BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? November 7, 2009
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, November
4, 2009, at 2:00 P.M., on the First Floor of the Columbus Consolidated
Government Annex Building located at 420 10th Street.
Members Present: Mr. Wright Wade
Mr. Perry Borom
Mr. Ray Brinegar, III
Mr. Bill Hart
Mr. Tom Moore
Others Present: Mr. Rick Jones, Director, Planning Department
Mr. Mark Gullatte, Planner, Planning Department
Mr. Daniel Stegall, Planner, Planning Department
Also present representing the Inspections and Code Enforcement Department were
Danny Cargill, Secretary of the Board, and Ms. Jacqueline Goodwin, Acting
Recording Secretary.
Call To Order:
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Mr. Wright Wade, Board
Chairperson.
VARIANCE APPEALS:
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2514--GRANTED
Mr. Sia Etemadi, representing Mr. Clyde Armour, Jr., appeared before the Board
to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 1131 16th Avenue, to reduce
the side corner setback requirement from 25 feet to 10 feet 7 inches shown,
reduce the side yard setback requirement from 12 feet to 11 feet 5 inches
shown, and reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 40 feet to 39 feet 6
inches shown, to add a two bedroom addition to the apartment dwelling. The
property is zoned RO.
Mr. Etemadi stated that in reduction of the side corner setback requirement
from 25 feet to 10 feet 7 inches is to line it up with the back of the existing
building. It is not that much difference than the existing back of the
building. It is a corner lot, one story, one bedroom apartment and we are
adding two bedrooms.
Mr. Wade asked if there was existing parking in the rear.
Mr. Etemadi replied that there is grass area right now and we will keep it
grass. Also there is a concrete curbcut already in place.
Mr. Hart pointed out that the request from Mr. Etemadi was already less than
what he was encroaching on the side setback. It is 10 feet and you are already
5 feet.
Mr. Steve Gunby appeared before the Board in opposition. Mr. Gunby stated that
it is an apartment now but built as a single family house, and it is at the end
of my back driveway. The reason we have setbacks is for appearance and
density. This whole area needs regulations to make it less dense. They have
already divided the house into an apartment building, and I don?t know what the
compelling reason would be to allow them to do any more than what has already
been done.
Mr. Etemadi stated that there are two sides of this property, one apartment
building has 30 units on one side and 40 units on the other.
Mr. Gunby further stated that both were in such condition that they needed to
be improved.
Mr. Moore questioned the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Etemadi replied that every bedroom should have one parking space. By code,
they have enough parking that they can park in their yard. It is grass, and
half of it is concrete. If you want, they can put gravel, but we don?t want to
get rid of the green.
There was no other opposition present for this appeal.
After reviewing the plans, Mr. Hart moved to grant the request based on the
fact that the encroachment is less than the existing size of the present
encroachment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brinegar. The motion carried by
four members present, and one denial, Mr. Borom.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2524--GRANTED
Mr. Willie Talley, Trustee, representing Smith Grove A.M.E. Zion Church,,
appeared before the Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for
2630 Pinola Avenue, to increase the height of the sign from 6 feet required to
7.5 feet shown, and reduce the setback requirement from 10 feet required to 5
feet shown, and increase the area of sign from 6?0? allowed to 48?-0? shown.
The property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Talley stated that the church purchased a sign, put it up, which they did
not know all the rules and regulations. We received a citation, and we are
asking to come into compliance. In compliance, we would like to have the sign
height increased to 7.5 feet and the setback reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet.
Mr. Wade stated that there is a dirt road there and one concern is that the
request is to move the sign forward five feet.
Mr. Talley pointed out that there should not be a problem, because it is our
property. We did have a problem at one time. When we asked the City to pave
the road, the City stated that it was our property. When we put the sign up,
then it belonged to the City. No one enters or exit that road but people
attending Smith Grove, or maybe the neighbor next door with the school bus.
Mrs. Oates appeared before the Board in opposition. Mrs. Oates stated that she
lives next door just across the street from the sign. My objection is when the
sign was there, it was a neon sign that shined in my bedroom window. Now I?m
curious about the sign the church is putting up.
Mr. Talley stated that it would be the same size sign. We had a timer on the
sign, but it was not wired properly. We could have set the timer on the sign
to come on at 6 p.m. and go off at 10 p.m., or whatever time would have been
convenient. Most of the people on the street that we canvas did not have a
problem with the lighting because it was security for them. If Mrs. Oates had
previously stated her objection, we could have had the sign turned off at a
certain time.
Mr. Borom asked if they could work out their problem with the lighting.
Mr. Talley replied that there would not be a problem to accommodate Mrs. Oates.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Moore moved to grant the request due to the fact
that the church is willing to work with the neighbor, and has agreed to put a
timer on the lights at night. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried
unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2526--GRANTED
Mr. Jimmy Weaver, representing A-Airflow Awning and homeowner, appeared before
the Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 434 Jefferson
Drive, to reduce the side yard requirement from 8 feet required to 5 feet
shown, in order to erect a carport. The property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Weaver stated that the homeowner wants a carport over the existing slab on
the side of his house. Presented pictures of his house, and a letter from a
neighbor stating that he has no objection. This will not create any water
problems. The next door neighbor?s yard is higher than the homeowner. The
water will run from the slab unto the street.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Borom moved to grant the request based on the fact that the appellant is
asking for a reduction of the side yard requirement of three feet, and it is
consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Brinegar seconded the motion. Mr. Wade
added that the water would run in the same direction as the present runoff.
The motion was carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2529--GRANTED
Mr. Billy J. Porter and Mrs. Ann Porter, appellants, appeared before the Board
to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 119 Whippoorwill Lane, to
reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet required to 6 feet shown,
in order to erect a carport. The property is zoned SFR3.
Mr. Porter stated that he has a show car and would like to erect a garage
larger than what is allowed.
Mrs. Porter expressed that she checked with the neighbors, and they had no
objections to the garage.
Mr. Wade asked about the water runoff, and the type show car.
Mr. Porter replied that the water would run off on their side, and the car was
a 1972 Chevrolet Nova.
Mr. Borom asked about the building materials.
Mr. Porter replied that the building materials would be consistent with the
existing structure.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Borom moved to grant the request based on the fact that Mr. Porter is only
asking the side yard requirement of two feet. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Hart, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2533--TABLED
River Signs, LLC, appeal request of a Building Official Decision for 2601 Cross
Country Road, that an existing non conforming sign can not be increased in
size. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Cargill stated that the appellant has requested to table the case until the
next meeting, December 2, 2009.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Hart moved to table the case based on the fact that the appellant requested
to table until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moore, and
carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2535--GRANTED
Mr. Coley B. Johnson, representing JCK Construction and Mrs. Rosa Branch,
appellant, appeared before the Board to request a variance from the zoning
ordinance for 129 Ticknor Drive, to reduce the side yard setback requirement
from 8 feet required to 6?6? shown, for an addition of two bedrooms, living
room and a master bath to the rear of the existing single family residence.
The property is zoned SFR3.
Mr. Johnson stated that they are only asking to reduce the side yard setback
from 8 feet to 6?6? to put a two bedroom, one bath addition to her house.
There is no problem with the water.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Borom moved to grant the appeal based on the fact
that the appellant is only requesting 1 ? feet side yard reduction. Mr. Hart
seconded the motion, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2538--GRANTED
Mr. Warren Mason, representing Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, appeared before the
Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 8600 Creekrise Drive
Lot 301, to reduce the lot width requirement from 126 feet required to 25 feet
shown, to subdivide into two flag lots. The property is zoned RE1.
Mr. Mason stated that this item and the following item are somewhat related.
We have been asked to assist Blackmon Realty with subdividing some property
around Lake Rivers, near the entrance of Creekrise Development. The way it is
presently drawn requires a variance for Lots 301 and 302, with the frontage on
the public street of Creekrise Drive.
Mr. Wade asked the acreage of the property, and pointed out that in regards to
Lot 302, you could not enter from the other side because of the dam.
Mr. Mason replied that each lot is about three acres, and that this particular
area is not on sanitary sewer.
Mr. Mark Gullatte, representing the Planning Department, stated that the
Planning Department recommends approval for Lots 301 and 302.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Hart moved to grant the request based on the recommendation of the Planning
Department, and there was no opposition to the appeal. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Moore, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2539--GRANTED
Mr. Warren Mason, representing Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson, appeared before the
Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 8600 Creekrise Drive
Lot 302, to reduce the lot width requirement from 126 feet required to 25 feet
shown, to subdivide into two flag lots. The property is zoned RE1.
Mr. Mason pointed out that this was the same appeal as the previous case.
There was no opposition to this appeal.
Mr. Hart moved to grant the request based on the recommendation of the Planning
Department, and there was no opposition to the appeal. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Moore, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2540--GRANTED
Mr. Charles Ford, representing appellants, appeared before the Board to request
a variance from the zoning ordinance for 2418 Capstone Court Lot ?A?, to reduce
the minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet required to 47 feet shown, to
subdivide the two lots for nonresidential uses. The property is zoned RO.
Mr. Ford stated that they are trying to purchase this single lot and subdivide
it into two lots, one for a dental office, and the other which his wife and
daughter has an office across the street. They want to use the other lot as an
expansion for a second office site. The property is next to Hamilton Station.
Mr. Mark Gullatte, representing the Planning Department, stated that the
Planning Department recommends approval for Lots ?A? and ?B?.
There was no opposition to this appeal.
Mr. Borom moved to grant the request based on the recommendation of the
Planning Department, and it is consistent with the Office Park. Also there was
no opposition to the appeal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried
unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2542--GRANTED
Mr. Charles Ford, representing appellants, appeared before the Board to request
a variance from the zoning ordinance for 2418 Capstone Court Lot ?B?, to reduce
the minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet required to 36 feet shown, to
subdivide the two lots for nonresidential uses. The property is zoned RO.
Mr. Ford pointed out that this case was the other lot.
There was no opposition to this appeal.
Mr. Borom moved to grant the request based on the recommendation of the
Planning Department, and it is consistent with the Office Park. Also there was
no opposition to the appeal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried
unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2541--TABLED
Site Enhancement Services, request a variance from the zoning ordinance for
3201 Macon Road, to add an additional sign, two required and three shown, and
to add total square footage of signs, 300 feet allowed and 1200 feet (+/-)
shown. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Cargill stated that the appellant has requested to table the case until the
next meeting, December 2, 2009.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Hart moved to table the case based on the fact that the appellant requested
to table until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Borom, and
carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2545--GRANTED
Mr. Bruce Jones, Woodruff Company, representing Denyse Signs Inc, appeared
before the Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 5300
Sidney Simons Boulevard, to increase the sign area from 300 square feet allowed
to 685 square feet shown and increase the number of signs from two allowed to
four shown. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Jones presented a picture of the actual sign. The location is at the
Landings Shopping Center on the corner of Sidney Simons and Armour Road. We
want to put a marquee sign at that corner showing the lot belongs to the
Landings. It is consistent with the other monument signs, and it is a vacant
lot.
There was no opposition to this appeal.
After reviewing the pictures and plans, Mr. Moore moved to grant the request
based on the fact that the sign was consistent with the other signs, and there
was no opposition. Mr. Brinegar seconded the motion, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2551--GRANTED
Mr. Jim Blalock, representing Mr. Gary Parrish, owner, appeared before the
Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 6064 Blois Court, to
reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet required to 26 feet
shown, to build a single family residence. The property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Blalock stated that they wanted a variance to build a house on Lot 12. We
want to build a house that fits in that subdivision and resembles the other
houses. This is the smallest two story we have, and in order to do that, we
need about 3 feet 10 inches on one corner and 1 ? feet on the other corner.
The other corner is a covered patio.
Mr. Wade asked if they could shrink the house that they want to place on the
lot.
Mr. Parrish replied that they don?t think it would work because it is only 2460
square feet. It is an odd shape lot.
Mrs. Joyce Stadnik stated that she was present in opposition. My opposition is
that this neighborhood is a wet neighborhood. My lot is not the only lot with
moisture problems. When I contacted the Engineering Department, I was told
that these houses should be on one acre lots. We are having drainage problems
throughout the development. If you have insufficient drainage around the
house, you are basically hurting the purchaser.
Mr. Wade asked Mrs. Stadnik the location of her home.
Mrs. Stadnik replied that she was located across the cul de sac.
Mr. Wade pointed out to Mrs. Stadnik that the Board does not have anything to
do with the drainage problems.
Mr. Cargill clarified that the zoning ordinance determines the square footage
of a lot, and if a builder wants to build a house to the entire square footage
allowed, he may do so. Your statement of the lots should be one acre is
immaterial, therefore, only state your opposition.
Mrs. Stadnik expressed that she is stating her opposition.
Mr. Parrish stated that he did build four houses there, but not the one stated
by Mrs. Stadnik. The request of the house that I am selling is not because of
the size of the house, but the configuration of the lot.
Mr. Wade informed Mrs. Stadnik that in looking at the configuration of the lot
the detention pond is behind the property, and the water will drain to the rear
of the house.
Mr. Cargill pointed out that this not the issue, and the Board needs to deal
with the variance request.
There was no other opposition present for this appeal.
After the discussion, Mr. Hart moved to grant this request based on the fact
that there was minor encroachment on the rear of the lot. Mr. Borom seconded
the motion. The motion was carried with one abstention, Mr. Wade, because of
his involvement in the development.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2552--GRANTED
Mr. Rob McKenna, representing Mr. Larry Deaton, appeared before the Board to
appeal a Building Official Decision for 4471 Victory Drive, that abandoned
signs must be removed under the Unified Development Ordinance Section 4.4.16-
Abandoned Signs. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. McKenna stated that the City sent a letter stating that the sign was deemed
abandoned based on the 90 day rule and code. The sign has never been
abandoned. The Deatons, owners of the property, live in South Carolina. They
leased it out to Popeyes, and sublet it to Fat Miltons Chicken. Sometime last
year, Miltons went into default under the lease, and the Deatons had to go to
court to get him evicted, allowing them on the property. The property sat
vacant for sometime. From the Deatons? perspective, the sign nor the property
were never abandoned. They could not get into the building, because they did
not have the right under the lease. They received procession in February and
now have a contract on the property.
Mr. Marvin Miller, Realtor, stated that the property never was abandoned,
including the sign. They do have an agreement in place, and there are others
interested in the property.
Mr. Wade asked Mr. Cargill as why it is stated that the sign is abandoned.
Mr. Cargill replied that based on the Unified Development Ordinance, Section
4.4.16, Abandoned Signs, ??.any signs that are located on property which
becomes vacant and is unoccupied for a period of three months or more, or any
sign which pertains to a time, event, purpose or service which no longer
applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. An abandoned sign is
prohibited and shall be removed by the owner of the sign or owner of the
premises?.
Mr. Borom stated that basically if we approve this, we will be setting another
precedent for the many signs on Victory Drive that are abandoned.
Mr. Cargill pointed out that the Board would be stating that the Building
Official did not interpret the ordinance incorrectly.
Mr. McKenna stated that under Georgia Law, an ordinance that has a 90 day
period for deemed abandonment is only presumptuous that it is deemed
abandonment.
Mr. Miller pointed out that with commercial property, you don?t close in 90
days. The property is vacant six months to a year before you close.
Mr. Wade asked Mr. Cargill what would the sign have to be to conform with the
UDO.
Mr. Cargill replied that with the lot width, they would be allowed one sign
with a maximum of 35 feet in height, maximum of 250 square feet.
Mr. Miller pointed out that if you reduce the height of the sign, it will be
detrimental to whoever uses the property.
Mr. Robert Teasley, President of Signs Inc., was present and stated that he has
been in the sign business for 30 years.
Mr. Cargill pointed out that Mr. Teasley was on the committee for the UDO in
1988.
Mr. Teasley stated that there are five sign ordinances. We have the Victory
Drive Overlay, Midland Overlay, Historic Society, C1, and Veterans Overlay.
There are a lot of abandons signs. The areas won?t get cleaned up if we allow
the signs to stay up and no one is on the property.
There was no opposition to this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Moore moved to grant the request to overturn the
Decision of the Building Official based on the explanation of Mr. McKenna, and
the owners should not be penalized because they had the problem of removing the
previous tenant, while trying to clear up a legal matter. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-10-09-2553--GRANTED
Ms. Kim Bucciero, CST Holdings, LLC & AT&T, appeared before the Board to
request a Decision of Building Official for 425 Old Buena Vista Road,
requesting an appeal of the definition of a concealed support structure per
Chapter 13 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to construct a 180 foot tall
flagpole. The property is zoned LMI.
Ms. Bucciero stated that they met before the Board a few months ago regarding
the proposed site with a ?candelabra? design. At that hearing the Planning
Department had made an argument that they did not consider that to be a
concealed support structure. We asked Mr. Will Johnson, at that meeting, what
would be an acceptable type of structure. His recommendation was a flagpole.
We went with his recommendation, and asked the engineer of AT&T if they could
use a flagpole design. For us it is a lot less coverage with a flagpole
design. We reapplied with for a building permit, and the code requires that a
permit for a concealed support structure does not have to go before Planning,
as long as it meets the definition. We received a memo from the PD stating
that ?The Planning Department does not view a flagpole concealed support
structure as an architectural or natural feature of the proposed site?s
environment.?
At this time, Ms. Bucciero proceeded to read the definition of a ?concealed
support structure?, per Chapter 13 of the UDO. In that definition, we meet
two, one being a flagpole, and the other is a natural feature of the
environment. The Planning Department is making the case that it does not meet
the definition. (Ms. Bucciero presented pictures of the area delineating the
location of the proposed tower.)
Ms. Bucciero further stated that two examples of flagpoles are at Golden Park,
and one owned by Crown Castle. It is located on church property, North
Highland Assembly of God on Livingston Drive. (Ms. Bucciero presented pictures
of both areas with flagpoles.) The flagpole at Golden Park is 100 feet in
height, and the one on the church property is 126 feet. The ordinance allows
up to 200 feet, which we originally requested 195 feet, but have lowered the
height to 180 feet tower. We propose to put up a wood fence instead of the
standard chain link fence, to help maintain the ground appearance making it
more presentable. We feel that a flagpole is suitable enough for a ballpark or
a church surrounded by a lot of residences, surely it would be comparable to go
in a place where there are industrial features like a substation where a
monopole would actually fit in. We are going above and beyond to comply with
the ordinance, and I think we would build a nice flagpole that would actually
conceal the antennas, and would meet the ordinance requirements.
Mr. Wade pointed out that Ms. Bucciero was before the Board with a candelabra
design and now they have changed it to a flagpole.
Ms. Bucciero expressed that they can have a flag or no flag. The ordinance
does not specify a flag.
Mr. Hart asked if a monopole was the same as a flagpole, and asked the
difference.
Mr. Rick Jones, Director, Planning Department, replied that a monopole is more
of a structure itself and actually takes on the effect of being a cell tower
also in appearance. A flagpole is designed to hide the fact that you have a
cell tower.
Ms. Bucciero pointed out that with a monopole the antennas are outside, and
with a flagpole they are forever internal.
Mr. Jones stated that there is history with this site as far back as January
2009. On January 29, there was a request for a special exception use for a
cell tower. We did not receive opposition, but the Council felt very strongly
in opposition of a cell tower at this location. In looking at this request,
the definition has been read to you. If you are going to put up a cell tower,
the public needs to know from the beginning. It will potentially have an
affect on their property value. If you can hide them for examples, in
flagpoles, church steeples, any type of building with height, or hide them in a
way that you can?t see them, where we don?t know that they are out there, then
we don?t have a problem because we are accomplishing what we need to be doing
in taking the overall quality. The flagpole in this case, as stated there are
two, one at Golden Park and one at North Highland Assembly of God, are both in
scale with everything else out there to be developed. When you associate a
flagpole, you associate it with some type of building along with it, examples
are a library, an office building or school site. When you see how well the
flagpole fits into the whole scheme, you can?t tell it is out there. Most
people don?t realize it is a cell tower and drive by it every day. The one at
Golden Park is a flagpole, and flags are associated with the outfield. When
you look at this site, you will have an empty lot with a flagpole of 180 feet,
that does not associate with anything out there. It will only be a stand alone
flagpole. This is why we recommend that this application not go forward,
because it does not meet the criteria.
Mr. Hart asked if the appellant has met the requirements of the Unified
Development Ordinance.
Mr. Jones replied that they have not, because if you look again at the
definition, it is ?designed to resemble an architectural or natural feature of
the specific environment, concealing or camouflaging the presence of an
antennae?. This means that you can not just stick something up and say that
you have it hidden, but actually you don?t. It needs to blend in with the
surrounding environment; placing a flagpole on an empty lot doesn?t meet the
criteria.
Ms. Bucciero asked Mr. Jones what would the Planning Department recommend if
the flagpole does not blend in per the ordinance as being a concealed
structure. I don?t think the ordinance was intended to prevent people from
complying with it, but so far every time we have asked, we have received no
answer that there is any solution, and that is very much like discrimination.
Mr. Jones replied that they would have to meet what is stated in the
ordinance. It talks about resembling an architectural or natural feature, and
the flagpole does not meet that definition. If it can not meet that
requirement then it is their responsibility to find a site that will work in
the community. It is not the responsibility of the Planning Department,
Inspections and Code, or any one else. As any other development, they are
required to meet the code as written.
Ms. Bucciero pointed out that it requires that the antennas be concealed, and
for technological clarification, a tower itself is not an antennae. The
antennas are the small 6 to 8 feet panels that go inside the structure. A
normal tower they are outside, so they are not concealed. In this tower they
are concealed, therefore, when I read this definition they are concealed, and
that is my argument.
Mr. Jones confirmed that the antennas are concealed but the structure itself
does not meet the definition.
Mr. Hart asked how can you conceal a 180 feet structure or 200 feet anywhere.
Mr. Jones replied that we don?t set the height requirement. That is their
requirement of 180 feet, but it is fine with us if they can get coverage at 120
feet. They set the height limit themselves for that particular structure. The
issue is not the height, but is it a concealed structure.
There was no other opposition present for this appeal.
After a lengthy discussion and review of the site plan and pictures of the
area, Mr. Moore moved to approve the appeal based on the fact of everything
presented from both sides of the case, that they meet the criteria with the
issue of the flagpole as a concealed tower. You will only see the tower on
Buena Vista Road from one angle. The motion was seconded by Mr. Borom. Mr.
Wade also stated that he looked at the pictures, and depending on where you
view the flagpole, as to whether you can see it or not. The motion was carried
unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-9-09-2358--GRANTED
Mr. Kevin Black, appeared before the Board to request a variance from the
zoning ordinance for 2686 Dalewood Drive, to reduce the side yard setback
requirement from 8 feet to 1?-6? feet shown, to erect a carport. The property
is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Black stated that it is an awning over a carport. It is already one there
for a single car, but I wanted to bring it out front. I started building on
the carport, and found out I needed a variance.
Mr. Wade asked Mr. Black if there was an existing carport behind the one he was
building.
Mr. Black replied there is an existing carport there for eight years. The
water will run off onto the street.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Borom moved to grant the request based on the fact that the erection of the
carport is off the existing footprint, and the appellant is only moving the
carport forward. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-9-09-2412--GRANTED
Mr. Fairley Armstrong, appeared before the Board to request a variance from the
zoning ordinance for 4461 Deerfield Drive, to reduce the rear yard setback
requirement from 30 feet to 20 feet shown, to erect a carport. The property is
zoned SFR2.
Mr. Fairley Armstrong stated that he was working on the carport when he was
stopped by an Inspector, and now he is before the Board to rectify the
problem. I had put the carport in except the shingles. Mr. Armstrong
presented pictures to the Board.
Mr. Wade asked Mr. Armstrong if they had spoken with the neighbors.
Mr. Armstrong replied that he is on a corner lot, there is nothing to his left
or rear.
There was no opposition present to this appeal.
Mr. Hart moved to grant the request based on the fact that there is no change
in the drainage and there was no opposition. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Borom, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-9-09-2432--GRANTED
Mr. J. Woody Gilliam, appeared before the Board to request a variance from the
zoning ordinance for 1148 Ada Avenue, to reduce the setback requirement from 30
feet to 22 feet shown, for an additional bedroom and bath to the existing
single family residential dwelling. The property is zoned RMF1.
Mr. Gilliam stated he is a builder and is adding an additional bedroom and bath
to the home at 1148 Ada Avenue. There is no other place to go except to the
rear. They are parking three cars there now, but they will only park two. It
is a 100 feet x 50 feet lot. There are other elevations. Mostly church owned
property to the rear, and a couple of residences to the left of the property.
The water will shed off the same as the current roof.
There was no opposition present to this appeal.
Mr. Borom moved to grant the request based on the distance being 8 feet and it
is 22 feet there. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried
unanimously.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING:
The minutes of the regular meeting of October 7, 2009 was presented for
approval as written.
Mr. Borom moved to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of October 7,
2009. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned
at 4:05 p.m.
Wright Wade William L. Duck, Jr.
Chairperson Secretary
Perry Borom Danny Cargill
Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary
Attachments
No attachments for this document.