Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? MAY 4, 2005





The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, May 4,

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. David Fox

Mr. Ralph King





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

Pitts, Recording Secretary.



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

Minutes of the Monthly Meeting, which was held on April 6, 2005. Motion

carried unanimously.



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

motion, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis, to excuse Mr. Edwards absence on

today, May 4, 2005, for personal reasons. Motion carried unanimously by the

four Board Members present for this meeting.





CASES TABLED FROM THE APRIL 6th MEETING.





Case No. 05-V70?-Tabled.



Stanley Merritt, Curt Blankenship and Andrew Slaughenhoup presented the appeal

of 1001 Neill Drive (A), for a variance to reduce the lot area requirement from

6000 square feet to 4100 square feet, to subdivide a lot, in order to erect a

single family residence. The property is zoned RMF1.





Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005





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

Merritt, Mr. Blankenship and Mr. Slaughenhoup gave the following information:

These lots have been in the family for quite a while and there is one single

family residence sitting on one of the lots which is uninhabitable right now.

They would like to turn these two existing lots into three lots. They will

demolish the existing house and build three nice single family houses on each

lot. They will be shot gun rectangle houses with an a-frame roof with masonite

siding. There are similar houses in the area. They are only asking for the

lot reduction, they would like to get the variance for the rear setbacks also?

The drawings were hand drawn and after it was approved they were told to get a

surveyor.



Leah Braxton, Chairperson, asked if the setbacks were ok, if they would need 30

feet in the rear of these houses?



Aronda Smith, Planning, stated they do need 30 feet in the rear.



David Fox, Board Member, stated they did not have site plans, only drawings,

they would have to submit site plans for the house.



Aronda Smith, Planning, stated she did not have a letter of recommendation.

She would have to look at the tax map to see if there are existing lots in the

area that have approximately the same size.



The Board suggested that this case be tabled until they have site plans,

pictures showing there are similar houses in the area and a letter of

recommendation from Planning.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

until the June meeting because more information is needed. Motion carried by

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







2

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005





Case No. 05-V71?-Tabled.



Stanley Merritt, Curt Blankenship and Andrew Slaughenhoup presented the appeal

of 1005 Neill Drive (B), for a variance to reduce the lot area requirement from

6000 square feet to 4300 square feet, to subdivide a lot, in order to erect a

single family residence. The property is zoned RMF1.



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

Merritt, Mr. Blankenship and Mr. Slaughenhoup gave the following information:

These lots have been in the family for quite a while and there is one single

family residence sitting on one of the lots which is uninhabitable right now.

They would like to turn these two existing lots into three lots. They will

demolish the existing house and build three nice single family houses on each

lot. They will be shot gun rectangle houses with an a-frame roof with masonite

siding. There are similar houses in the area. They are only asking for the

lot reduction, they would like to get the variance for the rear setbacks also?

The drawings were hand drawn and after it was approved they were told to get a

surveyor.



Leah Braxton, Chairperson, asked if the setbacks were ok, if they would need 30

feet in the rear of these houses?



Aronda Smith, Planning, stated they do need 30 feet in the rear.



David Fox, Board Member, stated they did not have site plans, only drawings,

they would have to submit site plans for the house.



Aronda Smith, Planning, stated she did not have a letter of recommendation.

She would have to look at the tax map to see if there are existing lots in the

area that have approximately the same size.



The Board suggested that this case be tabled until they have site plans,

pictures showing there are similar houses in the area and a letter of

recommendation from Planning.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.







3

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005





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

until the June meeting because more information is needed. Motion carried by

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



Case No. 05-V72?-Tabled.



Stanley Merritt, Curt Blankenship and Andrew Slaughenhoup presented the appeal

of a portion of 1001 Neill Drive & a portion of 1005 Neill Drive (C), for a

variance to reduce the lot area requirement from 6000 square feet to 5000

square feet, to subdivide a lot, in order to erect a single family residence.

The property is zoned RMF1.



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

Merritt, Mr. Blankenship and Mr. Slaughenhoup gave the following information:

These lots have been in the family for quite a while and there is one single

family residence sitting on one of the lots which is uninhabitable right now.

They would like to turn these two existing lots into three lots. They will

demolish the existing house and build three nice single family houses on each

lot. They will be shot gun rectangle houses with an a-frame roof with masonite

siding. There are similar houses in the area. They are only asking for the

lot reduction, they would like to get the variance for the rear setbacks also?

The drawings were hand drawn and after it was approved they were told to get a

surveyor.



Leah Braxton, Chairperson, asked if the setbacks were ok, if they would need 30

feet in the rear of these houses?



Aronda Smith, Planning, stated they do need 30 feet in the rear.



David Fox, Board Member, stated they did not have site plans, only drawings,

they would have to submit site plans for the house.



Aronda Smith, Planning, stated she did not have a letter of recommendation.

She would have to look at the tax map to see if there are existing lots in the

area that have approximately the same size.





4

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005





The Board suggested that this case be tabled until they have site plans,

pictures showing there are similar houses in the area and a letter of

recommendation from Planning.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

until the June meeting because more information is needed. Motion carried by

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



END OF CASES TABLED FROM THE APRIL 6th MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 05-V82--Granted.



Gary Kendrick, 6057 N. Pointe Drive and Ricky Wilder of Superior Pools, Inc.,

presented the appeal from a Decision of the Building Official that an accessory

structure is not allowed in the side yard. The property is zoned SFR3.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Kendrick and Mr. Wilder gave the following information: They have

very little back yard and the only place to put the pool is in the side yard.

There is a 45 foot easement on the back property line which will leave 5 foot

of back yard. There will be a privacy fence.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal, although the Building Official is correct that an accessory structure

is not allowed in the side yard, because there is no space in the backyard to

put the structure. There is also an easement in the back yard. Motion carried

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







5

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005





Case No. 05-V83?-Granted.



Adoum & Dominiquera Cherif, 6920 Dorsey Drive, presented their appeal for a

variance to increase the height of a storage building from 14 feet to 19 feet.

The property is zoned RMF1.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. & Mrs. Cherif gave the following information: They would like to

add a second story addition to a 16? x 24? accessory structure. There is an

existing slab. The downstairs will be used for a workshop and the upstairs

will be used for storage. The materials will be made out of cement blocks and

wood.

There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because the slab is existing. The materials will be similar to the

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

present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V84?-Denied.



Mark Martin presented the appeal of Pinnacle Homes, Inc., 8052 Orchard Hill

Drive, for a variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 25 feet

to 22 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned

SFR2.



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

Martin gave the following information: The house was inadvertently built over

the front property line setback when they layed it out. They made an error,

the error was found when they were at the sheetrock stage. They talked to Mr.

Duck, Chief Building Official of Inspection and Codes, about what they needed

to do at that point. Mr. Duck suggested they amend the site plan and go to the

variance board. They now have checks and balances in place to make sure it

doesn?t happen again.





6

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005





When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Steve Lewis who represents the

Garrett Creek Homeowners Association, and Charlotte Henderson came forward.

They oppose this request for the following reasons: the required 25 feet

minimum setback is to maintain safe and adequate line of sight visibility,

approval of this proposed variance is precedent setting as it relates to future

construction projects in Garrett Creek, long term negative impact on property

values, the continuous pattern of poor judgment, ineffective planning and

erratic execution by the developer.



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

because there was opposition to this request and a hardship was not shown. Mr.

Erickson has been before the Board before with similar requests and he stated

this will not happen again. Motion carried by the affirmative vote of the four

Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V85--Granted.



Garry & Sheila Huntington, 7613 Melinda Drive, and Ray Phillips of Ray Phillips

Siding, Inc., presented the appeal for a variance to reduce the side yard

setback requirement from 10 feet to 1 foot, in order to make an addition, a

patio cover, to a single family residence. The property is zoned SFR1.



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

Mrs. Huntington and Mr. Phillips gave the following information: An awning was

put on the house approximately 2 years ago because Mrs. Huntington is in a

wheelchair. The awning is used for her to get in and out of her vehicle. The

water flows to the back yard and it has gutters. The neighbors have no

objections. Ray Phillips Siding company put up the awning, but the owner, Ray

Phillips, was unaware it was put up.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because the structure has been up for over a year and Mrs. Huntington is

in a wheelchair, there is a hardship. Motion carried by the affirmative vote

of the four Board Members present for this meeting.





7

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005





Case No. 05-V86--Granted.



Tim Jensen presented the appeal of Hecht, Burdeshaw, Johnson, Kidd & Clark,

Inc. Architects, 1028 Front Avenue, for a variance to reduce the off-street

stacking requirement from 100 feet to 0 feet, to reduce the front yard setback

requirement from 25 feet to 0 feet, to reduce the parking stall length from 20

feet to 19 feet 4 inches and to reduce the parking stall width requirement from

9 feet to 8 feet 8 inches, in order to erect a parking garage. The property is

zoned CRD.



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

Mr. Jensen gave the following information: Most of the items in the request

center around the aspect of the parking garage building area and the

requirement for the UDO which is typical. They would like the setback

requirement to be zero on all sides as opposed to just the front setback.

Whenever they began this process prior to the UDO being put into effect, it?s

common place in what would be in the central commercial district for this area.

The central river front district does have zero lot lines on all sides. It was

a surprise to them when they realized it, they wanted to address it

appropriately. That would be applicable to everything in the downtown district

and not exclusive of a parking deck. The parking stall side, the UDO being

written around typical service parking, is in a parking garage because of the

nature of it the confines seem to go down a little bit. In this case several

parking spaces need a narrower stall. A parking deck does not lend itself to

that it would be very unusual but it is a requirement of the UDO and so we

address that. The other two recent garages in the last 5 years downtown have

these same issues.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because this has been done with other parking areas downtown. Mr.

Jensen would like all the setbacks to be addressed instead of just the front

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

present for this meeting.







8

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005





Case No. 05-V87?-Tabled.



Rodney Milner, 5110 Hamilton Road, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the lot width requirement from 40 feet to 25 feet, in order to subdivide

a lot. The property is zoned GC.



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

Mr. Milner gave the following information: He wants to sell this lot. He

plans to sale the building, take the money and buy a new building. The

property has another driveway to it to an easement, this will not be the main

driveway to this piece of property. The only reason there is a 25 foot

easement is because the City required him to give the land away to form a flag

lot. He purchased it as one parcel of land and the bank made him break it

off. There is a dead end road but he would have to go through a holding

pond.



Danny Cargill, Inspection and Codes, asked Mr. Milner where is the frontage for

tract 2 because he is trying to create a lot line. Because of the establishment

of a new property line, those buildings would have to be addressed. It could

conceivable need a variance. Based upon the aerial photo there could be

requirements for rated walls between these two structures. They would have to

look through the UDO to see what the requirements would be. Because of the

distance separation, if they are only 5 feet from the property line and because

he doesn?t know where the property line is going to fall between the two

buildings he can?t tell what the requirement would be for a separation, it

could be a much as 2 hours. What they really need to see is a site plan

showing the location of those structures on the proposed lots so that they can

address any other issues.



Aronda Smith, Planning, stated what is on their tax map is wrong, she does have

the plat, this is an existing lot. Because he is going to separate it into lot

A & lot C where a principle structure will be on an individual lot, it is

possible that he could reduce that rear setback on lot A and lot C. They are

still granting approval but for them to approve the replat he is going to show

them the existing structures on this replat. They can?t replat it until it

shows those existing structures. She thinks





9

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005





what happened is, she missed it in Planning because she thought that this was a

vacant lot and pulled up the aerial and realized it wasn?t a vacant lot, but

because he didn?t have any existing structures on there she automatically

assumed it was a vacant lot and didn?t consider the building setbacks at all

she only considered the lot widths.



David Fox, Board Member stated, they need to table this and have a site plan,

it would be better to have a site plan to show where it is and do all the

variances at one time.



Rodney Milner stated it would be ok to table it and he will re-draw it.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because more information is needed. Motion carried by the affirmative

vote of the four Board Members present for this meeting.



Case No. 05-V88--Withdrawn.



This appeal was withdrawn at the request of the appellant W W Wade Company LLC,

4015 Foster Lane, for a variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement

from 20 feet to 19 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The

property is zoned SFR3.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Case No. 05-V89?-Granted.



Phillip Johnson presented the appeal of Hecht, Burdeshaw, Johnson, Kidd &

Clark, Inc. Architects, 1240 Brookstone Centre Parkway, for a variance to

reduce the parking stacking length from 60 feet to 43 feet and to increase the

off-street parking requirement from 32 to 64. The property is zoned RO.



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

Mr. Johnson gave the following information: They made an initial assessment of

this sight several months ago before the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)

was put into effect. This is a doctor?s office and they require a great deal

more parking than the







10

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005





normal zoning ordinance required. Their initial assessment of the sight was

that the building is the size they are looking for and it would work and the

parking requirements would work. When the UDO came out it essentially moved

the parking lot another 20 feet deeper into the sight which moves the building

further into some very deep ravines which create even more grading. There are

17 exam rooms in this building and 14 employees. Having a person in every room

and 1 waiting is 34 spaces plus people coming in at the same time for the same

appointment times.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Judy Turner came forward. She

stated one of her neighbors received a letter about the variance and she sent

her down to see what it was about. They do not live within 200 feet, but

received a letter. She is not in opposition.



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 is a large medical office and the new UDO has a maximum on it.

They have a large parking requirement due to employees and patients. Motion

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

meeting.



END OF VARIANCES.











11









12

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 05/04/2005









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



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

David Fox, Danny Cargill,

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary













13