Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? SEPTEMBER 3, 2003





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

September 3, 2003 at 2:00 P.M., on the 1st Floor of the Government Center

Annex, 420-10th Street. Members present were:





Mrs. Leah Braxton

Mr. David Fox

Mr. Billy Edwards

Mr. Willie Lewis Jr.

Mr. Ralph King





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

Pitts, Recording Secretary.



CASES TABLED FROM THE AUGUST 6th MEETING.



Case No. 03-HO206--Granted.



Melanie Beal, 940 N. Ridge Drive, presented her application for a Certificate

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

business, Melanie Beal Photography. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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

will be developed at the lab.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

Edwards, to grant this application because it does meet the

intent of the Home Occupation definition. Motion carried

unanimously.







BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-HO207--Denied.



There was no one present to present the application of Brian Sorrells, 1439

18th Avenue, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office

only for a network consulting service, Sorrells Network Services. The property

is zoned R-3A.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

application because there was no one present to present the application for two

consecutive meetings. Motion carried unanimously.





Case No. 03-HO209--Granted.



Fidel Garcia, 3212 Plateau Drive Lot 99, presented his application for a

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

landscaping business, Garcia Landscaping. The property is zoned C-3



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.





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

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

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.







END OF CASES TABLED FROM THE AUGUST 6th MEETING.







2

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





CASES FOR RE-CONSIDERATION FROM THE AUGUST 6TH MEETING.



Case No. 03-V92---Granted.



Dave Erickson, President of Tiger Creek Development, presented the

appeal of Tiger Creek Development, Inc., 6801 Warm Springs Road (Lot 18), for a

variance to reduce the lot width from 75 feet to 66 feet, in order to erect a

single family residence. The property is zoned R-1A. Contingent upon Planning

approval.



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

Mr. Erickson gave the following information: Last month David Fox presented

the appeal before the Board on his behalf because he was out of town. Mr. Fox

does have a potential conflict of interest (because he is a BZA Board member),

but he was representing a completed different entity. The goal is to adopt the

three lot discussion instead of the two lot discussion. We are discussing two

lots being platted as three and requiring a change in the building line

requirement. Within a cul-de-sac you are dealing with the cord distance from

property line to property line. We can overcome the issue by simply making the

street longer, which means one of the lots would suddenly become straight and I

would have more room available to do it. The consequence of that is I have to

push the road closer to the creek and eventually impact the creek more than I

would like to. I would like to get back from the creek a little bit more so

that I can save the trees and greenery that is closest to the creek which would

be good for the environment and ultimately better for the homes. We have a 25

foot buffer along the creek, which is a mandatory item that is already in

place. There are a lot of large majestic trees that we wish to keep there. We

will have a couple of places where the sewer will have to cross the creek, so

we will have small corridors, we will have two or three crossings. We are

working on road design issues and how the water is routed off the road to

maximize cleanliness. We are going to build the same houses regardless, all we

would end up doing is building the same house, we will set it back 30 feet

instead of 25 feet in order to meet the side setback requirements, but in order

to plat the lot it?s measured at 25 feet so that technical requirements say we

need a variance in





3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





order to do that. My request is ultimately I would like to get three lots, the

goal of which is to have an overall subdivision aesthetically pleasing,

economical viable with the least amount of impact to the community and the best

long term product for both sub-division and the City of Columbus.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, David Ragland came forward, he lives

at 6909 Warm Springs Road. He wasn?t notified about the first meeting for some

reason, there must have been a misunderstanding. He occupies the property

north and east of the said lots. . This is not consistent with the existing

zoning. The minimum impact to the surrounding lots, property owners and creek

is the utmost concern. Two lots are better than three lots.



Will Johnson, Zoning Administrator, of The Planning Division gave the following

information: They received a preliminary plat back in March of this year for

what was initially called River Birch sub-division, which is the same as

Wrenwood, there were nine issues that they had on the plat that needed to be

addressed, one of which was these three lots and minimum lot width at the

setback line. Planning denied the plat, sent it back to the engineers, a new

plat was submitted in April. They made all of the changes, one of the changes

being that they change the three lots that did not meet the lot width

requirements to two, so that they would come into compliance. In July

variances were applied for with Inspection and Codes, where variances were

being requested for the three lots for the original plat that had been denied.

Proper procedure on that would have been to file a new preliminary plat,

putting back in the original three lots that were in the first plat, then

filing for the variance. On the second preliminary turned in it shows two

instead of three. At the time this was done it was suitable.

If the two lots were good enough when that second preliminary was turned in

without pushing that cul-de-sac up, they should be good enough now.



Billy Edwards (Board Member) stated, on the Planning Division Analysis (d) they

stated the granting of the variance will not adversely impact the overall

objectives of the area or the Zoning Ordinance.





4

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Aronda Smith, Principle Planner of The Planning Division stated, it should read

the granting of the variance will adversely impact the overall objectives of

the area or the Zoning Ordinance. It does detract from the overall goal of the

zoning ordinance and we did not see a genuine hardship.



Will Johnson stated a standard form is usually used and the word not was not

deleted, usually there is not a problem with the variances.



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

this appeal because Planning?s recommendation for denial is based on the

requested variance defeats the purpose of the uniform lot width and it says in

the last sentence (on their form) due to the area?s specific and unique

conditions, the granting of the variance will not adversely impact the overall

objectives of the area or the Zoning Ordinance. That was Planning?s only

reason for recommending denial. The hardship would be the impact on the creek

that they are going to make if Mr. Erickson doesn?t want to get that extra lot

in there by pushing the road back. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of

the four Board Members with David Fox abstaining from voting.



Case No. 03-V93---Granted.



Dave Erickson presented the appeal of Tiger Creek Development, Inc., 6801 Warm

Springs Road (Lot 19), for a variance to reduce the lot width from 75 feet to

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

R-1A. Contingent upon Planning approval.



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

Mr. Erickson gave the following information: Last month David Fox presented

the appeal before the Board on his behalf because he was out of town. Mr. Fox

does have a potential conflict of interest (because he is a BZA Board member),

but he was representing a completed different entity. The goal is to adopt the

three lot discussion instead of the two lot discussion. We are discussing two

lots being platted as three and requiring a change in the building line

requirement. Within a cul-de-sac you are dealing with the cord distance from

property line to property line. We can overcome the issue by simply making the

street longer, which means one of the lots would suddenly become straight and I

would have more room available to do it. The





5

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





consequence of that is I have to push the road closer to the creek and

eventually impact the creek more than I would like to. I would like to get back

from the creek a little bit more so that I can save the trees and greenery that

is closest to the creek which would be good for the environment and ultimately

better for the homes. We have a 25 foot buffer along the creek, which is a

mandatory item that is already in place. There are a lot of large majestic

trees that we wish to keep there. We will have a couple of places where the

sewer will have to cross the creek, so we will have small corridors, we will

have two or three crossings. We are working on road design issues and how the

water is routed off the road to maximize cleanliness. We are going to build

the same houses regardless, all we would end up doing is building the same

house, we will set it back 30 feet instead of 25 feet in order to meet the side

setback requirements, but in order to plat the lot it?s measured at 25 feet so

that technical requirements say we need a variance in order to do that. My

request is ultimately I would like to get three lots, the goal of which is to

have an overall subdivision aesthetically pleasing, economical viable with the

least amount of impact to the community and the best long term product for both

sub-division and the City of Columbus.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, David Ragland came forward, he lives

at 6909 Warm Springs Road. He wasn?t notified about the first meeting for some

reason, there must have been a misunderstanding. He occupies the property

north and east of the said lots. . This is not consistent with the existing

zoning. The minimum impact to the surrounding lots, property owners and creek

is the utmost concern. Two lots are better than three lots.



Will Johnson, Zoning Administrator, of The Planning Division gave the following

information: They received a preliminary plat back in March of this year for

what was initially called River Birch sub-division, which is the same as

Wrenwood, there were nine issues that they had on the plat that needed to be

addressed, one of which was these three lots and minimum lot width at the

setback line. Planning denied the plat, sent it back to the engineers, a new

plat was submitted in April. They made all of the changes, one of the changes

being that they change the three lots that did not meet the lot width

requirements to two, so that they would come into compliance. In



6

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





July variances were applied for with Inspection and Codes, where variances were

being requested for the three lots for the original plat that had been denied.

Proper procedure on that would have been to file a new preliminary plat,

putting back in the original three lots that were in the first plat, then

filing for the variance. On the second preliminary turned in it shows two

instead of three. At the time this was done it was suitable.

If the two lots were good enough when that second preliminary was turned in

without pushing that cul-de-sac up, they should be good enough now.



Billy Edwards (Board Member) stated, on the Planning Division Analysis (d) they

stated the granting of the variance will not adversely impact the overall

objectives of the area or the Zoning Ordinance.



Aronda Smith, Principle Planner of The Planning Division stated, it should read

the granting of the variance will adversely impact the overall objectives of

the area or the Zoning Ordinance. It does detract from the overall goal of the

zoning ordinance and we did not see a genuine hardship.



Will Johnson stated a standard form is usually used and the word not was not

deleted, usually there is not a problem with the variances.



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

this appeal because Planning?s recommendation for denial is based on the

requested variance defeats the purpose of the uniform lot width and it says in

the last sentence (on their form) due to the area?s specific and unique

conditions, the granting of the variance will not adversely impact the overall

objectives of the area or the Zoning Ordinance. That was Planning?s only

reason for recommending denial. The hardship would be the impact on the creek

that they are going to make if Mr. Erickson doesn?t want to get that extra lot

in there by pushing the road back. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of

the four Board Members with David Fox abstaining from voting.





7

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-V94---Granted.



Dave Erickson presented the appeal of Tiger Creek Development, Inc., 6801 Warm

Springs Road (Lot 20), for a variance to reduce the lot width from 75 feet to

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

R-1A. Contingent upon Planning approval.



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

Mr. Erickson gave the following information: Last month David Fox presented

the appeal before the Board on his behalf because he was out of town. Mr. Fox

does have a potential conflict of interest (because he is a BZA Board member),

but he was representing a completed different entity. The goal is to adopt the

three lot discussion instead of the two lot discussion. We are discussing two

lots being platted as three and requiring a change in the building line

requirement. Within a cul-de-sac you are dealing with the cord distance from

property line to property line. We can overcome the issue by simply making the

street longer, which means one of the lots would suddenly become straight and I

would have more room available to do it. The consequence of that is I have to

push the road closer to the creek and eventually impact the creek more than I

would like to. I would like to get back from the creek a little bit more so

that I can save the trees and greenery that is closest to the creek which would

be good for the environment and ultimately better for the homes. We have a 25

foot buffer along the creek, which is a mandatory item that is already in

place. There are a lot of large majestic trees that we wish to keep there. We

will have a couple of places where the sewer will have to cross the creek, so

we will have small corridors, we will have two or three crossings. We are

working on road design issues and how the water is routed off the road to

maximize cleanliness. We are going to build the same houses regardless, all we

would end up doing is building the same house, we will set it back 30 feet

instead of 25 feet in order to meet the side setback requirements, but in order

to plat the lot it?s measured at 25 feet so that technical requirements say we

need a variance in order to do that. My request is ultimately I would like to

get three lots, the goal of which is to have an overall subdivision

aesthetically pleasing, economical viable with the least amount of impact to

the community and the best long term product for both sub-division and the City

of Columbus.





8

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





When the Chairperson asked for opposition, David Ragland came forward, he lives

at 6909 Warm Springs Road. He wasn?t notified about the first meeting for some

reason, there must have been a misunderstanding. He occupies the property

north and east of the said lots. . This is not consistent with the existing

zoning. The minimum impact to the surrounding lots, property owners and creek

is the utmost concern. Two lots are better than three lots.



Will Johnson, Zoning Administrator, of The Planning Division gave the following

information: They received a preliminary plat back in March of this year for

what was initially called River Birch sub-division, which is the same as

Wrenwood, there were nine issues that they had on the plat that needed to be

addressed, one of which was these three lots and minimum lot width at the

setback line. Planning denied the plat, sent it back to the engineers, a new

plat was submitted in April. They made all of the changes, one of the changes

being that they change the three lots that did not meet the lot width

requirements to two, so that they would come into compliance. In July

variances were applied for with Inspection and Codes, where variances were

being requested for the three lots for the original plat that had been denied.

Proper procedure on that would have been to file a new preliminary plat,

putting back in the original three lots that were in the first plat, then

filing for the variance. On the second preliminary turned in it shows two

instead of three. At the time this was done it was suitable.

If the two lots were good enough when that second preliminary was turned in

without pushing that cul-de-sac up, they should be good enough now.



Billy Edwards (Board Member) stated, on the Planning Division Analysis (d) they

stated the granting of the variance will not adversely impact the overall

objectives of the area or the Zoning Ordinance.



Aronda Smith, Principle Planner of The Planning Division stated, it should read

the granting of the variance will adversely impact the overall objectives of

the area or the Zoning Ordinance. It does detract from the overall goal of the

zoning ordinance and we did not see a genuine hardship.



9

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Will Johnson stated a standard form is usually used and the word not was not

deleted, usually there is not a problem with the variances.



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

this appeal because Planning?s recommendation for denial is based on the

requested variance defeats the purpose of the uniform lot width and it says in

the last sentence (on their form) due to the area?s specific and unique

conditions, the granting of the variance will not adversely impact the overall

objectives of the area or the Zoning Ordinance. That was Planning?s only

reason for recommending denial. The hardship would be the impact on the creek

that they are going to make if Mr. Erickson doesn?t want to get that extra lot

in there by pushing the road back. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of

the four Board Members with David Fox abstaining from voting.



END OF CASES FOR RE-CONSIDERATION FROM THE AUGUST 6TH MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 03-V102--Granted.



Robert Teasley, Signs, Inc., presented the appeal of Allen Elementary School,

5201 23rd Avenue, for a variance to increase the size of a sign from 15 square

feet to 40 square feet. The property is zoned R-2.



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

Mr. Teasley gave the following information: Allen Elementary is asking to

increase the square footage of a sign from 15 to 40. Signs, Incorporated has

been installing a lot of these signs at different schools (assemblies).



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal to increase the size of a sign from 15 to 40 square feet. The sign will

be used for informational purposes. There was no opposition to this request.

Motion carried unanimously.





10

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-V103?-Denied.



John Raymer, 4526 Labrador Drive, presented his appeal for a variance

to reduce the corner side yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 6 feet, in

order to erect a workshop/storage building, 12? x 16?. The property is zoned

R-2.



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

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

workshop/storage building. The reason for the request is the topography of the

lot is such that a building on the other side of the lot would be difficult and

require the removal of almost all of the trees that are on the back lot line

that provides some natural privacy between him and his neighbor behind him.

This is the most logical place to put the building. He will have a 6 foot

privacy fence erected on the back and side line that would provide privacy. He

lives in a corner lot in a cul-de-sac and there are only 4 houses in the

cul-de-sac that will be affected by what he is doing. This will not have a

negative impact on anyone?s property or affect the valuation. He plans to

landscape it nicely so that it will be attractive and it will not be an eye

soar. The further he moves the building back the more it will affect the cut.

The neighbors that are affected are the Stringfellows who live directly behind

them and they are not in opposition. It will be more expensive, disrupt the

yard, and affect the way he wants to arrange the landscaping. This is the

ideal place to put it.



When the Chairman asked for opposition Charles Daughtery came forward. He

stated, the way the court is cut, the accessory structure will be within 16

feet of the curb. When you go into the court it will look like a soar thumb

sticking out. He is not objecting to what he wants to put in, but it?s just

with the building being so close to the street it is going to stand out when

you turn into the court. If he was willing to back it up 15 feet or so further

back so that it doesn?t just stand out, that would look better.



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

because the suggested proximity to the street was 10 feet closer than any other

structure that was shown as an example, the topography is not a hardship and

there was opposition. Motion carried unanimously.







11

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-V104?-Granted.



Kevin Ferguson, 8975 Moore Road, and Scott Sanders, Sanders Construction,

presented the appeal for a variance to reduce the south side of the house from

the required 28 feet to 20 feet and to reduce the north side of the house from

the required 28 feet to 8 feet, in order to make two additions, 16? x 20?. The

property is zoned A-1.



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

gave the following information: Mr. Ferguson will be adding a great room to

his home. At the opposite end of the house, he will enclose the carport and

erect a free standing carport which will be done in the future.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

to make two additions, one addition will be done in the future. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 03-V105?-Granted.



James Connell, 11 Adams Park Court, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the side yard setback requirement from 5 feet to 2 feet 1 inch, in order

to erect an accessory structure, 16? x 16?. The property is zoned R-2.



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

Connell gave the following information: He has already poured the slab to

build an accessory structure. He poured the slab too close to the property

line and it would be a hardship to remove it. There is an existing accessory

structure right at the property line that was there when he bought the

property. He didn?t know that he was in violation. He is on a corner dead end

street and his neighbor does not have any objections.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

to erect an accessory structure, the slab has already been poured. Motion

carried unanimously.







12

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-V106?-Denied.



Greg Oglesby, 5949 Westview Drive, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 19 feet 7 inches, in

order to subdivide a lot. The property is zoned R-1A. Contingent upon

Planning approval. (The front yard is existing non-conforming)



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

Oglesby gave the following information: He would like to subdivide the lot so

that he can sell the property. He has a contract pending approval of this

request with a builder. This will be a small house approximately 900 to 1000

square feet and in the price range of $90,000 to $100,000. Once the changes

are made the house will be similar to other lots.



Planning recommends approval of this request.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because a hardship was not shown. Motion was carried by a vote of 4 to 1, with

David Fox voting against the motion.



Case No. 03-V107?-Granted.



R. Eugene Ragan, 142 Ticknor Drive, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 15 feet, in order to

make an addition, 7? x 20?, to a single family residence. The property is

zoned R-2.



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

Mr. Ragan gave the following information: He was leasing the property to a

tenant. Mr. Ragan went on a 10 day vacation, while he was away the tenant

built a room on to the house without a permit and without his permission. He

evicted the tenant. He immediately came down to get a permit and is now trying

to get everything worked out because a lot of damage was done.





13

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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

because Mr. Ragan had no control over the addition that was made. This is a

problem created by the tenant. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-V108?-Granted.



Donald Huff, 459 Kensington Road, and Joe Johnson presented the appeal for a

variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 13 feet,

in order to make an addition, 20? x 20?. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

gave the following information: Mr. Huff would like to build a drive thru

carport. They will have to pour the slab.



When the Chairman asked for opposition Mr. Will Rayford came forward. He was

not in opposition, but approves of the addition that his neighbor is going to

make.



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

because the addition will not adversely affect the neighborhood. The neighbor

next door indicated that he is in favor of the addition. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 03-V109--Granted.



Mable Burnett, 4804 Bruning Street, and Sterling Sayler presented the appeal

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

feet, in order to make an addition, 11? x 14?, to a single family residence.

The property is zoned R-1A.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, they gave the following information: Ms. Burnett would like to add a

master bathroom to the master bedroom. The shower will be over sized because

of handicap reasons. The material used will be siding and it will have a gable

roof.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.





14

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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

this appeal because the bathroom is being built for someone that is

handicapped. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-V110?-Denied.



Donald Bowles, 5234 Thomason Avenue, presented the appeal for a

variance to reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 20 feet and to

reduce the public street frontage from 25 feet to 20 feet, in order to erect a

single family residence. The property is zoned R-1A. Contingent upon Planning

approval.



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

Bowles gave the following information: He is trying to create a flag lot that

will be approximately a third of an acre. Immediately to the north on 53rd

Street there is a flag lot. He is asking to reduce the access to 20 feet to

have access to the lot. There is a large cedar tree that he is trying to avoid

taking down. He thinks there is plenty of access for a fire truck to get in a

20 foot driveway.



Planning recommends denial of this request because it does not promote the

safety, health & welfare of the community. They believe that it will encourage

the development of other flag lots within the area.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because a hardship was not shown, there are other options and the Planning

Department did not recommend approval of this request. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 03-V111?-Granted.



Brian Lumbatis and Sarah Lange presented the appeal of Valley Health Care

System, 1440 Benning Drive, for a variance to increase the size of a sign from

15 square feet to 32 square feet. The property is zoned R-4.





15

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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

gave the following information: They are asking to increase the size of a sign

to give them a proper identification plus allows them to have an electronic

message center underneath. Their customers provide health services to the

community. They would like to communicate health related and educations

messages to the community. The sign will be attractive, it will not be over

powering in the community and it will not distract from the community at all.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

because this will be a help to the community. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-V112?-Granted.



Gail Aderhold, Action Buildings, presented the appeal of Marcy Baltazar, 3133

Knox Street, for a variance to reduce the corner side yard setback requirement

from 25 feet to 2 feet, in order to erect a carport, 16? x 21?. The property

is zoned R-2.



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

Aderhold gave the following information: Ms. Baltazar would like to erect a

free standing carport over an existing pad in the side yard. The front of the

house is at an angle. She has no rear yard. The water will drain 2 feet

inside the property line. There is a big concrete wall that is on the property

line. The water will stay inside the wall. Ms. Baltazar has a tax &

bookkeeping service in her home. She is trying to keep her customers from

parking on the street and park in the driveway. There is a storage building

and some trees in her front yard. On the side where the driveway is, there is

a raised porch with quite a few steps and an attachment would be impossible.





There was no opposition presented to this appeal.







16

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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

because the carport will be over an existing pad. The house was put on the lot

at an angle, which makes it hard to add a carport on it any other way. The

water flow will not affect the neighbors. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-V113--Granted.



Robert Teasley, Signs, Inc., Robert Prince and Pastor Swilley presented the

appeal of North Highland Assembly of God, 7300 Whittlesey Boulevard, from a

Decision of the Building Official that an additional sign is not allowed. The

property is zoned R-1.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, they gave the following information: The church owns 30 plus acres on

the south side of Whittlesey Boulevard. They have an existing structure and

would like to place an electronic sign on three sides of it. The sign will be

used for church information as well as community announcements.



There was a telephone call from Helen Donald, who is in opposition to this

request.



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

appeal because the church already has signage, this would be additional signage

and it is really not necessary in that area. Motion carried by a vote of 2 to

2, the chairperson Mrs. Braxton had to break the tie. She voted against the

denial.

Since the motion to deny was defeated, Mr. Lewis made a motion, which

was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to grant this appeal, although the Building

Official is correct. Motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1, with Mr. King voting

against the motion.



Case No. 03-V114--Tabled.



There was no one present to present the appeal of Lee Dunham, 3055 Walker

Street, for a variance that accessory structures must be 5 feet from the side

property line, 2 feet shown. The property is zoned R-2.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.







17

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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

this appeal until the October meeting because there was no one present to

present the appeal. Motion carried unanimously



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



CaseNo. 03-HO236?-Granted.



Rosa Maria Garcia, 9236 Garrett Creek Drive, presented her application for a

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

cleaning service, RMG Cleaning Service. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-HO237--Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of Felicia Wynn, 8 Braddock

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

for a cleaning service, Old Fashioned Cleaning. The property is zoned R-1A.



There was no opposition to this application.





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

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

present the application. Motion carried unanimously.





18

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-HO238--Granted.



Donell Crocker, 6064 Morningside Drive, presented his application for a

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

& handyman service, DC?s Welding & Handy-Man Services. The property is zoned

R-1.



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

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

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

traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work. The welding machine

will be kept in a van.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

grant this application because it does meet the intent of the

Home Occupation definition. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-HO239--Granted.



Carlos Panchame?, 6317 Old Post Court, presented his application for a

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

steam cleaning & pressure washing business, C & H Services. 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. King made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.





19

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-HO240--Granted.



Raymond Casey, 7313 W. Wynfield Loop, presented his application for a

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

assembly & delivery service (assembly will be done away from the home), Casey

Assembly and Delivery 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. All of

the assembly work will be done on site. The delivery truck will be kept on

post.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 03-HO241?-Granted.



Linda Christensen, 1 Pointer Court, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for business consulting &

selling photographs, Beyond Tomorrow. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.





20

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-HO242--Granted.



Kathleen Hamilton, 1400 Shepherd Drive #22, presented her application for a

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

secretarial and bookkeeping services, Khame Office Services. The property is

zoned R-4.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 03-HO243?-Granted.



Michael Marshall, 5815 McCaghren Court, presented the application for him and

his wife (Jennifer) for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an

office only for shipping freight, selling clothes, accessories, arts & crafts,

gift items & beauty supplies (items will be sold away from the home), J & M

Freight Forwarding. The property is zoned R-3B.



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

applicant gave the following information: They will be using one room of 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. King made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.





21

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-HO244--Granted.



Christopher Patterson, 7310 Macon Road, presented his application for a

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

care service, CP Lawn Care. 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 of his

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 03-HO245?-Granted.



Michael & Ledia Holmes, 2305 Amos Street, presented their application for a

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

janitorial service, Eagle-Eye Janitorial Service. The property is zoned R-3A.



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

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

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 unanimously.





22

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-HO246--Granted.



Kris King, 5010 Willowbrook Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

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

business, The Computer King. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 03-HO247?-Granted.



Jonathan Register, 1323 Peacock Avenue, presented his application for a

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

care service, Register Lawn Care 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 of his home

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.





23

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-HO248--Granted.



Vernon Feely, 6108 Arnold Drive, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a handyman & pressure

washing service, Superior Lawn Management 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 of his home

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.





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

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

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



CaseNo. 03-HO249?-Granted.



Brandell Inglis, 3606 Caspian Drive, presented his application for a

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

car parts (internet), Carstylz.com. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.







24

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





Case No. 03-HO250--Granted.



James Greene, 5536 Saratoga Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a carpet cleaning &

janitorial service, Superior Edge Carpet Cleaning and Janitorial 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 of his home

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

traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work. All of the

equipment will be kept in the van.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 03-HO251?-Granted.



Frances Walker, 277 32nd Avenue, presented her application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling clothes, jewelry

and accessories (items will be sold away from the home), Direct To You

Fashions. 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 of her

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

additional traffic in the neighborhood. This will be part time work. No

clients will come to her home. Her sales will be by internet, flea market or

going to the clients.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Julie Rachel came forward. She

stated, the street already has a lot of traffic and she doesn?t want anymore

traffic.





25

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-HO252--Granted.



Robert Miller, 1670 Wildwood Avenue, presented his application for a

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

consulting for medical training, Innovative Casualty Response. The property is

zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

traffic in the neighborhood. This will be 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 unanimously.



CaseNo. 03-HO253?-Granted.



Michael Nathan, 1220 Martin Luther King Boulevard Apt. 6, presented his

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

only for a lawn service, Nath?s Lawn Services. The property is zoned R-4.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

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

residence. Motion carried unanimously.





26

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





CaseNo. 03-HO254--Granted.



Walter Glenn Lee, 3400 Saint Mary?s Road Lot 247, presented his application for

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

& repairs, Craig & Lee?s Roofing & Repairs. The property is zoned M-1.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-HO255--Granted.



Lloyd Dean Nansel, 311 46th Street, presented his application for a Certificate

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

Nansel Custodian 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. Edwards, to grant this

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

Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 03-HO256?-Granted.



John Andrews, 1903 13th Street, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for minor repairs & handyman

services, Endurance Enterprises DBA Durare Renovations. The property is zoned

R-4.





27

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



CaseNo. 03-HO257?-Granted.



Bobbie Crouch, 6198 Joyner Drive, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling gift items

(internet sales & items sold away from the home), Lavell?s Gifts and Catalog

Sales. 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.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-HO258--Granted.



Rubye Feagins, 7120 Vinings Way, presented her application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a production company,

Cookie Time Productions Abundant Life Resources. The property is zoned R-2.





28

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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

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

Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 03-HO259?-Granted.



Branden Bartrug, 6023 Crystal Drive Lot #215, presented his application for a

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

rebuild and trouble shoot computers, The PC Connection. The property is zoned

C-3.



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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



CaseNo. 03-HO260?-Granted.



Toncy Little, 4805 Champions Way, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling crafts and

art & home d?cor (items will be sold away from the home), Eat Your Peas. The

property is zoned R-1A.





29

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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

have a partner, Laura Burbrink (03-HO261).



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-HO261--Granted.



Laura Burbrink, 7831 Eagles Landing Court, presented her application for a

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

crafts and art & home d?cor (items will be sold away from the home), Eat Your

Peas. The property is zoned R-1A.



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

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

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

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

have a partner, Toncy Little (03-HO260).



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.





CaseNo. 03-HO262?-Granted.



Gregory McDuffie, 3136 Doyle Avenue, presented his application for a

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

therapy, GM Soft Touch Massage. The property is zoned R-2.





30

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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. The massage therapy

will be done away from the home.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



CaseNo. 03-HO263?-Granted.



Donald Keith Wyckoff Sr., 3113 15th Avenue, presented his application for a

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

painting contractor, Wyckoff Painting & Home Improvements. The property is

zoned R-2.



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

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

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

traffic in the neighborhood. This will be full time work. The paint will be

left on site.



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



CaseNo. 03-HO264?-Granted.



Janice Copling, 1266 Carmel Drive, presented her application for a Certificate

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

accessories and gift items, Bargain Bin. The property is zoned R-3A.







31

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003





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

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

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

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



There was no opposition to this application.



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

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

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 03-HO265--Granted.



Daniel Walker, 4612 Papaya Court, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a vending business

(candy & gumball machines), Walker Enterprises. The property is zoned R-2.



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

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

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

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

candy from Sam?s and deliver it to the different locations. If a vender does

not want the machine any more, they will give him 2 weeks notice and the

machine can be moved to a new business location.



There was no opposition to this application.





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

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

Motion carried unanimously.





END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.







32

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 09/03/2003











The minutes of the regular meeting of August 6th were approved as presented.



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.









____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

David Fox, Danny Cargill

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary











33