Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? MAY 1, 2002





The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, May 1,

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 APRIL 3rd MEETING.



CASE NO. 02-V53---Denied.



Stan Swinehart/Park Properties, 527 Farr Road, presented his appeal

from a Decision of the Building Official that a sign is not allowed. The

property is zoned R-4.



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

Mr. Swinehart gave the following information: They have approximately 165 feet

of frontage on Farr Road. He would like to place a sign mid-way between the

existing sign and the property line. He did have a temporary sign, but had to

take it down after he was informed by the sign inspector that he could not have

a temporary sign.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

this appeal because the Building Official is correct that a sign is not allowed

in an R-4 zone. Motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1 with Mr. Fox voting against

the motion.





BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002







CASE NO. 02-V57---Approved.



Ben Manry, 9100 River Road, 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 his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

Mr. Manry gave the following information: He would like to put up signs that

will read tool rentals. The signs will face River Road and Biggers Road. The

Building has been used over the years for a variety of different things.

Within the year he will request a zoning change so that he can put an addition

on the building.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

grant this appeal because he needs an identification sign (1 sign only) for his

business. Motion carried unanimously.



CASE NO. 02-HO80---Denied.



There was no one present to present the application of Evan Dykes, 738

Ray Drive, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office

only for a collection agency, Omega Recovery. 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 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 APRIL 3rd MEETING.





BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002

PAGE 2









VARIANCES.



Case No. 02-V59--Tabled.



Kimberly Brown and Joe Jimmerson presented the appeal of Alphabet Train, 1332

Wynnton Road, appealing the decision of The Board of Historic & Architectural

Review that a fence is not allowed in the rear yard. The property is zoned A-O.



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

Brown and Mr. Jimmerson gave the following information: There was a fence in

the front that they have removed. They would like to keep the back chain link

fence. The back fence is not visible from Wynnton Road. The building has

already been approved by the state to operate a Day Care. They must have a 4

feet high barrier. The chain link fence was the most cost sufficient. When

they put the fence up, they didn?t know they were in the historic district.

For the past five years this building has been used as a Day Care Center with a

chain link fence in the back.



Mark McCollum, Recording Secretary for The Board of Historic & Architectural

Review came forward. The Board denied the use of a chain link fence for the

front yard and the rear yard. If the applicant chose to put a fence or request

a fence in the front yard then it would need to be a material that is

appropriate for the historic setting. A chain link fence is not historical

appropriate material. The applicant has removed the fence from the front

yard. The Board would approve (in concept anyway) a fence in the rear yard,

but it can not be a chain link fence. Whenever a new request is made for

installing a fence, then the ordinance applies. If the fence was existing

non-conforming it would have been alright. One of the BHAR Board Members met

with Ms. Brown and offered suggestions to put up another kind of

fence.



Andrew Jimmerson lives directly behind the Day Care and he does not oppose to

the fence.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002











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

so that they can look at the property and talk to BHAR. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 02-V60?-Granted.



Wayne Woodring, 3101 Mustang Drive, presented the appeal for a variance to

reduce the side yard setback requirement from 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches, in

order to build a storage shed, 10? x 19?. The property is zoned R-2.



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

Woodring gave the following information: When he bought the house there was an

existing aluminum shed on the property on a concrete pad. The pad is 2? feet

to the fence, so there is no way to move the pad. The shed is functional, but

not usable. He would like to tear down the aluminum and build on to the shed

to make it bigger.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



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

because he is removing the aluminum and adding on the shed. It will not be any

closer to the property line than the existing shed. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 02-V61?-Granted.



Barry & Carolyn Inman, 6151 Waterford Road, presented the appeal from a

Decision of the Building Official that an accessory structure, a

garage/storage, 24? x 36?, is not permitted in the front yard. The property is

zoned R-1.



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

Mrs. Inman gave the following information: Their builder told them they needed

a variance for the garage to be in the front of the house. They already have a

3 car garage, this will be an additional garage. They have signatures from

their neighbors who are not opposing the garage.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



4

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





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

this appeal because this is a large piece of property and this is typical of

the property. The garage works out for the topography & shape of the lot. The

Building Official was correct that an accessory structure is correct. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V62--Granted.



Mitchell Autry, 2839 Hargett Drive (Lot A) and Lou Carver, presented

the appeal for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30

feet to 11 feet and to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 7500 sq.

ft. to 6115 sq. ft., in order to build a single family residence. The property

is zoned R-2. Contingent upon Planning approval.



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

Autry and Mr. Carver gave the following information: Mr. Autry lives across

the street from this property. In the past five years he has bought an old

house, tore it down and built his son a new home. He has also remodeled

another old home. He tore down a home that was an eye soar in the community.

This lot is over 12,000 sq. ft., which is more than a R-1A requirement. For

the cost involved, he would like to divide the lot into two lots. He will put

two affordable houses on the lots.



Planning recommends approval of this variance with the condition that the lot

fronts on Sanford Avenue, thus changing the street address of the

parcel.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



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

because Mr. Autry is trying to improve the neighborhood. This will allow him

to tear down a dilapidated structure and build a new home. Motion carried

unanimously.



















5

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





Case No. 02-V63--Granted.



Mitchell Autry, 2839 Hargett Drive (Lot B) and Lou Carver presented the appeal

for a variance to reduce the minimum lot area requirement from 7500 sq. ft. to

6000 sq. ft. and to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 60 ft. to

50.54 ft., in order to build a single family residence. The property is zoned

R-2. Contingent upon Planning approval.



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

Autry and Mr. Carver gave the following information: Mr. Autry lives across

the street from this property. In the past five years he has bought an old

house, tore it down and built his son a new home. He has also remodeled

another old home. He tore down a home that was an eye soar in the community.

This lot is over 12,000 sq. ft., which is more than a R-1A requirement. For

the cost involved, he would like to divide the lot into two lots. He will put

two affordable houses on the lots.



Planning recommends approval of this variance with the condition that the lot

fronts on Sanford Avenue, thus changing the street address of the parcel.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



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

because Mr. Autry is trying to improve the neighborhood. This will allow him

to tear down a dilapidated structure and build a new home. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 02-V64--Denied.



Charles McCabe, 5856 Blue Ridge Drive and Ralph McDane presented the

appeal from a Decision of the Building Official that non-commercial kennels are

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

















6



BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002



In their statements and in response to

questions from the Board Members, Mr. McCabe and Mr. McDane gave the following

information:

Leah Braxton: Mr. McCabe, please tell us a little about what you?re doing at

your home.

Mr. McCabe: Approximately four years ago my wife started taking care of stray

animals which were either left by people that moved or cats roaming around

having kittens. She started feeding them. We had an enclosed back porch put

on our house and my wife started taking some of them in and working with the

Buena Vista Road Animal Clinic to have them get their shots and permits and try

to farm them out to people who are looking for animals. A lot of people want

animals with their shots, etc. We were not aware that there was a requirement

that if you had over six animals you had to have a hobby kennel permit. This

is what we are applying for-to be in compliance with the law in reference to

this.

Mr. McDane: Animal Control recommended that this was the way to go to resolve

this problem.

Leah Braxton: Do we have any opposition to this case?

Larry Phillips: How many animals do you have?

Mr. McCabe: Right now we have seventeen. The back porch is approximately 16?

x 20?, and then we have one room in addition to that for these animals. We do

place ads in the newspapers. It varies, but we decided we would set it at

fifteen at the maximum. It goes down below that, but that is what we thought

would be the amount that we would set-that we would not have over fifteen at

any given time.

Larry Phillips: You have seventeen now?

Mr. McCabe: Yes, we have two right now that are sick and the people will not

take those. One of them only has one eye where something happened. People do

not want cats that have something wrong with them. We can?t give those away,

we keep those ourselves.

Mr. McDane: They started out with more. When they found out they were in

violation of the ordinance, they worked to substantially reduce the number.

David Fox: Are they mostly cats? Or do you have dogs as well?

Mr. McCabe: We have two dogs which are our own. They are included in the

total.











7

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





David Fox: These are cats that you have?

Mr. McCabe: Most of them are cats. Yes, we have two dogs. The majority are

stray cats that people leave out. We feed them. The ones that we take care of

we work with Buena Vista Road Animal Clinic as far as what it costs us out of

our personal pocket to take care of these. We do put it in the newspaper for

people who are looking for cats.

Leah Braxton: I?m curious about your neighbors. Obviously they understand

what you?re doing over there and don?t have a problem. Do you talk with your

neighbors?

Mr. McCabe: We?ve had just one and that happens to be our neighbor behind us

who has been there for eight months. That is what generated this. We?ve been

there twenty years. They just moved in and she called Special Enforcements.

We had over an ?X? number of cats. She has never been in our yard. We have a

wrap- around wall to wall window. We sit up high on top of a hill on that

street.

Mr. McDane: The cats do not go outside. There has never been any other

nuisance complaint. This was not a nuisance complaint; this was just an

observation.

Mr. McCabe: The two neighbors who live on both sides of us have been there a

long time. They are well aware of what we have been doing.

David Fox: Are all of your cats fixed?

Mr. McCabe: Yes.

David Fox: Where do you get the money? I have two, so I know how much they

cost.

Mr. McCabe: Well, the Buena Vista Road Animal Clinic has allowed me to work

with them as far as paying and it has worked out and the doctors have been very

helpful.

Decision:

Leah Braxton: It seems like this should be in Judge Judy?s courtroom or

something.

David Fox: Madam Chairperson, I recommend that we deny this request for a

non-commercial kennel. We just don?t have enough information, at least I don?t

have enough information to make a valid decision on this. We don?t know how

much space there is, in particularly; although he indicated there was one room

that he was using. At this point, I don?t think that we can make that decision

or at least I can?t.



8

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002







Larry Phillips: Well, I second it on the same basis. I heard what Mr. McCabe

said, but what we are charged with proving here is, it leaves a lot of options

open that could grow into something that is very offensive to the neighbors who

may not be offended right now, but could be.

David Fox: There is the question of whether or not we have to put a time

limit. What do we do?

Danny Cargill: Yes, we need to put a time limit that he must get rid of the

excess animals, and we will let Special Enforcement know that. Also, a

non-commercial kennel is not a permitted use in a R-1A zone.

David Fox: We need to give him 30 days in which to place his animals

elsewhere.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



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

because the Board felt that they were not given enough information as to how

the kennel would be operated. Other options are available. The applicant must

remove the excess number of animals that are not allowed within 30 days.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V65--Granted.



Gail Aderhold, Action Buildings, presented the appeal of Ravnel

Burgamy, 4760 Woodmere Lane, for a variance to reduce the required distance

between a principal structure and an accessory structure from 6 feet to 1

inch. The property is zoned R-3B.



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

Aderhold gave the following information: This is an elderly couple. They

would like to remove a metal building and replace it with a new one. The

couple is concerned with getting wet when it rains. There is an existing pad.



There was a letter from Mary Gregory giving her approval for the accessory

structure.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.







BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





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

because this is an elderly couple and they need the accessory structure as

close as possible for bad weather conditions. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V66--Granted.



Gail Aderhold, Action Buildings, presented the appeal of Dewayne

Ballard, 1809 Dallas Court, for a variance to reduce the side yard setback

requirement from 8 feet to 1 foot, in order to make an addition, a carport, 19?

x 25?, to a single family residence. The property is zoned R-2.



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

Aderhold gave the following information: Mr. Ballard would like to add a

carport to his home. There is an existing slab. It will have gutters.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



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

this appeal because it is typical for the awning to be located on the side of

the house in this neighborhood. There are others in the neighborhood. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V67?-Tabled.



Trey Dykes and Austin Gower presented the appeal of Billy Bickerstaff, 1902

Wildwood Avenue, for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement

from 30 feet to 5 feet, in order to subdivide property to develop a second lot

with a single family residence. The property is zoned R-3A. Contingent upon

Planning approval.



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

& Mr. Gower gave the following information: Mr. Dykes would like to build a

personal residence on the property. He would like to put a 2-story house

approximately 2800 square feet on this property. If he can?t get the square

footage, he will build a single family residence. Awson Gower stated, some of

the neighbors were concerned if they were going to build a duplex. This is not

their intention to build a duplex.





10

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002







When the Chairman asked for opposition some of the neighbors came forward:

Ken Conchure stated, he is opposed to a duplex being built on the property. A

single family residence (if it is built right) would be O.K., but he is

concerned with the traffic flow.



Ruth Miller and Sally Routenna stated, building the house would delete the back

yard of the existing house. They are also concerned with people parking on the

street.



Lullone Jones stated, she doesn?t want someone to build a duplex in the

future. She would like for a single family residence to be built on the

property.



Barnett Woodruff sent a letter. It stated, the idea of a second house or a

duplex on that site was both unwarranted and undesirable. He suggests that the

owner build his duplex in a more suitable location other than Oak Avenue.



Betty Kinnett sent a letter stating that she is opposed to this request for a

variance.



The Planning Division recommends approval of this variance request.



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

because of opposition from neighbors and vague use of the other property.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V68?-Granted.



Richard Jessie presented the appeal of Walter Barker, 4021 Curry Street, for a

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

order to make an addition, a carport, 11? x 32?, to a single family residence.

The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Jessie gave the following information: Mr. Barker has an existing slab and he

would like to add a carport to his home. It will have an A frame roof. The

water will not go to the neighbors.



11

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002







There was no opposition present to this appeal.



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

because there is an existing slab and it will have a gable roof. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V69?-Granted.



George Penella, 2301 Airport Thruway, presented the appeal from a Decision of

the Building Official that a 2nd sign is not allowed in a C-3 zone. The

property is zoned C-3.



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

Penella?????was the Mr. Penella??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? gave the following

information: He would like to put a sign up for their restaurant that will

open on June 1st. They have a sign on the front of the business, but it can?t

be seen very clearly from the south side.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



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

appeal with the stipulation that the sign must be on the south side of the mid

entrance and that it will be equal distance between the Applebee?s and Stevie

B?s Pizza sign. Motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1 with Larry Phillips voting

against the motion.



END OF VARIANCES.



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



Case No. 02-HO88?-Granted.



Lynda Duvall, 2818 Auburn Avenue, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for medical claims

billing, Duvall Office Solutions. The property is zoned R-1A.





12

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





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

applicant gave the following information: She will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part

time.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO89?-Granted.



Anthony Dent, 2224 Bell Street, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for roofing & carpentry,

Dents Roofing & Carpentry. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO90?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Charlotte Sanks, 758

Omega Drive, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office

only for promoting gospel programs (promoter), CVJ Productions. The property

is zoned R-1A.





13

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

the application. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO91?-Granted.



Janet Wilson, 4746 Timarron Loop, presented her application for a Certificate

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

Sew Whats By Jan. The property is zoned R-1.



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

applicant gave the following information: She will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO92?-Granted.



David Holland, 2319 Huggins Street, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a music instructor &

performer (not at the home), Beatin? Path DBA Music Together of Columbus. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full time.





14

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO93?-Granted.



Vernice Lewis, 4119 Braddock Drive, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for sewing hobby crafts,

Sewing Granny. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO94?-Granted.



Holley Terry Fowler, 3303 Junaluska Drive, presented her application for a

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

monogramming children?s garments, Pumkindoodles. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.







15

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002







There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO95?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Joby Duncan, 9289

Garrett Creek Drive, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for

an office only for a plumbing company, Duncan?s Plumbing. 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 June meeting because there was no one present to present

the application. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO96?-Granted.



Charles Banks Jr., 2234 Birchwood Drive, presented his application for a

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

billing and claims services, Medi Quick Medical Billing. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.





16

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002







Case No. 02-HO97?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Jimmy Williford, 4773

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

office only for a lawn service and pressure washing business, JW Green Thumb

Lawn & Garden and Pressure Washing. 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 June meeting because there was no one present to present

the application. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO98?-Granted.



Eric Lloyd Holley, 2502 #1A Norris Road, presented his application for a

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

draftsman and a builder, Eric L. Holley Superior Home Designer & Builder. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full time.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

definition, but with the stipulation that there will be no storage of work

material at the residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO99--Granted.



Gary Crabb, 6112 Potomac Circle, presented his application for a Certificate of

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

Crabb Painting. The property is zoned R-2.





17

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002







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

applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full time.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

definition, but with the stipulation that there will be no storage of work

material at the residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO100--Granted.



Jason Barber, 4211 Chalfonte Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

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

trainer/consultant, Peak Training Systems. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

definition. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO101--Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Stephen Michael Peoples,

5721 Wiltshire Drive, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for

an office only for a pressure washing business, Peoples Pressure Washing. The

property is zoned R-2.







18

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002









There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

the application. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO102--Granted.



Eddison Weaver, 2196 Hunter Court, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for light remodeling &

renovation, painting & lawn care service, Weave Remodeling & Renovation. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

definition, but with the stipulation that there will be no storage of work

material at the residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO103?-Granted.



Walter Christopher presented the application for his wife Jannet Christopher,

5810 Bunche Street, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an

office only for selling food from a vendor cart (not at the home),

Christopher?s Southern Hot Dogs. The property is zoned R-2.



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

Christopher gave the following information: She will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.





19

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

definition. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO104?-Granted.



John Leonard Jr., 7329 Sierra Court, presented his application for a

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

t-shirts, caps, jackets, Christian apparel & specialty items (not at the home),

Christian Wear by Leonard. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full

time.



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.



Case No. 02-HO105?-Granted.



Don Marcus Leonard, 4444 Roman Drive, presented his application for a

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

care business, D & L Maintenance 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full time.



There was no opposition to this application.







20

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





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,

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO106?-Granted.



Gregory Kurt Whitfield, 4305 N. Oaks Drive, presented his application for a

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

fences, Southern Privacy. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



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,

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO107?-Granted.



Ronald Henry, 6039 Huntington Trail Drive, presented his application for a

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

lighting business (low voltage), New World Lighting. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.

Fed Ex will make a delivery once a week.





21

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





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.



Case No. 02-HO108?-Granted.



Corey Harrell, 3610 Statler Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

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

business, Harrell?s 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



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.



Case No. 02-HO109?-Granted.



Clifton Rogers, 5534 Valleybrook Road, presented his application for a

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

home repairs, painting, carpentry & sheetrock, R & R Remodeling. 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.







22

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002





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,

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO110?-Granted.



Henry Devouse, 3335 Flintlock Drive, presented his application for a

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

care business, Henry?s Lawn 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 an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



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,

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO111?-Granted.



Sandra Wallace, 14359 Farmington Road, presented her application for a

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

electronic billing, Healthclaim Billing Service. The property is zoned A-1.



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

applicant gave the following information: She will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



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.



23 BOARD OF

ZONING APPEALS ? 05/01/2002







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





There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.



















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

Larry Phillips, Danny Cargill

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary