Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? JULY 6, 2005





The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, July 6,

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

Street. Members present were:





Mrs. Leah Braxton, Chairperson

Mr. Willie Lewis Jr.

Mr. Billy Edwards

Mr. Ralph King

Mr. David Fox



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

Pitts, Recording Secretary.



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

the Minutes of the Monthly Meeting, which was held on June 1, 2005. Motion

carried unanimously.





CASES TABLED FROM THE JUNE 1st MEETING.



Case No. 05-V91?-Tabled.



Donald M. Fuller, 7169 Willow Oak Drive, and Attorney Taylor Bassett 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. Fuller and Attorney Bassett gave the following information: A

request was made to build a metal structure building on the side of his house,

the side yard is 2.8 acres. At last month?s B.Z.A. meeting there was

opposition, he took this before the home owners committee in the neighborhood

and everybody was sent a letter five days before the meeting and no one was in

opposition. Two lots have been combined, there will not be a sub-structure in

a residential lot anymore. He told the architectural committee after he built

the building specs like it was, if anybody





Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





opposed it and if the committee decided for him to brick the front of it he

would agree to that. All the trees that buffer his

property belong to him. The accessory building is not going to be used for

commercial enterprises. The use of the building will be used for storing his

boat, four wheelers and to do work on his cars. He has a baby clothing store

business called Doodle Bug and during the off season the clothes will be boxed

up and stored in the accessory structure. He has never had a complaint about

any noise, noise will be reduced because insulation will be throughout and

around all the walls and in the roof. If he moves the building back behind the

side corner of his house, he can get a building permit. If he slides the

building back, everybody from the road is going to be able to see it. It can?t

be seen from Allen Fuller?s house because it is down behind a hill and trees

block it.



There was a letter from Derryl Dismukes, President of the Stone Mill Garden

Club, supporting the variance request and encouraging the zoning board to

approve the proposed request (they had a meeting on June 23, 2005). The letter

also stated that Marty Fuller?s proposed garage will only be used for his

personal storage of a boat, 4 wheelers and clothing for his wife?s business.

Due to the amount of acreage that Marty Fuller owns, most neighbors will not be

able to view the construction site or the garage after completion. During the

meeting there were no homeowners opposed to the variance request. The only

opposition to the request has been Allen Fuller who failed to appear before the

Stone Mill Garden Club to discuss his opposition.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Allen Fuller, Attorney Melissa

McAllister on behalf of Allen Fuller and Walter Thompson came forward. Their

concerns are: the accessory structure will be visible to Allen Fuller?s home

although it may block the view to the remaining neighborhood, increase in noise

level with the building being close, it is commercial in nature, it is not

compatible with the residential neighborhood, it will impair property value

because it is not aesthetically pleasing, an accessory structure has to be

subordinate to the main building and this is not subordinate to his main

building, based on the time of the year the building can be seen through the

trees, the concern with metal buildings is that they echo and they actually

amplify sound.





2

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





Board of Zoning Appeals member Ralph King is also a member of the Stone Mill

Garden Club, (he was at the meeting held on June 23 2005), he stated the board

members did not endorse the variance, they just had no opposition. Mr. King

left the room to avoid further discussion.



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

until the August meeting because they haven?t had an opportunity to see the

site, but would like to visit the site to get more knowledge. Motion carried

by a vote of 3 to 1 with Billy Edwards voting against the motion. Ralph King

abstained from voting.



END OF CASES TABLED FROM THE JUNE 1st MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 05-V100-2?-Granted.



Carolyn and Isaiah Hughley, presented the appeal of 3312 St. Mary?s Road, for a

variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 9 feet

and to increase the off-street parking requirement from 16 spaces to 19

spaces. The property is zoned LMI.



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

and Mrs. Hughley gave the following information: Carolyn is a State Farm

agent. They have an 1800 square foot office building that was constructed in

1990 with the required setback for future road widening of the 45 feet. The

building is elevated to meet the 1990 code for construction in a flood plain.

In 1990 they built the building and the back of the building faces what was

then the neighbor which was a pub. Because of the road widening the pub has

been removed and now they are going to be the first property when turning off

of Buena Vista Road to St. Mary?s Road. People will be turning down the street

and looking at the back of the their building. This leaves them with several

options, they could do nothing and let the back of the building face the

intersection which is not going to look very good, they could do a fa?ade that

makes the back of the building look like the front of the building or add to

the existing building to add additional rental space. They concluded that it

would be financially wise to construct the additional office space rather than

construct a







3

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





fa?ade. To add on to the existing building is going to require a couple of

variances in order to match what is already there. The new required setback

for the roadway would not allow the construction to line up with the existing

building. They are requesting a variance to allow the new addition to match

the setback of the building that is already there. The new elevation, which is

an additional item they would like to address, is 2 feet versus the 1990 code

of 1 foot and if they have to operate under that set of circumstances one

building will be higher than the other. Since they want it all to connect they

are asking for a variance so that the same floor level will apply that is on

the existing building. Also, there request is to allow for more parking than

what is required under the new U.D.O (Unified Development Ordinance) that was

passed in March, they are requesting 14 spaces in the area of the new

construction. They have approximately 5 spaces already and this will give them

a total of 19 parking spaces.



Billy Edwards abstained from the discussion because he has an interest in the

project.



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 a commercial building on a highly traveled road that is about

to be widened. There also was a request to allow the building to be 1 foot

above the flood plain hazard instead of 2 feet to match the existing

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

present with Mr. Edwards abstaining from the vote.



Case No. 05-V101--Granted.



Alex Berry, 2023 Arrow Point Lane, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 5 feet to 0, in order to make an

addition to an accessory structure, 5? x 24?, extend deck/storage room. The

property is zoned SFR3.



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

gave the following information: His property extends over a slope down to a

drainage, he would like to make use of it by putting a deck over it. Instead

of having a gap between his fence that he just completed and his deck, he would

like to extend it all the way down.





4

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





Leah Braxton, Chairperson, told Mr. Berry the setback could not be 0 it would

have to be at least one inch. She also stated that the accessory structure

looked like it was 16? x 24?.



Mr. Berry changed the setback requirement from 5 feet to 3 inches.



Measurements were taken of the site plan of the accessory structure and 5? x

24? is correct.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because of the topography of the property, the deck/storage room needs

to be in that particular area in the rear of the yard. The setback has been

changed from 0 to 3 inches. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V102--Granted.



Randy Prather of Metro Building and Remodeling Company presented the appeal of

Benjamin & Mary McGruder, 331 Art Avenue, for a variance to reduce the side

yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 5 feet, in order to make an addition,

18? x 25?, to a single family residence. The property is zoned SFR3.



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

Mr. Prather gave the following information: They would like to tear down a

part of the addition and add a room. They will take down the screen porch,

they use it now as a dining room which will be turned into a family room. The

materials used will match the house.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because they will be tearing down an existing porch that already

encroaches and putting on an addition that will be a nice improvement to the

house. Similar materials will be used to match the house. Motion carried

unanimously.





5

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





Case No. 05-V103?-Granted.



Murray Calhoun and Franklin Douglas presented the appeal of Fourth Street

Towers, 516 3rd Avenue, for a variance to reduce the front yard setback

requirement from 20 feet to 12 feet and to reduce the side yard setback

requirement from 10 feet to 5 feet and to reduce the rear yard setback

requirement from 10 feet to 4 feet, in order to erect a single family

residence. The property is zoned H.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board

Members, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Douglas gave the following information: The rear

yard requirement from 10 feet to 4 feet should be changed to the side yard

because there is a driveway between the two houses that require this kind of

setback, 4 feet on the south side and 5 feet on the north side, there is no

rear setback. It has BHAR approval.



Willie Lewis abstained from the discussion because he is a member of

Fourth Street Baptist Church.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because they are going to build a house on a sub standard size lot and

both side yards will be reduced not the rear. It has been approved by BHAR.

This is a neighborhood revitalization area that the church is involved with.

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

Mr. Lewis abstaining from the vote.



Case No. 05-V104?-Granted.



Al Pickens of Premier Homes presented the appeal of Fred Richardson, 8173 River

Road, for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 40 feet

to 25 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned

RE5.



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

Mr. Pickens gave the following information: This property is a big tract of

land, it has 170 acres. This family platted off five acres that sit on a lake

and a creek. They would like to reduce the rear setback requirement to 25 feet

and it puts them on





6

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





the creek. They would like to build a cabin in order to take advantage of the

view and to sit on the lake. There is a sewer mane that is 25 feet off of the

bank of the creek and they are an additional 25 feet so they are a good 50 feet

from the bank. Their property line doesn?t go to the creek the way it is

subdivided off it goes to a sewer, there is a sewer system that runs actually

within 25 feet which is their property line. The sewer main runs through their

property. The house is within 40 or 50 feet to the bank.



There was discussion on the setbacks for state water and it was

concluded that Mr. Pickens would have to meet those requirements.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

to reduce the rear yard setback to erect a cabin on this property. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V105--Granted.



Dave Erickson of Pinnacle Homes, Inc., presented the appeal of 8052 Orchard

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

feet to 22 feet 4 inches, 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.

Erickson gave the following information: He would like to resolve an issue

when it was discovered that the corner of the house was across the building

line. It was inadvertently layed out. They discovered it as they were

completing the house that the corner was across the property line, they had the

surveyors come out and confirm that. They brought it to Inspections and Codes

attention and asked what should they do about it and they were told to go back

before the Board (Board of Zoning Appeals) and try to get this resolved. They

have built over 400 houses in the last few years and to his knowledge they have

had one mistake that was found by the building official and three they have

found that were already committed past the foundation stage. He has since

learned there is a provision in the new U.D.O. (Unified Development Ordinance)

that allows for some administration resolution of this and perhaps in the

future this can be eliminated. The homeowners







7

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





are already living in the house. Within his organization (Pinnacle) three

people have to miss it and one person from the City?s side has to miss it for

this to occur.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Steve Lewis and Steve Ballas, who

represent the Garrett Creek Homeowners Association, came forward. Their

concerns are: the 25 feet minimum setback is to maintain safe and adequate line

of sight visibility, impact to property values, increase risk of personal

injury or death, approval of this proposed variance is precedent setting as it

relates to future construction projects in Garrett Creek, demonstrated pattern

of poor judgment, ineffective planning and erratic execution.



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

this appeal because the applicant reported the mistake to Inspections and Codes

and the hardship would be on the homeowner. Pinnacle Homes has 3 checks in

place to help minimize this from happening again. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V106--Granted.



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 feet. The property

is zoned RMF1.



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

Pearce gave the following information: He is asking to reduce the rear yard

setback requirement because he is splitting a lot and will erect a house next

to this lot.



There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

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



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

appeal to reduce the rear yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously.





8

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





Case No. 05-V107--Granted.



Ted Pearce, 1330 35th Street Lot 101, presented his appeal for a variance to

reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 25 feet and to reduce

the lot area requirement from 6000 square feet to 4254 square feet, in order to

erect a single family residence. The property is zoned RMF1.



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

Pearce gave the following information: The proposed new lot will be for a two

story single family residence with a heated and cooled square footage of 1248.

The house is designed to look similar to the older neighborhood. It will be a

three bedroom, two bathroom home. The zoning of the property would allow

12,000 square feet on the lot and a triplex could be built. That will be 3000

square feet a family with four families on that lot. As an alternative to

putting in a triplex for financial purposes, he talked to the neighbors and

they said if one of the two were going to be built they would rather it be a

single family residence there. A driveway will be created.



Planning recommends approval of this request. The memorandum from

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



When the Chairperson asked for opposition Ruth Culpepper and Louise Thornton

came forward. Ms. Culpepper stated she was in opposition, but now she is not

because she would rather it be a house than a triplex. Ms. Thornton stated she

is in opposition because it is on a dangerous corner and it looks like parking

will be on the street.



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

appeal because a single family house will be erected. This will enhance the

neighborhood and will not create rental property. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 05-V108--Granted.



Carolyn Lyles, 546 Wilder Drive A, presented her appeal for a variance to

reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet, in order to subdivide

a lot to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned SFR2.







9

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





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

Mrs. Lyles gave the following information: She would like to reduce the lot

width requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet so that a single family home can be

built. There are other lots in the neighborhood that are 50 feet.



Mrs. Lyles had a list of names of people who support the variance

request.



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

appeal because there are other lots in the neighborhood that are 50 feet.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V109?-Granted.



Carolyn Lyles, 546 Wilder Drive B, presented her appeal for a variance to

reduce the lot width requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet, in order to subdivide

a lot to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned SFR2.



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

Mrs. Lyles gave the following information: She would like to reduce the lot

width requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet so that a single family home can be

built. There are other lots in the neighborhood that are 50 feet.



Mrs. Lyles had a list of names of people who support the variance

request.



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.







10

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





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

because there are other lots in the neighborhood that are 50 feet. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V110--Granted.



Ted Freeman presented the appeal of Morningside Baptist Church, 6065

Morningside Drive, for a variance to increase the off-street parking

requirement from 285 spaces to 562 spaces. The property is zoned SFR1.



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

Freeman gave the following information: They are planning for additional

parking for additional growth to their church. They are maxed out where they

are now. They bought additional property across the street, they would like to

build a parking lot. They are going to start having two services in their

auditorium and two Sunday schools at the same time. They have one small

parking lot across the street on Weems Road with 49 spaces that will be locked

at all times except on Sunday morning services and special occasions. They

have a letter, with six signatures, from some of the residences in support to

allow cars to exit from the Weems Road lot onto Jane Lane and Warner Road.





There was no opposition presented to this appeal.



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

appeal because they will have two services and it will improve the parking and

enhance the church. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V111?-Granted.



Sandy Phillips presented the appeal of Bob Adams Homes, 625 Mobley Road Lot 29,

for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 75 feet to

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

The property is zoned R-1A. (Cases 05-V111 thru 05-V117 were presented at the

same time)



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

Ms. Phillips gave the following information: Some lots were re-numbered due to

revisions made to accommodate additional stream bank buffers for state waters

that they discovered were







11

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





required and to also accommodate a detention pond. Some of the lots were

removed. Lot 29 becomes lot 28. There was a slight discrepancy between her

and the engineer on what is called lot 29 which is now lot 28, he thinks it?s

71.28 feet and she thinks it?s 63.28 feet, she suggest using the lowest number

because if it?s bigger that?s still fine. If the rest of the lots are o.k. she

will definitely have the right numbers when they come through. Each of these

lots are at least 75 feet at the point where they would build a home, they

build their own homes to make sure no one builds the house any closer than the

point in which the lot is 75 feet wide. Each of these lots are above the

10,000 square feet minimum required by the zoning district. They attempt in

their land plans among other things to promote as much contiguous greenspace as

possible and try to preserve that in the areas where it?s the most beautiful.

They will try to keep the lots as small as possible because usually the larger

lots result in larger grass areas that are treated with fertilizer and

chemicals that run off. The lots are all larger than normal and the portions

that they are asking to be permitted to make narrower are actually on the front

yard. The houses will be between 1800 to 2800 square feet. They have a total

of 93 lots.



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

and to re-number the lots. Each lot will be over 10,000 square feet. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V112--Granted.



Sandy Phillips presented the appeal of Bob Adams Homes, 625 Mobley Road Lot 30,

for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 75 feet to

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

The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Ms. Phillips gave the following information: Some lots were re-numbered due to

revisions made to accommodate additional stream bank buffers for state waters

that they discovered were required and to also accommodate a detention pond.

Some of the





12

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





lots were removed. Lot 30 becomes lot 29. Each of these lots are at least 75

feet at the point where they would build a home, they build their own homes to

make sure no one builds the house any closer than the point in which the lot is

75 feet wide. Each of these lots are above the 10,000 square feet minimum

required by the zoning district. They attempt in their land plans among other

things to promote as much contiguous greenspace as possible and try to preserve

that in the areas where it?s the most beautiful. They will try to keep the

lots as small as possible because usually the larger lots result in larger

grass areas that are treated with fertilizer and chemicals that run off. The

lots are all larger than normal and the portions that they are asking to be

permitted to make narrower are actually on the front yard. The houses will be

between 1800 to 2800 square feet. They have a total of 93 lots.

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

and to re-number the lots. Each lot will be over 10,000 square feet. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V113?-Granted.



Sandy Phillips presented the appeal of Bob Adams Homes, 625 Mobley Road Lot 31,

for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 75 feet to

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

The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Ms. Phillips gave the following information: Some lots were re-numbered due to

revisions made to accommodate additional stream bank buffers for state waters

that they discovered were required and to also accommodate a detention pond.

Some of the lots were removed. Lot 31 becomes 30. Each of these lots are at

least 75 feet at the point where they would build a home, they build their own

homes to make sure no one builds the house any closer than the point in which

the lot is 75 feet wide. Each of these lots are above the 10,000 square feet

minimum required by the zoning district. They attempt in their land plans

among other







13

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





things to promote as much contiguous greenspace as possible and try to preserve

that in the areas where it?s the most beautiful. They will try to keep the

lots as small as possible because usually the larger lots result in larger

grass areas that are treated with fertilizer and chemicals that run off. The

lots are all larger than normal and the portions that they are asking to be

permitted to make narrower are actually on the front yard. The houses will be

between 1800 to 2800 square feet. They have a total of 93 lots.

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

and to re-number the lots. Each lot will be over 10,000 square feet. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V114--Granted.



Sandy Phillips presented the appeal of Bob Adams Homes, 625 Mobley Road Lot 32,

for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 75 feet to

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

The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Ms. Phillips gave the following information: Some lots were re-numbered due to

revisions made to accommodate additional stream bank buffers for state waters

that they discovered were required and to also accommodate a detention pond.

Some of the lots were removed. Lot 32 becomes lot 31. Each of these lots are

at least 75 feet at the point where they would build a home, they build their

own homes to make sure no one builds the house any closer than the point in

which the lot is 75 feet wide. Each of these lots are above the 10,000 square

feet minimum required by the zoning district. They attempt in their land plans

among other things to promote as much contiguous greenspace as possible and try

to preserve that in the areas where it?s the most beautiful. They will try to

keep the lots as small as possible because usually the larger lots result in

larger grass areas that are treated with fertilizer and chemicals that run off.

The lots are all larger







14

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





than normal and the portions that they are asking to be permitted to make

narrower are actually on the front yard. The houses will be between 1800 to

2800 square feet. They have a total of 93 lots.

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

and to re-number the lots. Each lot will be over 10,000 square feet. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V115?-Granted.



Sandy Phillips presented the appeal of Bob Adams Homes, 625 Mobley Road Lot 33,

for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 75 feet to

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

The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Ms. Phillips gave the following information: Some lots were re-numbered due to

revisions made to accommodate additional stream bank buffers for state waters

that they discovered were required and to also accommodate a detention pond.

Some of the lots were removed. Lot 33 becomes lot 32. Each of these lots are

at least 75 feet at the point where they would build a home, they build their

own homes to make sure no one builds the house any closer than the point in

which the lot is 75 feet wide. Each of these lots are above the 10,000 square

feet minimum required by the zoning district. They attempt in their land plans

among other things to promote as much contiguous greenspace as possible and try

to preserve that in the areas where it?s the most beautiful. They will try to

keep the lots as small as possible because usually the larger lots result in

larger grass areas that are treated with fertilizer and chemicals that run off.

The lots are all larger than normal and the portions that they are asking to

be permitted to make narrower are actually on the front yard. The houses will

be between 1800 to 2800 square feet. They have a total of 93 lots.







15

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





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

and to re-number the lots. Each lot will be over 10,000 square feet. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V116--Granted.



Sandy Phillips presented the appeal of Bob Adams Homes, 625 Mobley Road Lot 73,

for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 75 feet to

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

The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Ms. Phillips gave the following information: Some lots were re-numbered due to

revisions made to accommodate additional stream bank buffers for state waters

that they discovered were required and to also accommodate a detention pond.

Some of the lots were removed. Lot 73 becomes lot 68. Each of these lots are

at least 75 feet at the point where they would build a home, they build their

own homes to make sure no one builds the house any closer than the point in

which the lot is 75 feet wide. Each of these lots are above the 10,000 square

feet minimum required by the zoning district. They attempt in their land plans

among other things to promote as much contiguous greenspace as possible and try

to preserve that in the areas where it?s the most beautiful. They will try to

keep the lots as small as possible because usually the larger lots result in

larger grass areas that are treated with fertilizer and chemicals that run off.

The lots are all larger than normal and the portions that they are asking to be

permitted to make narrower are actually on the front yard. The houses will be

between 1800 to 2800 square feet. They have a total of 93 lots.



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.







16

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005





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

and to re-number the lots. Each lot will be over 10,000 square feet. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 05-V117?-Granted.



Sandy Phillips presented the appeal of Bob Adams Homes, 625 Mobley Road Lot 74,

for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 75 feet to

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

The property is zoned R-1A.



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

Ms. Phillips gave the following information: Some lots were re-numbered due to

revisions made to accommodate additional stream bank buffers for state waters

that they discovered were required and to also accommodate a detention pond.

Some of the lots were removed. Lot 74 becomes lot 69. Each of these lots are

at least 75 feet at the point where they would build a home, they build their

own homes to make sure no one builds the house any closer than the point in

which the lot is 75 feet wide. Each of these lots are above the 10,000 square

feet minimum required by the zoning district. They attempt in their land plans

among other things to promote as much contiguous greenspace as possible and try

to preserve that in the areas where it?s the most beautiful. They will try to

keep the lots as small as possible because usually the larger lots result in

larger grass areas that are treated with fertilizer and chemicals that run off.

The lots are all larger than normal and the portions that they are asking to be

permitted to make narrower are actually on the front yard. The houses will be

between 1800 to 2800 square feet. They have a total of 93 lots.

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

and to re-number the lots. Each lot will be over 10,000 square feet. Motion

carried unanimously.



END OF VARIANCES.









17

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005







18

Board of Zoning Appeals ? 07/06/2005







The minutes of the regular meeting of June 1st were approved as presented.



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

David Fox, Danny Cargill,

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary











19