Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



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





The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, March 2,

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. David Fox





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

Pitts, Recording Secretary.



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

the Minutes of the Monthly Meeting, which was held on February 2, 2005. Motion

carried unanimously.



Board Member Ralph King was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Edwards made a

motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to excuse Mr. King?s absence on today,

March 2, 2005, for personal reasons. Motion carried unanimously by the four

Board Members present for this meeting.





CASES TABLED FROM THE FEBRUARY 2nd MEETING.



Case No. 05-V10?-Granted.



Robert Ashley, 1346 Buena Vista Road, presented his appeal 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.





BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

Mr. Ashley gave the following information: This case was tabled until it has

BHAR?s approval, it was approved 02/14/2005. He would like to eliminate the

front yard setback requirement and change the rear yard setback from 22.81 feet

to 17.81 feet because one of the neighbors didn?t like it being moved up. BHAR

will agree to the rear yard setback from 22.81 to 17.81 feet if the B.Z.A.

approves it. There is a retaining wall in the back of the property and it has

a steep hill that is wooded, it will not be visible from the property behind

it.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal to reduce the rear yard setback requirement to 17.81 feet instead of

22.81 feet. It has BHAR?s approval and it is an acceptable use for this piece

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO40--Granted.



Sharon K. Thornton, 6142 Joyner Drive, presented her application for a

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

title searches, Tri-City Abstracting. The property is zoned R-3A.



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

applicant gave the following information: She will 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. The work

will be done at the courthouse.



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 by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



END OF CASES TABLED FROM THE FEBRUARY 2nd MEETING.









2

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





VARIANCES.



Case No. 05-V34--Granted.



Ronald Lollar, 8620 Garrett Road (Lot 2), presented his appeal for a variance

to reduce the lot width requirement from 125 feet to 25 feet, in order to erect

a single family residence. The property is zoned A-1. (Cases 05-V34 & 05-V35

were presented at the same time)



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

Mr. Lollar gave the following information: He purchased the old school and it

is on 3.86 acres. He dug seven pit holes and the Health Department came out to

make sure that it perks to get a permit to make four lots. All 4 lots are

approximately 40,000 square feet. Lots 1 & 4 will have 125 feet frontage on

Garrett Road which meet the requirement. He is asking for two variances to

have two flag lots on lots 2 & 3 in the back. The houses will be 2,000 plus

square feet. He wouldn?t build anything that he wouldn?t live in.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Ida Horn, Sheila Rovick, Frank

Griffin Jr. and Wayne Basemore came forward. Their concerns are: the width of

the lot, the size of the house, the layout, would it be 4 houses facing Garrett

Road, how far apart the houses will be and they don?t want their houses to

de-value because of smaller homes.



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

attached and therefore is considered a part of these minutes.



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

appeal because they agree with Planning?s reasons for recommendation of

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V35?-Granted.



Ronald Lollar, 8620 Garrett Road (Lot 3), presented his appeal for a variance

to reduce the lot width requirement from 125 feet to 25 feet, in order to erect

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







3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

Mr. Lollar gave the following information: He purchased the old school and it

is on 3.86 acres. He dug seven pit holes and the Health Department came out to

make sure that it perks to get a permit to make four lots. All 4 lots are

approximately 40,000 square feet. Lots 1 & 4 will have 125 feet frontage on

Garrett Road which meet the requirement. He is asking for two variances to

have two flag lots on lots 2 & 3 in the back. The houses will be 2,000 plus

square feet. He wouldn?t build anything that he wouldn?t live in.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Ida Horn, Sheila Rovick, Frank

Griffin Jr. and Wayne Basemore came forward. Their concerns are: the width of

the lot, the size of the house, the layout, would it be 4 houses facing Garrett

Road, how far apart the houses will be and they don?t want their houses to

de-value because of smaller homes.



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

attached and therefore is considered a part of these minutes.



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

appeal because they agree with Planning?s reasons for recommendation of

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V36?-Granted.



Wright Wade, 3804 Anglin Road, presented his appeal for a variance to reduce

the lot width requirement from 35 feet to 25 feet, in order to erect a single

family residence. The property is zoned R-3B.



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

gave the following information: This is a new subdivision and he owns all of

the lots. He would like to make lot 9 a little bigger. The long driveway for

lot 10, they will give access to lot 111 and 109 so the garages can be in the

back of the house. This will be an 18 feet driveway easement for lot 109 and

lot 111. Three houses will use one driveway.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.







4

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

because this is like moving a lot line, it in fact changes because more square

footage is added in order to accommodate the customer on the adjacent lot.

This also has Planning?s approval. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of

the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V37?-Granted.



Eric Tolbert, 6629 Foxboro Drive, presented the appeal for his wife, Barbara,

for a variance to reduce the corner side yard setback requirement from 25 feet

to 1 foot, in order to make an addition, 29? 6? x 30?, a garage, to a single

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



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

Mr. Tolbert gave the following information: They would like to enlarge the

kitchen area and add a double car garage.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because this is a corner lot and the encroachment will be 1 foot on the

building side. The addition sits back sufficiently that it will not create a

line of site issue. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V38?-Granted.



Dan Snavely, 6701 Flat Rock Road, presented his appeal for a variance to reduce

the rear yard setback requirement from 15 feet to 1 foot, in order to make an

addition, an office, 14? x 24?, to an office building. The property is zoned

M-1.



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

Snavely gave the following information: The property is in a sharp curve on

Flat Rock Road. There is a narrow D-shape lot there. Behind is a 60 foot

easement with pine trees and grass. It?s zoned M-1 so they have a 15 foot

setback which they are almost on now. They are 16? feet from the property line

and want to go back 14 feet to add another office space. There will not be a

water run off, they have a catch basin and most of the water will go on their

paved parking lot.





5

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this is an odd shape lot. The drainage easement Mr. Snavely

will encroach on is his. It will not be detrimental to the public. There will

be sufficient drainage to prevent water problems. Motion carried by the

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



Case No. 05-V39--Granted.



Perrin Nicholson and Paten Turner presented the appeal of St. Thomas Episcopal

Church, 2500 Woodcrest Drive, for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback

requirement from 30 feet to 27 feet and to reduce the lot width requirement

from 75 feet to 60 feet, in order to replat a lot. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Nicholson and Mr. Turner gave the following information: St. Thomas owns about

11 acres of land on Hilton Avenue. They have access to Hilton Avenue right off

of Woodcrest Drive and that is how they get to the church. The back corner

(north east corner) of the property is where the director lives and right now

this is one tax parcel. The reason the variance was filed is because sometime

ago an alarm (a burglar or fire alarm) went off at the house and the 911 people

came to the church instead. It was a false alarm. The address that 911 has is

2500 Woodcrest Drive, but the director?s house address is 2134 Wells Drive. 911

does not have that address in their records. There has to be one property

address per tax parcel. Since this is one big tax parcel the house is listed

as apartment B on the 911 record. There is no driveway going from the church

to the director?s house only a walkway. If there really was an emergency the

fire department or police would not be able to find the house. They had Bobby

Hobbs survey off a regular size lot that would fit in with the neighborhood and

he went to get the plat approved. They had to get the variance because Wells

Drive dead ends into their lot and it is not in a cul-de-sac, but they could

have more road frontage. The other issue is the little garage building that has

been there for years, but it is only 27 feet from the back line, this is

nothing new that they are building. They want to separate the lot so they can

have their separate tax parcel and have 911 be able to find them.





6

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because this is needed because of safety reasons. This residence does

not have an official 911 address and in order for them to respond to an

emergency they need to carve out this lot. This also has approval of

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V40--Granted.



Gerald Parker, Southern Awning, presented the appeal of Roy Diamond, 5762

Spanish Oak Drive, for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement

from 5 feet to 2 feet, in order to make an addition, a carport, 10? x 40? and a

patio, 10? x 15?, to a single family residence. The property is zoned R-3.



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

Mr. Parker gave the following information: The carport will go over an

existing concrete pad. He has a patio in the back and it will be covered as

well. It will have gutters. The water will go toward the back and to the

street.



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 carport will be over an existing concrete pad and

gutters will be installed to run the water to the front and rear. Motion

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

meeting.



Case No. 05-V41?-Granted.



James and Susan England, 809 30th Street, presented their appeal for a variance

to reduce the off-street parking requirement from 8 spaces to 6 spaces (4

spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area). The property is zoned C-3.





7

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. and Mrs. England gave the following information: They are asking

to reduce the parking spaces from 8 to 6. They are planning on opening a

studio and art gallery. The house is actually 1,994 square feet, but only 897

square feet will be used for the gallery area.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this will be an art studio and they are only using half of the

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V42--Granted.



Dennis Deal, 2713 North Walnut Street (Lot 1), presented his appeal for a

variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 60 feet to 50 feet, in order

to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned R-2. (Case No.

05-V42 & 05-V43 were presented at the same time)



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

Mr. Deal gave the following information: This is a piece of property that he

bought for a rental house and it needed drastic repairs. After closing on the

house, he went by the house a week later and the City put a D on the house

because it was condemned. He put $30,000 into it and it is not feasible to fix

and rent out. He was approached by someone to purchase the lot if it was

replatted. Each lot would be 50? x 170?. The person that wants to buy the

lots will erect 2 houses that will value approximately $100,000 each and will

be 1200 square feet. There are other 50 feet lots in the area.



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. Edwards, to grant this

appeal because this will be similar to other lots in the area. This request is

needed to construct two new homes rather than have sub-standard housing.

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

this meeting.



8

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





Case No. 05-V43?-Granted.



Dennis Deal, 2713 North Walnut Street (Lot 2), presented his appeal for a

variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 60 feet to 50 feet, in order

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



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

Mr. Deal gave the following information: This is a piece of property that he

bought for a rental house and it needed drastic repairs. After closing on the

house, he went by the house a week later and the City put a D on the house

because it was condemned. He put $30,000 into it and it is not feasible to fix

and rent out. He was approached by someone to purchase the lot if it was

replatted. Each lot would be 50? x 170?. The person that wants to buy the

lots will erect 2 houses that will value approximately $100,000 each and will

be 1200 square feet. There are other 50 feet lots in the area.



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. Edwards, to grant this

appeal because this will be similar to other lots in the area. This request is

needed to construct two new homes rather than have sub-standard housing.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V44--Tabled.



There was no one present to present the appeal of Robert Aiken, 522 Vista Drive

(Lot 13), 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.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Robert Walden came forward. He

stated he represents 33 other property owners in the subdivision who oppose

this request. All of their property meets R-1A qualifications on the front lot

width requirement. They feel everyone else should meet the requirement,

instead of making the lots 50 feet.





9

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

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



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

until the April meeting because there was no one present to present the

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V45?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the appeal of Robert Aiken, 522 Vista Drive

(Lot 13A), 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.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Robert Walden came forward. He

stated he represents 33 other property owners in the subdivision who oppose

this request. All of their property meets R-1A qualifications on the front lot

width requirement. They feel everyone else should meet the requirement,

instead of making the lots 50 feet.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

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



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

until the April meeting because there was no one present to present the

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V46--Denied.



Ted Pearce, 1330 35th Street (Lot 100), presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 16.3 feet, in order to

subdivide a lot. The property is zoned R-3A. (Case No. 05-V46 & 05-V47 were

presented at the same time)





10

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

Mr. Pearce gave the following information: They bought the existing house and

they are planning to remodel. They are asking for a variance on the back of

the house in order to replat the lot. They would like to put a single family

home on lot 101. This will not be apartments or a rental house. The house is

in keeping with the neighborhood. There will be a 6 feet privacy fence between

the current home and the new home. He will sell the new home. Lot 100 will

not have a driveway, the parking will be on the 14th street side. The previous

owners didn?t park in the driveway, they parked on the 14th Street side.



David Fox, Board Member, asked Mr. Pearce if he would come back to the Board at

a later date to get a side yard variance request and Mr. Pearce stated No, he

will not.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Ruth Culpepper, Rodney Culpepper,

Louise Thornton, Mitch Kasiler (he also represented his twin brother Norman

Kasiler) and Jim Slaughter came forward. Their concerns are: The lot is zoned

for 1 residence, the lot is to small, there is already on-street parking with

one house there, someone else will be parking on the street, the lots are deep

and this will come out way further than the rest of the houses. Mrs. Ruth

Culpepper stated the new house will be in her front yard. A letter was sent by

Kenneth G. Degraaff who also oppose this request. Mr. Jim Slaughter is not in

opposition, he is in favor of this request. When he first heard about the

request he had concerns, but based upon what he has seen he has no problem with

it. He has two houses on his lot, he has a cottage in his back yard. He has a

single car driveway and parks on the street because they have to move cars to

get out of the driveway.



Planning recommends denial of this request. The memorandum from Planning is

attached and therefore is considered a part of these minutes



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

this appeal because several people opposed this request and Planning recommends

denial because it would be a detriment to the public safety, health and/or

welfare or injurious to other property. Motion carried by a vote of 3 to 1

with David Fox voting against the motion.





11

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





Case No. 05-V47?-Denied.



Ted Pearce, 1330 35th Street (Lot 100), presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 20 feet and to reduce

the lot area from 6,000 square feet to 4,235 square feet, in order to erect a

single family residence. The property is zoned R-3A.



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

Pearce gave the following information: They bought the existing house and they

are planning to remodel. They are asking for a variance on the back of the

house in order to replat the lot. They would like to put a single family home

on lot 101. This will not be apartments or a rental house. The house is in

keeping with the neighborhood. There will be a 6 feet privacy fence between

the current home and the new home. He will sell the new home. Lot 100 will

not have a driveway, the parking will be on the 14th street side. The previous

owners didn?t park in the driveway, they parked on the 14th Street side.



David Fox, Board Member, asked Mr. Pearce if he would come back to the Board at

a later date to get a side yard variance request and Mr. Pearce stated No, he

will not.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Ruth Culpepper, Rodney Culpepper,

Louise Thornton, Mitch Kasiler (he also represented his twin brother Norman

Kasiler) and Jim Slaughter came forward. Their concerns are: The lot is zoned

for 1 residence, the lot is to small, there is already on-street parking with

one house there, someone else will be parking on the street, the lots are deep

and this will come out way further than the rest of the houses. Mrs. Ruth

Culpepper stated the new house will be in her front yard. A letter was sent by

Kenneth G. Degraaff who also oppose this request. Mr. Jim Slaughter is not in

opposition, he is in favor of this request. When he first heard about the

request he had concerns, but based upon what he has seen he has no problem with

it. He has two houses on his lot, he has a cottage in his back yard. He has a

single car driveway and parks on the street because they have to move cars to

get out of the driveway.



Planning recommends denial of this request. The memorandum from Planning is

attached and therefore is considered a part of these minutes







12

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

this appeal because several people opposed this request and Planning recommends

denial because it would be a detriment to the public safety, health and/or

welfare or injurious to other property. Motion carried by a vote of 3 to 1

with David Fox voting against the motion.



Case No. 05-V48--Granted.



Will Barnes presented the appeal of Barnes & Company, Architects, P.C., for

Barry Vaught, 2313 Fairway Avenue, for a variance to reduce the front yard

setback requirement from 25 feet to 12 feet, in order to make an addition, a

carport, 24? x 28?, to a single family residence. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Mr. Barnes gave the following information: They would like to add a carport to

an existing house. The house is on the end of the block with neighbors on each

side. Cars already park in the circular driveway, they are trying to house two

cars in a more pleasing aesthetically manner than they are now. The actual

construction will be an extension of the existing roof, it won?t be an

interrupted roof line and it won?t look out of place. It will match the detail

and material of the existing house. Mr. Vaught talked to neighbors within 300

feet and they had no opposition.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because it doesn?t appear to be a detriment to the community or

streetscape and there was no opposition. Motion carried by the affirmative

vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V49--Granted.



Bill Hart, Bill Hart, Inc., presented the appeal of 5514 River Rock Court, for

a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 16 feet,

in order to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned R-2. (Case

05-V49 & 05-V50 were presented at the same time)





13

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

Mr. Hart gave the following information: This house is in a cul-de-sac and

there is an access easement between the lots. The variance is needed to fit

the house on the cul-de-sac lot. The rear of the property line is the

detention pond so there will be no adjoining property owners

affected.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this is an odd shape lot, there is a detention pond in the rear

and it won?t affect anyone to reduce the rear yard. This will allow him to put

consistent size homes in the neighborhood. Motion carried by the affirmative

vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V50?-Granted.



Bill Hart, Bill Hart, Inc., presented the appeal of 5506 River Rock Court, for

a variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 22 feet

and to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 20 feet, in

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



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

Mr. Hart gave the following information: This house is in a cul-de-sac and

there is an access easement between the lots. The variance is needed to fit

the house on the cul-de-sac lot. The rear of the property line is the

detention pond so there will be no adjoining property owners

affected.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this is an odd shape lot, there is a detention pond in the rear

and it won?t affect anyone to reduce the rear yard. This will allow him to put

consistent size homes in the neighborhood. Motion carried by the affirmative

vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.





14

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





Case No. 05-V51--Granted.



Dick Norman presented the appeal of Storage Columbus, LLC, 5977 Whitesville

Road, for a variance to eliminate the Buffer requirement as a result of

rezoning property from M-1 to C-3. The property is zoned M-1.



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

Mr. Norman gave the following information: They are in the process of

re-zoning this property from M-1 to C-3. They had the first reading at Council

last night and it will be voted on next week. As part of the re-zoning, C-3

zoning automatically fits in the buffer requirement. They are seeking to waive

that buffer requirement, it is impossible to comply based on the existing

building. The buffer will not be eliminated to do more construction

work.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this is an existing facility and there is no way to buffer it

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V52--Denied.



Mark Martin presented the appeal of Pinnacle Homes, Inc. 8024 Waterstone Drive,

for a variance to increase the size of a sign from 6 square feet to 24 square

feet. The property is zoned R-2. (Case No. 05-V52 & 05-V53 were presented at

the same time)



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

Mr. Martin gave the following information: They would like to put up a sign

for the model home in the subdivision. The sign will be placed in PVC so it

can be removed if the house goes under contract. There will be some

landscaping done around the sign to make it more appealing to the

neighborhood. The sign will be 4? x 6? in the front yard. If a customer likes

this house, the sign will be removed. The garage has been enclosed, this house

will be the only model house. It will be the last house sold in this

subdivision.





15

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition Diane Hewitt, Sign Inspector,

Inspections & Code, came forward. She stated this is a residential area and

the Ordinance states that any sign must be under 6 square feet. They do have a

sign when entering the subdivision and it is in violation of the City

Ordinance. One of the model houses has a small sign that is under the required

square footage. The larger sign does not enhance the neighborhood.



Leah Braxton asked Mr. Martin if Pinnacle would like to reconsider the size of

the sign, to make it smaller. Mr. Martin stated he would like to reduce the

sign to 3? x 5?, 15 square feet.

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

this appeal, although Mr. Martin reduced the square footage to 15, there are

other options for the size of the sign. Motion carried by the affirmative vote

of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V53?-Denied.



Mark Martin presented the appeal of Pinnacle Homes, Inc. 8087 Sonoma Pointe

Drive, for a variance to increase the size of a sign from 6 square feet to 24

square feet. The property is zoned R-2.



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

Martin gave the following information: They would like to put up a sign for

the model home in the subdivision. The sign will be placed in PVC so it can be

removed if the house goes under contract. There will be some landscaping done

around the sign to make it more appealing to the neighborhood. The sign will

be 4? x 6? in the front yard. If a customer likes this house, the sign will be

removed. The garage has been enclosed, this house will be the only model

house. It will be the last house sold in this subdivision.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Diane Hewitt, Sign Inspector,

Inspections & Code, came forward. She stated this is a residential area and

the Ordinance states that any sign must be under 6 square feet. They do have a

sign when entering the subdivision and it is in violation of the City

Ordinance. One of the model houses has a small sign that is under the required

square footage. The larger sign does not enhance the neighborhood.







16

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





Leah Braxton asked Mr. Martin if Pinnacle would like to reconsider the size of

the sign, to make it smaller. Mr. Martin stated he would like to reduce the

sign to 3? x 5?, 15 square feet.

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

this appeal, although Mr. Martin reduced the square footage to 15, there are

other options for the size of the sign. Motion carried by the affirmative vote

of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V54--Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, 11501

Chattsworth Road, for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 125

feet to 70 feet, in order to subdivide a lot. The property is zoned A-1.



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

Mr. Mason gave the following information: This is a family estate that is

being divided by two brothers. This will be a shared driveway that will be

fully contained on parcel 210.



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. Lewis, to grant

this appeal because these are family homes and they are dividing so the homes

will be on separate lots. The lot line runs the way it is so that the driveway

will be incorporated. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four Board

Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V55--Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., 6910

Aldora Drive (Lot 500), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 49.97 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The

property is zoned R-1A. (Cases 05-V55 thru 05-V67 were presented at the same

time)







17

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

Mr. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V56?-Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., 6910

Aldora Drive (Lot 501), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 49.97 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. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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.







18

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V57--Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., 6903

Aldora Drive (Lot 600), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 50 feet and to reduce the lot area from 10,000 square feet to 7,490

square 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. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V58--Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., 6903

Aldora Drive (Lot 601), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 50 feet and to reduce the lot area from 10,000 square feet to 7,490

square feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is

zoned R-1A.





19

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

Mr. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V59?-Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., 3609

Boby Drive (Lot 100), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 31.40 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. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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.







20

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V60--Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., 3601

Boby Drive (Lot 300), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 70 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. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V61--Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., a

portion of 3601 Boby Drive and a portion of 3609 Boby Drive (Lot 200), for a

variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 31.40 feet, in

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







21

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

Mr. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V62?-Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., 3511

Boby Drive (Lot 900), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 50 feet and to reduce the lot area from 10,000 square feet to 8,500

square 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. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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.





22

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V63--Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., 3511

Boby Drive (Lot 901), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 50 feet and to reduce the lot area from 10,000 square feet to 8,500

square 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. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V64--Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., 5632

Peggy Drive (Lot 100), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 60 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The property

is zoned R-1A.







23

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

Mr. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V65?-Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., a

portion of 5626 and a portion of 5632 Peggy Drive (Lot 101), for a variance to

reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 60 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. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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.





24

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V66--Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., a

portion of 5618 and a portion of 5626 Peggy Drive (Lot 102), for a variance to

reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 60 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. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-V67--Granted.



Warren Mason presented the appeal of Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, Inc., 5618

Peggy Drive (Lot 103), for a variance to reduce the lot width requirement from

75 feet to 60 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The property

is zoned R-1A.







25

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

Mr. Mason gave the following information: All of these variances are in the

same subdivision of Sun Hill. When Mr. Woodruff purchased the property, he was

required to purchase a number of remnant and previously undeveloped lots

throughout the development. After discussions with the City and Planning they

are presenting a number of variances so that the previously unused parcels can

be developed.



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. Lewis, to grant this

appeal because these are unused lots and it will be an improvement to the

neighborhood. The lots were not uniformed enough to rezone the entire area.

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

this meeting.



END OF VARIANCES.



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



Case No. 05-HO41--Granted.



Keith L. Grier, 6077 Hunter Ridge Circle, presented his application for a

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

electric company, Keith L. Grier Electric, 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.



There was no opposition to this application.







26

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO42--Granted.



Carmen Haynes, 7196 W. Wynfield Loop, presented her application for a

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

cosmetics, clothing and accessories (sold away from the home), Carmen Haynes

IBC. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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

items will be sold away from the home.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO43--Granted.



Teresa M. Lange, 3914 Woodlawn Avenue, presented her application for a

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

accounting service, Performance Plus. The property is zoned R-3A.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.







27BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO44?-Granted.



Giovanni Rochaescobar, 6021 North Pointe Drive, presented his application for a

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

care service, Gary?s Lawn Care. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO45?-Granted.



Harry & Algeria Barber, 2926 Eagle Pointe Drive, presented their application

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

cleaning service, A & S Cleaning SVS. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

their home as an office only. There will be no additional traffic in the

neighborhood and no employees. This will be part time work.



There was no opposition to this application.







28

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO46--Granted.



Tammy L. Surowiec, 8400 Veterans Parkway #913, presented her application for a

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

decorating, Tam Interiors. The property is zoned A-O.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, 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. 05-HO47?-Granted.



James Andrew Irvin, 359 Henson Avenue, presented his application for a

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

trucking company, Columbus Logistics, LLC. 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

be an independent trucker. Most of the time he will keep his truck at

Wal-Mart, but when it is not it will be kept in his driveway.



There was no opposition to this application.







29

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO48--Granted.



Michael Thornton, 3527 Norris Circle, presented his application for a

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

handyman business, MandP Cont. & Ser. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time

work.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO49?-Granted.



Michelle D. Richardson, 7111 Midland Chase Loop, presented her application for

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

hats, purses, shoes, jewelry, art and clothing (sold away from the home),

Hats-N-Things For Her. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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

items will be sold at flea markets and trade shows. UPS will come to her home

twice a month.



There was no opposition to this application.





30

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO50?-Granted.



Shannon Pabey, 4500 Esther Court, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for website design, Faith

Designer. 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 full time work.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO51?-Granted.



Anthony C. Jackson, 4386 Reesewood Court, presented his application for a

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

merchandise marketing (jewelry, pottery/glass, antiques & collectables,

giftware, home furnishings and toys & novelties (internet), Satin and Silk.

The property is zoned R-3B.



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

applicant gave the following information: This is predominantly an internet

marketing company that seeks out merchandise internationally. 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. UPS will come to his home twice a week and the items will be dropped

shipped to the customers.



There was no opposition to this application.





31

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO52--Granted.



Winfred Ottley, 805 Cooper Avenue, presented his application for a Certificate

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

administration, Networks. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO53--Granted.



Tillford Thomas, 2908 Gardenia Street, presented his application for a

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

sales, repair and upgrade, Thomas Computer?s. 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.







32

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO54?-Granted.



Maurice Jones Jr., 820 McPherson Drive, presented his application for a

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

detailing, Mobile Detailing Service. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO55--Granted.



Kimberly Modlin, 8693 Revere Street, presented her application for a

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

scrapbook business, In My Mind?s Eye. 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 one room in her

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.





33

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO56--Granted.



Anthony White, 4234 Westfield Court, presented his application for a

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

networking, Anthony M. White. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time

work.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO57?-Granted.



William Miller, 5535 Roaring Branch Road, presented his application for a

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

management consulting, Miller Management 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 part time work. He will

not meet clients at his home.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Mrs. Ben Hudson came forward. She

feels the business will de-value her house and does not want Mr. Miller to have

the Home Occupation.







34

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO58--Granted.



Oscar Cazarin, 723 Apex Road, presented the application for him and his wife

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

only for a cleaning service, O & C House Cleaning. The property is zoned R-3A.



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 and there will be no

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO59--Granted.



Brister Frazier, 4909 Atterbury Drive, presented his application for a

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

cleaning service, BJ?s Cleaning Service. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time

work.



There was no opposition to this application.







35

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO60?-Granted.



Keith McLaughlin, 2607 N. Walnut Street, presented his application for a

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

landscape business, McLaughlin Landscape Maint. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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.



Case No. 05-HO61--Granted.



Lesia & Willie Richardson, 4029 Pamela Drive, presented their application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for making gift baskets (sold

away from the home), Gifts To Go. The property is zoned R-1A.



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. They will have no employees. There will be no additional traffic

in the neighborhood. This will be part time work. UPS will come to their home

once a month.



There was no opposition to this application.





36

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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

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

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

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO62--Granted.



Christopher Murphy, 500 Creek Road, presented his application for a Certificate

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

A Better Cut Lawn. 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 moved

to a new address and had to get a new home occupation.



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,

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.



Case No. 05-HO63?-Granted.



Chad Phillips, 3245 Mustang Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for stump grinding and

chain saw works, Eager Beaver?s Pro-Stump Grinding and Chain Saw Works. 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.





37

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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 by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO64--Granted.



Paul Jones, 4460 Utica Circle, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for mobile technology

services/internet retail, 1st Call Mobile Technologies/The Greek Connection.

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. 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. 05-HO65--Granted.



Lawrence Walton, 3785 Hawaii Way, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a trucking company,

L.W. Express. 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

leave his truck at the terminal.



There was no opposition to this application.







38

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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 by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO66?-Granted.



Eva Ethington Prince-Bey and Charles Lumpkin, 901 Joy Road Lot D-16, presented

their application for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an

office only for a painting business, Whatever It Is Home Improvements. The

property is zoned C-3.



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. 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,

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.



Case No. 05-HO67--Granted.



JoShaun Price-Ford, 4816 Toney Drive Apt. C, presented her application for a

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

janitorial service, Kingdom Cleaning Service. The property is zoned R-3A.



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

applicant gave the following information: She will 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 full time work.



There was no opposition to this application.







39

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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 by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO68--Granted.



Larry Walton, 5001 Waterview Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a lawn and pressure

washing service, Walt?s Finishing Touch Lawn & Pressure Washing 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 part 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,

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.



Case No. 05-HO69?-Granted.



Bart O. London-Bey, 3111 9th Street, presented his application for a

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

appliance repair, Mr. B?s Appliance Repair Service. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.







40

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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 by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO70--Granted.



Remonia Hollins, 4540 Lunsford Street, presented his application for a

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

flowers and novelties (seasonal items), Flower Man, Inc. 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. There will be no

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

sell the items at flea markets and different locations.



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 by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO71--Granted.



Michael Edward McMahan, 2338 Avalon Road, presented his application for a

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

company, A Perfect Pool. 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.







41

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005





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 by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



Case No. 05-HO72?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of James Wharam, 8507

Galena Road, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office

only for a foundation business, L.R.W. Construction. The property is zoned R-1.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

application until the April 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.



Case No. 05-HO73--Granted.



Tisha Snyder, 28 Peppertree Court, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for a gift basket service (sold away from

the home), Bountiful Baskets. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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

deliver the gift baskets to the clients. UPS will come to her home once a

week.



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 by the affirmative vote of the four Board Members present for

this meeting.



END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.







42

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 03/02/2005











The minutes of the regular meeting of February 2nd were approved as presented.



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

David Fox, Danny Cargill,

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary











43