BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? March 3, 2010
A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, March 3,
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. Ray Brinegar, III
Mr. Bill Hart
Mr. Tom Moore
Member Absent: Mr. Perry
Borom
Also present representing the Inspections and Code Enforcement Department were
William L. Duck, Jr., Director, Danny Cargill, Secretary of the Board, Ms.
Jacqueline Goodwin, Acting Recording Secretary, and Will Johnson, representing
the Planning Department.
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-1-10-3190?GRANTED
Mr. Billy White, representing River Signs, LLC, appeared before the Board to
request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 7170 Beaver Run Road, to
increase the sign area from 6 square feet allowed to 72 square feet shown,
reduce the front setback requirement from 10 feet required to 4 feet 5 inches
shown, and increase the height of the sign from 6 feet allowed to 15 feet
shown. The property is zoned SFR3.
Mr. White stated that they are requesting modifications to the existing sign on
the church property. This would be modifications to the sign cabinet without
increasing the size of the sign cabinet. There is a reader board there now,
and we want to take the reader out and replace with an electronic message
center. The overall size of the sign cabinet will remain the same at
approximate 72 square feet. The electronic message center will be smaller than
the reader board. Also, we want to increase the height of the sign from 10
feet in overall height to 15 feet. One of the reasons is that the church and
the sign was constructed in 1987 before the highway was expanded. If you are
on the highway, at one point the bottom of the sign is about as level with the
grade of the highway. To get better visibility you would want to raise it five
feet to get it up higher. Another request is that the zoning SFR3 requires a
10 feet front setback, and the front setback is only 4 feet 5 inches.
Mr. Wade stated that in the request, they are currently 4 feet 5 inches away
from the setback, and you want to increase it 5 more feet.
Mr. White presented pictures to the Board.
Mr. Hart asked Mr. White if they were only elevating the sign, and not
increasing the size of the sign.
Mr. White replied that they will be elevating the sign and replacing the reader
board with an LED.
Mr. Brinegar asked if there would be any changes to the base.
Mr. White replied there would be no changes to the base, and they are only
adding five feet to the posts.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to approve the request based on no
opposition, and there are no changes to the existing sign cabinet, and the
setback is nonconforming with no changes. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Moore, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-2-10-3382--DENIED
Rev. James Allen, representing Macedonia Christian Church, appeared before the
Board to appeal the Building Official Decision for 6080 Coca Cola Boulevard,
that a minimum lot size for a freestanding place of worship is two acres, with
special exception under the Unified Development Ordinance Section 3.3.53.Places
of Worship. The minimum lot size is one acre, and .7 acres shown. The property
is zoned GC.
Rev. Allen stated that he is the Pastor of Macedonia Christian Ministries,
located at 3645 Cusseta Road. I have not spoken to anyone directly, but the
architect, Mr. Ken Levy, has spoken with Mr. Cargill, and a few other people.
We are trying to have a family life center. Our worship facility is on Cusseta
Road and we have been in existence for eleven years, and at that location for
nine years. We recently built a $1.2 million child care facility, assisted
living, and in the second phase of a fitness center. Our location is Cusseta
Road and we don?t plan on moving. We just want to establish a family life
center to take some of the pressure off of that location to include social
gatherings, meetings, training, activities for the youth, etc. At what point
does this constitute as a church?
Mr. Wade asked Mr. Cargill how was it stated in the Unified Development
Ordinance.
Mr. Cargill replied that when the application was made for the variance, we
were charged with looking at the zoning requirements and the use of the
building. Based on what was submitted, the only category in the Unified
Development Ordinance that this falls only is a Place of Worship. The
application described as an outreach of the church, used for a community hall,
fellowship hall, recreation center, athletic facility, and social gathering.
Those are associated uses to a place of worship. The UDO establishes minimum
requirements as additional standards a place of worship; greater than 250
people requires two acres. Less than 250 people as a special exception
requires a lot greater than one acre. This lot only has .7 acre of land. The
parking around the building is very minimum. If you were to put 200 people
there, based on a Place of Worship, it would require a minimum of 50 parking
spaces. There is no where near 50 parking spaces on this parcel of land, which
means people will be parking on the street. That is our reason for denial, and
wrote it as a Decision of the Building Official, because it does not meet the
minimum requirements for additional standards as a Place of Worship.
Rev. Allen expressed that it would not be close to 200 nor 150 people in the
facility or that particular space. You are not talking in terms of what we
would do on our morning services where we are located on Cusseta Road, where at
one time you may have 200 people coming, but you are talking about classes, and
other gatherings. When Mr. Cargill stated that there is no where else to
classify, are you stating that there is no where else to place it in the UDO,
even though we know it is not a church.
Mr. Cargill further stated that the number of people is immaterial. The
question is, ?Did we interpret the ordinance correctly??. In Section
3.2.53.Places of Worship in the UDO under associated uses, we classified it as
an associated use to a place of worship. Therefore, it is not allowed because
it does not meet the one acre or greater lot size.
Mr. Ken Levy, Architect, stated that as far as the parking issue, we knew the
site would not support enough parking. We would look at the whole site and
add parking, as required, once we find out once we find out the actual
requirement.
Rev. Allen pointed out that it may be beneficial to the city if there is
another way to categorize other cases with similar situations.
Mr. Wade stated that Rev. Allen feels that they should be classified in a
different category than what is in the UDO, and asked Mr. Cargill what
procedure would have to be taken.
Mr. Cargill replied that if the facility was strictly a recreational center, we
would look at it that way under the zoning and determine how much parking is
required, how many bathrooms, etc. and look at the entire package. The two
acre restriction would not matter in that case because it is a commercial
business, but this being an associated use to Macedonia Baptist Church, places
it in the category of a Place of Worship.
Mr. Wade pointed out that if the Decision of the Building Official is upheld,
then they can go to Superior Court and present their case.
Mr. Levy also stated that another avenue would be a text change to the UDO.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a lengthly discussion, Mr. Moore moved to deny the request based on the
Decision of the Building Official. At the same time, they can file another
application in a different manner to be revisited at a later date. There was
no opposition. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-2-10-3383--GRANTED
Ms. Donna Comer, appeared before the Board to request a variance from the
zoning ordinance for 510 Front Avenue, to increase the storage building height
from 14 feet allowed to 16 feet shown. The property is zoned HIST.
Mr. Will Johnson, representing the Planning Department, stated that the Board
of Historic and Architectural Review has approved the request.
Ms. Comer stated that basically they want to build a storage room to the rear.
This was already approved a few years ago when they added on in the back of the
main house because of a fire.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to approve the request based on no
opposition, and the approval of the Board of Historic and Architectural
Review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brinegar, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-2-10-3384--GRANTED
Mr. Gary Parrish, appeared before the Board to request a variance from the
zoning ordinance for 7011 Spring Walk Drive, to reduce the rear yard setback
requirement from 30 feet required to 15 feet shown. The property is zoned
SFR3.
Mr. Parrish stated that they are going to build a single family residence. The
lots are very shallow. There is a 20 foot buffer around the subdivision, which
is an addition from the actual property in the subdivision. There are trees on
both sides of the buffer which would protect it from the subdivision.
Mr. Wade stated that this is a new subdivision that has not been developed, and
backs up to Mobley. This is an odd shape lot.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to approve the request based on no
opposition, and the fact that it is an odd shape lot and a hardship to put a
rectangular house on the lot. There is a 20 foot buffer. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Moore, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-2-10-3385--GRANTED
Mr. Otis Gilliam, representing Mr. F. Hamburger, appeared before the Board to
request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 2829 Edgewood Road, to reduce
the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet required to 2 feet shown, and
reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet required to 24 feet
shown, in order to construct a single carport with storage room. The property
is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Gilliam presented pictures to the Board for review. We are replacing an
existing arbor and a former greenhouse, which is now used as a storage
building. There are two temporary storage rooms to the rear.
Mr. Wade stated that basically you could build on the footprints of what was
there previously.
Mr. Gilliam stated that it is a little further from the property line on the
side, but it is closer to the rear.
Mr. Wade asked about the shingles and the flow of the water.
Mr. Gilliam stated that they will be using the same type shingles to match the
existing house. About 20 years ago, they retained Moon Meeks to construct a
site plan to put up a retaining wall to divert the water to the rear. I
suggest that they put gutters all around.
Mr. Hart pointed out that there would be no change to the drainage, and it will
be an improvement.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Moore moved to approve the request based on no
opposition, and the fact that the addition would be built on the same footprint
that is there now. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried
unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-2-10-3386--GRANTED
Mr. James Gray, appeared before the Board to request a variance from the zoning
ordinance for 1900 Double Churches Road, to increase the height requirement
from 14 feet required to 16 feet, to construct a storage building. The
property is zoned SFR1.
Mr. Gray stated there are 12 feet walls and cut in half will give you 14 feet.
Mr. Moore asked what was to the rear or backs up to the property.
Mr. Gray replied that there is not anything there but woods.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Brinegar moved to approve the request based on no
opposition, and the back side of the house is joined by woods and not viewed by
anyone. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-2-10-3401--GRANTED
Mr. Marcus Coyle, appeared before the Board to request a variance from the
zoning ordinance for 10201 Chattsworth Road, to reduce the minimum lot width
requirement from 125 feet required to 25 feet shown. The property is zoned RE1.
Mr. Coyle stated the property that he wants to reduce the access to is on
Chattsworth Road across the street from the Fort Benning Reservation. My
family has been there since 1975. I own the property on both sides, and I want
to build my daughter a house. I want to limit the road frontage so it won?t
cut up the access to the back of this lot. (Mr. Coyle pointed out on the site
plan three other family homes.)
Mr. Hart asked if this was okay with the Department of Engineering.
Mr. Will Johnson, Planning Department, replied that it has to be approved by
the Board of Zoning Appeals before it goes through the process. This is a lot
width issue and not an engineering issue. Any engineering issue will be dealt
with when they build the house. We met with Mr. Coyle and his surveyors, and
the Planning Department does not object.
Mr. Mike Augustine appeared in opposition. Mr. Augustine stated that he lives
on the west side from the property. The water next to this lot is like a
swamp, and I don?t need any more water. I don?t know the people east of me,
but they do have city water. We are all on septic tanks and I have no access
to city water other than going up to the highway. I did have a pipe put there
because I had some cows I was trying to run, and we had a drought a couple of
years ago. I am opposed to this request because it will bring me more water
and sewage to my property. I have been to the Health Department, and this is
an ongoing process. I tried to dig out a holding pond because I am catching
silt from everyone and raw sewage.
Mr. Coyle pointed out that all the water runs down Chattsworth Road. There are
septic tanks.
Mr. Don Bowles stated that Mr. Coyle had spoken to him about building the house
for his daughter. The house is about 1500 square feet with three bedrooms and
two baths, with a nice front porch to enhance the property. We are not talking
about 4 or 5,000 square feet house. Obviously, to put a 1500 square feet house
on a 44,000 square feet lot, the water runoff should not be issue. A soil
evaluation has been performed on the site and approved by the Health
Department. As far as securing construction of the house, we will put up a
silt fence, and make sure no silt leaves the job site.
Mr. Hart asked Mr. Augustine if he would not have an issue if the drainage from
the house went to Chattsworth Road.
Mr. Augustine expressed that he would not have an issue. I don?t need any more
water.
Mr. Wade stated that the drainfields will be in the front also.
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Hart moved to approve the request based on the
fact that there was opposition but the opposition was resolved, with the
condition that the water would drain toward Chattsworth Road. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Moore. Mr. Wade added that Mr. Coyle mentioned that the septic
drain fields would flow toward Chattsworth Road. The motion was carried
unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-2-10-3419--GRANTED
Mr. Ryan Clements, Newt Aaron & Associates, representing Pastoral Institute,
Inc., appeared before the Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance
for 2922 15th Avenue, to add two additional signs, two allowed, and four shown.
The property is zoned RO.
Mr. Clements stated that they are a consulting firm working with the Pastoral
Institute on their campus project. There were several parcels of property that
were assembled for this campus expansion, and quite simply all the Pastoral
Institute would like to do is place sign at points to direct the traffic into
their parking areas.
Mr. Wade stated that they are allowed two signs because of the road frontage.
Mr. Clements pointed out that given the size of the signs, the constructed
materials would be like the monument sign on the corner.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Moore moved to approve the request based on no
opposition, and the fact that one sign is in place similar in shape and size.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING:
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 3, 2010 was presented for
approval as written.
Mr. Hart moved to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of February 3,
2010. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moore, and carried unanimously.
EXCUSED ABSENCE:
Mr. Hart moved to excuse Board Member Perry Borom, due to a business
appointment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moore, and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned
at 3:20 p.m.
Wright Wade William L. Duck, Jr.
Chairperson Secretary
Perry Borom Danny Cargill
Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary
Attachments
No attachments for this document.