BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? July 7, 2010
A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, July 7,
2010, 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
Member Absent: None
Others Present: Mr. Will Johnson, 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 2:05 p.m. by Mr. Wright Wade, Board
Chairperson.
VARIANCE APPEALS:
CASE NO. BZA-5-10-4225?GRANTED
Mr. Chris Peebles, Synovus, representing Columbus Bank and Trust Company,
appeared before the Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for
4505 Buena Vista Road, to increase the number of parking spaces from 43 spaces
allowed to 45 spaces shown. The property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Chris Peebles stated that a new branch bank of Columbus Bank and Trust
Company on Buena Vista Road. This particular branch will have a Columbus
Police Precinct in it, and the first in our area. This will require an
increase in parking. We have been before the Board previously to get an
increase in parking, however, we felt that we were shortsighted and that we
still need additional parking. The most parking we could get now is two
spaces. We could get two more parking spaces by reducing the two raised
islands at the entrance of the parking lot, and still maintain a good turning
radius into the lot. The additional two spaces will max out our property.
Mr. Hart asked if the two additional parking spaces would be needed from the
bank?s perspective or Police Department.
Mr. Peebles replied that the spaces are needed from the bank?s perspective.
The bank has provided fifteen spaces for the police precinct, and the remaining
spaces will be for the bank.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Borom moved to approve the request based on the
facts that there are limited parking spaces and they are trying to accommodate
their tenant, the Police Precinct will be on site, and no opposition. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-5-10-4234--GRANTED
Mr. Myrtis Roach, Jr., representing Carver Heights Presbyterian Church,
appeared before the Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for
3140 8th Street, to reduce the sign setback requirement from 10 feet required
to 1 inch shown. The property is zoned RMF1.
Mr. Roach stated that initially when they wanted to install the sign we had to
obtain a variance to increase the size from 15 square feet to the square
footage of the installed electronic sign. That request was granted. The sign
was placed adjacent to the old sign and we thought that we were a safe distance
from the street. We submitted scaled drawings showing the elevation and exact
position of the sign at the time we applied for the first variance. Having
that approved, we thought that we had authorization to install the sign. We
had to file for a sign permit. In doing so, we were told the sign was too
close, and we had to have this setback in order for the sign to remain in its
current location. The sign has a 2 feet x 8 feet in length by 4 feet depth
concrete footing, and it is not very easy to move the sign back, therefore, we
would request a 1 inch setback.
Mr. Wade asked Mr. Cargill if there would be a site distance problem with the
one inch setback.
Mr. Cargill replied that the sign inspector has looked at the sign request, and
she does not see a problem with the one inch setback.
Mr. Moore asked about the height of the sign.
Mr. Roach replied that the sign is approximately 11 feet in height.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to grant the request based on the site
distance not an issue, and there is no opposition. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Borom, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-10-4300--GRANTED
Mr. Gerald Saunders, GB Builders LLC, appeared before the Board to request a
variance from the zoning ordinance for 2837 Thomas Street, to reduce the corner
side yard setback requirement from 20 feet to 14 feet, in order to build a
single family residence. The property is zoned SFR4.
Mr. Saunders stated that he was hired by the Wynnton Neighborhood Housing
Property Organization to build houses in this area. We are rehabilitating the
Wynnton area, and this will be our fifth house. We purchased this lot and
demolished the dilapidated house on Thomas Street. It was beyond repair.
After purchasing and clearing the lot, we realized that our current house plan
is a little too wide for the set back requirement. Therefore, we are asking
for a variance of six feet.
Mr. Wade asked if the house would fit a 50 foot lot if it was not on the corner
lot.
Mr. Saunders replied that the house would fit that size lot, if it was not for
the side setback requirement.
Mr. Moore asked how wide would that leave the driveway.
Mr. Saunders replied that it would give them 14 feet, but they will probably
have a 10 or 11 feet driveway. It would be the same location as the previous
driveway.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Moore moved to approve the request based on no
opposition, and that the driveway would be going back on the same footprint as
the existing house. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brinegar, and carried
unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-10-4322?GRANTED
Mr. Robert Holley, appeared before the Board to request a variance from the
zoning ordinance for 5032 Gardiner Drive, to reduce the side yard setback
requirement from 8 feet required to 4 feet shown, in order to erect a single
car carport. The property is zoned SFR3.
Mr. Holley stated that they want to erect a carport on the side of the house.
We want to come out 24 feet, because we have a fireplace that sits on the side
of the house that will close it off 2 feet.
Mr. Wright asked if he had talked with the neighbors.
Mr. Holley replied that he had spoken to the neighbor across the street, and
she had no objection. The other neighbor, on the corner, he has not spoken to
as yet, and the other side is a vacant house.
Mr. Wright asked if the carport will be stick built.
Mr. Holley replied that it will be stick built, and the materials will be
similar to the existing house.
Mr. Borom asked about the drainage to the other lots.
Mr. Holley replied that there will not be a drainage issue.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Borom moved to approve the request based on no
opposition, there will not be any drainage issues, and materials used will be
similar to the existing house. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and
carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-10-4333--GRANTED
Mr. Robert Teasley, representing Signs Inc., appeared before the Board to
request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 3201 Macon Road, to increase
the total square footage of signs from 300 square feet allowed to 810 square
feet shown, and increase the height of the sign from 35 feet allowed to 85 feet
shown. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Teasley stated that the sign is a pre-existing sign that was put up by
under a variance. What is happening now is that they are going to tear down
the old Service Merchandise building, and CVS building, and increase Publix
from 37,888 square feet to 56,000 square feet. When they do this they will not
have a need for the second sign. Publix will be requiring more space on the
sign. There is a space between the Publix sign and the ?For Lease Sign?, which
are individually lighted cabinets. There will be a cleaner appearance because
they won?t be competing with colors.
Mr. Hart asked why was this such a huge increase.
Mr. Teasley replied that this is what the current ordinance allows. This sign
is legal under the old ordinance. It was grandfathered in. Anytime you make a
structural change, you have to refer back to what is allowed now.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Borom moved to approve the request based on no
opposition, they are combining two signs into one sign, and there will be no
competition with colors and contrast. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moore.
Mr. Wade added that the new sign will be the same size as the existing sign.
The motion was carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-10-4337?DENIED
Mr. William Myers, appeared before the Board to appeal the Decision of the
Board of Historic and Architectural Review for 2420 19th Avenue, that wood is
the appropriate material to use for the repairs to the existing residence. The
property is zoned RMF1.
Mr. Myers stated that he owns the property and that the property has rotten
soffits and fascia, and he wants to replace it. I had a building engineer to
look at the damaged wood, and he recommended Hardi board. It has been used in
the St. Elmo Historic District. The BHAR denied it because they said it is not
appropriate for that area. I think there is a conflict because under Item #7
states, ?The proposed use of hardi board is not appropriate for the period and
style of the building?. Item #9 states, ?The proposed work will be clearly
seen from 25th Street and 19th Avenue. It will not detract from the historic
character of the neighborhood.? The staff recommendation states, ?The proposed
work will alter a historic building and will have a Conditional No Adverse
Effect on the aesthetic, historic, or architectural significance and value of
the historic property of the historic district.? The reason I want to use
hardi is because the rodents are eating through the regular wood. The building
engineer informed me that within five years I will have the same problem using
the regular wood.
Mr. Myers presented a sample of the plywood and hardi wood for the Board to see
that there was not a visual difference between the two boards. The hardi board
is twice as expensive.
Mr. Wade asked if this was for the fascia, the soffits or both.
Mr. Myers replied that it was for both, the whole house which is a triplex.
Mr. Hart asked if there was a precedence for this.
Mr. Will Johnson, Planning Department, replied that there was not a precedent
for the fascia and soffits. Hardi plank is allowed in the Historic Districts
for new construction where there is a whole new house or an addition to an
Historic house. If Mr. Myers went with wood, he would not have to go to BHAR.
Mr. Myers further stated that the rodents will eat through the wood but not
hardi plank, because it contains concrete.
Mr. Moore stated that I understand Mr. Myers? position. Mr. Moore asked Mr.
Cargill and Mr. Johnson what could they suggest to Mr. Myers besides going back
before BHAR.
Mr. Cargill replied that this is Mr. Myers? opportunity because he is appealing
the Decision of BHAR. The BHAR approved it based upon their guidelines in the
past that hardi plank is not a permitted material for repairs. He is appealing
their decision that he has to use wood.
Mr. Myers stated that he is not going back and put regular wood on the house
because the labor to do this in wood or hardi is the same. The cost is
involved in the difference of the regular wood and hardi plank.
Mr. Johnson pointed out to the Board that the one thing they are charged with
would be if the BHAR abused their authority. Defining a hardship is extremely
difficult in the Unified Development Ordinance.
Mr. Myers pointed out that the hardship he would have would be replacing the
wood every five years.
Mr. Cargill stated that if Mr. Myers determined that this is a hardship
variance, there are descriptions of what is or not allowed in the Unified
Development Ordinance. (Mr. Cargill read from the UDO regarding hardships.)
?D. Prohibited Hardship Variances. In no case shall a hardship variance be
granted for any of the following reasons or circumstances. 1. Investments or
Real Estate. A condition created by the applicant in clear of a result by an
unwise investment decision or real estate transaction.? Mr. Myers is involved
in real estate with this piece of property, it is a rental unit, and it is in
the Historic District. Mr. Myers does not meet the criteria for a hardship
variance.
Mr. Cargill furthered stated that if the Board upholds the decision of the
BHAR, then Mr. Myers? appeal would be to Superior Court.
There was no other opposition present for this appeal.
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Hart moved to deny the appeal and uphold the
Decision of the Board of Historic and Architectural Review based on their
guidelines. Mr. Hart also stated in his motion that the Board appeals to
Superior Court that Mr. Myers does have a hardship. Mr. Wade added that the
strict guidelines that BHAR puts on this type of material (hardi plank) needs
to be re-addressed. They let them use it for one type of construction, and for
another they won?t let them use the hardi plank. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Borom, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-10-4348?GRANTED
Mr. Ernest Smallman, representing Mr. Carson Cummings, appeared before the
Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 301 Biggers Road, to
reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 125 feet to 25 feet, in order to
replat the lot. The property is zoned RE1.
Mr. Smallman stated that we are asking to reduce the frontage on the
right-of-way from 125 feet to 25 feet. If we went with 125 feet that would
require another 60,000 square feet added to this lot, which would be a 40%
increase.
Mr. Will Johnson stated that these properties, if it still holds true, are
being sold to adjoining neighbors.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to approve the request based on no
opposition, and a rural 2+ acre lot. The motion was seconded by Mr. Borom, and
carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-10-4355--GRANTED
Mr. Billy White, River Signs, LLC, appeared before the Board to request a
variance from the zoning ordinance for 3201 Macon Road, to increase the total
square footage from 300 square feet allowed to 818 square feet shown. The
property is zoned GC.
Mr. White stated that we are not trying to increase the signage area. Back in
January 2010, Site Enhancement Services was before the Board for a variance to
install this monument sign in front of Wachovia Bank. All we are doing is
replacing the existing Wachovia sign with the new Wells Fargo sign. It will be
the same foundation but a slight increase in the square footage from 40 square
feet to 48 square feet. That is the standard Wells Fargo package. The only
thing we are asking for is a variance to pull one sign up, and put the other
sign on the foundation.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Borom moved to approve the request based on the
facts that they are rebranding the bank from Wachovia to Wells Fargo, the sign
will sit in the place, and there is no opposition. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Moore, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-10-4361?GRANTED
Mr. Bill Fox, Grayhawk Homes, appeared before the Board to request a variance
from the zoning ordinance for 8050 Garrett Pines Drive, to reduce the side
setback requirement from 8 feet required to 6 feet shown, in order to build a
single family residence.
Mr. Fox stated that basically we have a situation which is the result of the 20
foot sanitary sewer easement that runs through the middle of this homesite. It
forces the situation where we would build any homes normal to our common width
that we would encroach this easement, and we know that the water works is very
particular about their easement. We thought the best opportunity was to reduce
the narrowest plan that we had to the furthest that we could, and still make it
usable for what most homeowners would find normal. Then use the rest maybe a
side yard encroachment as it doesn?t? offend the neighbor next door. There is
a fence on Lot 12 (as shown on the site plan) that goes back, and there is a
back fence to the neighbor in the rear. We would be crossing a little over a
foot. In order to cover it, we are asking the Board to reduce the side setback
from 8 feet to 6 feet.
There was no other opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to approve request based on reclusion
encroachment of the sanitary sewer, and there is no opposition. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Borom, and carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING:
The minutes of the regular meeting of June 2, 2010 was presented for approval
as written.
Mr. Moore moved to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of June 2, 2010.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Brinegar, and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned
at 3:00 p.m.
Wright Wade William L. Duck, Jr.
Chairperson Secretary
Perry Borom Danny Cargill
Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary
Attachments
No attachments for this document.