval from BHAR.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this case does have BHAR approval and the house is already in

violation of the setback, but this will allow him to add the addition. Motion

carried unanimously.





6

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 05-V5--Granted.



Mathew Mayes presented the appeal of David Chen, (Wild Fish Bar & Grill), 3327

Gentian Boulevard, from a Decision of the Building Official that a sign is not

allowed on a fence. The property is zoned C-2.



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

gave the following information: They did landscape so the Building would be

seen from Columbus Manchester Expressway. At the time the previous tenant

Chevy?s had their logo on the wall along with some graffiti that someone else

had put up there, they painted over the wall and put up their logo in the same

spot. They were informed it was not up to code.

When the Chairperson asked for opposition Diane Hewitt, Inspection and Codes,

came forward. She stated, before the trees were taken down, the painted wall

was not visible. That is one reason the previous owner (the Mexican

Restaurant) was not written up. When she became aware of the sign, the

business had already closed and the building was vacant. If she would have

known someone else was going to move in and put up a sign, she would have

informed them. This is not a fence, it is a retaining wall. They also have a

ground sign on the property. The wall is approximately 11 feet high and 8?? x

27?.



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

this appeal to allow the Wild Fish sign to remain on the retaining wall

although it was looked at as a violation by the Building Official. The

Building Official states that it is not allowed on a fence, but this is on a

retaining wall. The graffiti was covered up prior to painting this. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V6--Granted.



Johnny Cargill, Cargill Design Remodel, Inc., presented the appeal of Paul

Amos, 1641 Summit Drive, for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback

requirement from 30 feet to 25 feet, in order to make an addition, a screened

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







7

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





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

Cargill gave the following information: Mr. Amos would like to add a screened

porch on the back of the house. This will be a nice addition. It will

encroach on the rear setback. He tried to angle it up, but couldn?t do

it.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because this is a big house and it takes up most of the lot now,

any additions will encroach on the property line. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 05-V7?-Granted.



John Lyles, JR Construction, presented the appeal of 534 Wilder Drive (Lot

10A), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 50

feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned R-1A.

(Case No. 05-V7 & 05-V8 were presented at the same time)



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

Mr. Lyles gave the following information: The way the roads are set up all the

lots are right next to each other. He plans to build identical houses

approximately 1400 square feet with three or four bedrooms and two baths. It

will be comparable to other residences on the street. A majority of the lots

are 50 feet.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from the

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

minutes.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because the appellant remarked that virtually every other lot in this

particular area is already 50 feet. This is a neighborhood revitalization and

this will be a good improvement for the neighborhood. Motion carried

unanimously.







8

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 05-V8--Granted.



John Lyles, JR Construction, presented the appeal of 534 Wilder Drive (Lot 10B)

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

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



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

Mr. Lyles gave the following information: The way the roads are set up all the

lots are right next to each other. He plans to build identical houses

approximately 1400 square feet with three or four bedrooms and two baths. It

will be comparable to other residences on the street. A majority of the lots

are 50 feet.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from the

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

minutes.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because the appellant remarked that virtually every other lot in this

particular area is already 50 feet. This is a neighborhood revitalization and

this will be a good improvement for the neighborhood. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 05-V9?-Granted.



Joseph Mayeaux, Pattison Sign Group, presented the appeal of NAPA, 2601

Manchester Expressway, for a variance to reduce the side setback requirement

from 3 feet to 1 foot, in order to erect a new sign cabinet on existing poles.

The property is zoned C-2.



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

Mr. Mayeaux gave the following information: They are requesting a variance to

use the existing structure to manufacture and install a new double face

illuminated sign.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Diane Hewitt, Inspection and Codes,

came forward. She stated, this is an existing non-conforming structure and

they would like to take the top part off and replace it with a new one. They

will not meet the 3 feet setback for this lot, they are only allowed one ground

sign.





9

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





So, if he touches the structure then he would go back to only having one ground

sign instead of two. The second sign is suppose to come down. He would like

to use the existing structure that is already there for the new sign.



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

appeal because they are replacing the top of a sign and the poles encroach on

the property line with the stipulation that the existing sign is taken down

before the new sign goes up. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V10--Tabled.



Randy Perez presented the appeal of Robert Ashley, 1346 Buena Vista Road, for a

variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 20 feet

and to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 40 feet to 22.81 feet, in

order to erect a duplex. The property is zoned A-O.



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

Mr. Perez gave the following information: He and Robert Ashley are partners on

this property. They would like to build a duplex and want more room in the

front and back yard. This is a small lot and they would like to put a nice

size duplex that will fit the neighborhood. There is a retaining wall and only

the storage shed can be seen, the house is not visible. They will put garages

under the duplex and there will be a parking pad.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Betsy Covington came forward. She

would like to see the land developed instead of being left as a quarry which is

how it has been used for the past two years. This is in the Historic District

and any plans would have to be approved by BHAR.



Leah Braxton, Chairperson, asked Mr. Perez if BHAR has given their approval and

he stated his partner, Robert Ashley, is working with BHAR.



Billy Edwards, stated they would like to see a floor plan of the duplex

instead of a site plan.



David Fox asked where was the existing retaining wall, would there have

to be more excavating and how close is the existing retaining wall in the rear?





10

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Mr. Perez stated the retaining wall is on the property line and they

will not have to do more excavating.



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

appeal until the February meeting because this case has not gone before the

Board of Historic and Architectural Review. The Board (BZA) would like to see

plans of the building that will be erected. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V11?-Granted.



Justin H. Lange, 5831 Norton Street, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the corner side yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 24 feet 4

inches, in order to make an addition, 15? x 30.4?, 2 bedrooms and a bathroom,

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



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

Mr. Lange gave the following information: The house is non-conforming and it

sits approximately 4 inches over the 25 feet side corner setback. He would

like to extend back 15 feet. The addition will be lined up with the house.

The same materials will be used to match the house.



Mr. Lange was asked by a Board Member if the addition of the 2 bedrooms

and bathroom would be for a duplex and he stated this will be a single family

residence.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because the materials will match the existing house. This will be

a single family residence not a duplex. The existing house is already

encroaching over the line and the addition will be lined up with the existing

house. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V12--Granted.



Arthur P. Mosley, 5258 23rd Avenue and Ray Phillips presented the appeal for a

variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 5 feet to 2 feet, in

order to make an addition, 15? x 24?, a carport, to an accessory structure.

The property is zoned R-2.





11

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





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

Mr. Mosley and Mr. Phillips gave the following information: The addition was

already added without a permit. It is a garage that is actually attached to

the house and it was attached to the garage. It will have gutters and the down

spout is going toward the road. They have two letters from the neighbors that

do not oppose this request.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because there were letters of approval from two neighbors, the down

spout is to the street and the addition will be made to an accessory structure

in the rear yard. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V13?-Granted.



Alex Griggs, Gwen Jackson, James McCormick and Amy Moore presented the appeal

of Peabody Redevelopment Partnership, LP, 1100 27th Street, for a variance

(block 1) to reduce the required off-street parking from 60 to 44 and to reduce

the front & side corner yard setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet,

(block 2) to reduce the off-street parking from 54 to 44 and to reduce the

front & side corner yard setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet, (block 3)

to reduce the off-street parking from 90 to 64 and to reduce the front & side

corner yard setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet, (block 4) to reduce

the off-street parking from 44 to 33 and to reduce the front & side corner yard

setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet, (block 4A) to reduce the front &

side corner yard setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet, (block 5) to

reduce the off-street parking from 32 to 24 and to reduce (only the) front yard

setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet, (block 6) to reduce the off-street

parking from 48 to 36 and to reduce the front & side corner yard setback

requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet, in order to erect new apartments. The

property is zoned R-4.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, they gave the following information: This will be phase 1 and they

will do phase 2 in the future. They would like to get the buildings close to

the sidewalks and there will be heavy landscaping. There will be on and off

street parking and it will exceed the required parking requirement.





12

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Stanley Adams came forward. He

stated, he had to lose 10% of his property and can not get a driveway. He

doesn?t think they can get a variance and he didn?t know he could have gotten

one.



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

this appeal because the front and side setbacks they are asking for will allow

parking in the rear of the building. They will have plenty of parking along

with parking on the street. With the on street parking, the parking will

exceed its requirement. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V14--Granted.



Ben Moon presented the appeal of Leary & Brown, Inc., and Brian Grier, 6802

Mobley Road (Lot 22), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 25 feet, in order to replat a lot. The property is zoned R-1A.

(Case 05-V14 & 05-V15 were presented at the same time)



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

Mr. Moon gave the following information: They will build one house. The

detention basin is low and there is no way to have access to the street than

the way they have it now. They do have Planning?s recommendation of

approval.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from the

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

minutes.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because they have Planning?s approval and it will allow the natural

detention base to exist. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V15?-Granted.



Ben Moon presented the appeal of Leary & Brown, Inc., and Brian Grier, 6802

Mobley Road (detention basin), for a variance to reduce the lot width

requirement from 25 feet to 20 feet, in order to reduce the entrance to the

detention basin. The property is zoned R-1A.





13

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





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

Mr. Moon gave the following information: They will build one house. The

detention basin is low and there is no way to have access to the street than

the way they have it now. They do have Planning?s recommendation of approval.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from the

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

minutes.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because they have Planning?s approval and it will allow the natural

detention base to exist. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V16--Granted.



Ben Moon presented the appeal of County Line Developers, 12475 County Line Road

(Lot 1), for a variance to reduce the lot area requirement from 40,000 square

feet to 24,600 square feet, in order to replat a lot (this is part of a lot in

Harris County). The property is zoned A-1. (Case 05-V16 & 05-V17 were

presented at the same time)



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

Mr. Moon gave the following information: They are developing a subdivision and

a portion of the property is in Muscogee County and Harris County.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

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



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this is an area where Harris County splits part of these lots.

It has Planning?s approval. Motion carried unanimously.







14

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 05-V17?-Granted.



Ben Moon presented the appeal of County Line Developers, 12475 County Line Road

(Lot 105), for a variance to reduce the lot area requirement from 40,000 square

feet to 2800 square feet, in order to replat a lot (this is part of a lot in

Harris County). The property is zoned A-1.



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

Mr. Moon gave the following information: They are developing a subdivision and

a portion of the property is in Muscogee County and Harris County.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

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



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this is an area where Harris County splits part of these lots.

It has Planning?s approval. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V18--Denied.



Britt Kemp, presented the appeal of Viacom Outdoor, 2528 Weems Road, for a

variance to reduce the distance between billboards from 1250 feet to 550 feet,

in order to erect a billboard. The property is zoned C-3.



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

Mr. Kemp gave the following information: They would like to erect a billboard

in the front because there is not enough space in the back for it. They got

the permit in March 2003, they did not build the structure and the permit

expired. They got another permit and it was revoked because of interpretation

changes in the ordinance and redesign of the streets.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Diane Hewitt came forward. The

ordinance states billboards must be 1250 feet on the same side of the street

from each other. Confusion came in because Viacom was going by the way the

billboard was facing, the ordinance







15

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





does not state which way it faces. She opposes this request because the signs

will be too close together.



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

appeal because a hardship was not shown. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V19?-Granted.



Bradley Jones presented the appeal of Gary Noell, 7843 Kolven Cove, for a

variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 18 feet,

in order to make an addition to a single family residence. The property is

zoned R-1A.



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

Mr. Jones gave the following information: They would like to add a den, office

space and a deck off of the master bedroom. The same materials will be used to

match the house. Their house backs up to a golf course.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

this appeal because the addition will be backed up to a golf course. The same

materials will be used to compliment the house. Motion carried unanimously.



END OF VARIANCES.



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



Case No. 05-HO1--Granted.



Herman Farley, 4908 Maplewood Drive, presented his application for a

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

handyman service, Farley?s Handy Solutions. 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.







16

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-HO2--Granted.



Steven J. Roberts, 5645 Rockhurst Drive, presented his application for a

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

maintenance, Roberts Lawn Maintenance. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-HO3--Granted.



Pedro R. Balbosa, 9 Earl Court, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling clothing, shoes,

body oils, fragrances and accessories (sold away from the home), Universal

Fashions. 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. The

items will be sold





17

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





at convenience stores and flea markets. UPS will come to his home every two

months.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. King 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. 05-HO4?-Granted.



Dothel W. Edwards Jr., 8388 Ridge Creek Court, presented his application for a

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

rehabilitation consultant service, Chattahoochee Valley Vocational

Rehabilitation Services, Inc. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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

not meet with clients at his home.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. King 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. 05-HO5?-Tabled.



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

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

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

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



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

applicant gave the following information: 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 full time work. He will have his Uncle working

with him.







18

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





There was no opposition to this application.



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

application until the February meeting so that Mr. Bank?s Uncle can also get a

Home Occupation or he will not have his Uncle as an employee. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 05-HO6--Granted.



Kevin Rewis, 1032 18th Street, presented the application for him and his wife

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

for selling art glass, The Columbus Museum of Fenton Art Glass. The property

is zoned R-4.



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

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

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

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

Presently they are selling on e-bay, in the future they would like to move to a

commercial location.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-HO7?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Nathan Weatherby, 8216

Bryn Mawr Lane, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an

office only for marketing and handyman work, A-Z Marketing @ Services. The

property is zoned R-1A.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

present the application. Motion carried unanimously.





19

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 05-HO8--Granted.



Riann Star Smith, 3942 Tifton Drive, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only to build,

repair, upgrade and teach computers, Starlight Computers. The property is

zoned R-2.



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

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

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

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time

work.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-HO9?-Granted.



Lillie L. Fuse, 217 Playa Delray Drive, presented her application for a

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

estate clerical services, Lillie L. Fuse Real Estate Company. 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. She

moved her business from a commercial location to her home. No clients will

come to her home.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.









20

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 05-HO10?-Granted.



Farris Jeffrey Bedsole, 3846 Rockdale Drive, presented his application for a

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

handyman business, J B Enterprises LTD. 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. King, 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. 05-HO11?-Granted.



Danny L. Monteiro, 4748 Miller Road, presented his application for a

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

service, Dan?s Tree Service. The property is zoned M-1.



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

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

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

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

equipment will be kept in his storage shed.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.







21

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 05-HO12--Granted.



Victor C. Hardy, 6786 Standing Boy Road, presented his application for a

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

estate investments, The Hardy Company Investment Group, LLC. 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 full time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-HO13--Granted.



Archie B. Smith II, 7050 Whitesville Road, presented his application for a

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

handyman service, Archie?s Handyman Services. The property is zoned R-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 full time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



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





22

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 05-HO14?-Granted.



John Mullins, 1336 Sturkie Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a construction,

masonry and stone contractor, John Mullins Construction. The property is zoned

R-1A.



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

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

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

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

store his equipment at a storage unit and some of the equipment he will use

will be rental equipment.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. King, 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. 05-HO15--Granted.



Olakorede A. Odutola, 3625 Arkansas Drive D-12, presented her application for a

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

bookkeeping, accounting and company registration (for new businesses), AMOS,

LLC. The property is zoned R-4.



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

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

home as an office only. She will have no employees. 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. King, to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.





23

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 05-HO16--Granted.



Nicholas Todd Williams, 3229 Apache Drive, presented his application for a

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

electronics and musical equipment (internet sales), 29eleven. 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. King, to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-HO17?-Granted.



Don Johnson, 5405 Wayne Drive, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for pool cleaning and

maintenance, Johnson?s Pool Service. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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

come to his home once a week.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.





24

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





Case No. 05-HO18?-Tabled.



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

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

office only for selling bodybuilding equipment and supplements, Jernigan

Enterprises. The property is zoned R-4.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

present the application. Motion carried unanimously.

Case No. 05-HO19?-Granted.



Toby R. Gilliland, 7209 W. Wynfield Loop, presented his application for a

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

electronics, gps devices and home & outdoor furnishings, Getstuph. 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. The

items will be dropped shipped to the customers.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-HO20?-Granted.



Jamal Scott Cannon, 6241 Huntington Trail, presented his application for a

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

contractor, Scott Cannon Construction. The property is zoned R-1A.











25

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





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

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

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

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

sub the work out.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-HO21--Granted.



Matt Bowers, 2990 Blanchard Place, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a pressure washing

business, Top of the Line Pressure Washing. The property is zoned R-3B.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-HO22--Granted.



Bobby L. Ellison, 8075 Turtle Creek Drive, presented his application for a

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

marketing company, Hunter Raegan Alexander Knight Concepts. 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.





26

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 01/05/2005





There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.









27





The minutes of the regular meeting of January 5th were approved as presented.



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

David Fox, Danny Cargill,

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary





29