2014-05-20 Zoning Board of Appeals - Full Agenda-1191

CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

City of Brookhaven 5/20/2014 7:00 PM Page 1
Tim Nama Chairman
Corey Self
Don Bolia
Glenn Viers
Hope Bawcom
Jed Beardsley
Kent Gipson

AGENDA
May 20, 2014 Regular Meeting 7:00 PM
4362 Peachtree Road, Brookhaven, GA 30319

A) CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of April 16, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Work Session Meeting Minutes
2. Approval of April 16, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes
C) ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ITEMS
D) UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. ZBA14-06: Gipco Southern Inc. C/O Jay Gipson - Increase Lot Coverage (Sec. 27-586)
and Vary from the Requirements of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District: (27-
728.15.10(A)(2)&(3); 27-728.15.10(G)&(K); 27-728.15.12 (D)(3), (4)&(8); 27-
728.15.12(F)(3)(A); 27-728.15.12(L)(6)) - Peachtree Road and Colonial Drive
2. ZBA14-16: Rockhaven Homes LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback from 40' to 20' to
Construct a Single Family Home - 1290 Oaklawn Avenue
E) NEW BUSINESS
1. ZBA14-18: Drew Clough D.B.A Waterford Homes - Reduce 75' Stream Buffer to 50'
and Reduce Side Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' to Build a Single Family Home on Lot 12 -
2492 Ellijay Drive
2. ZBA14-19: Drew Clough D.B.A Waterford Homes - Reduce 75' Stream Buffer to 50'
and Reduce Side Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' to Build a Single Family Home on Lot 11 -
2496 Ellijay Drive
Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals May 20, 2014
City of Brookhaven Page 2 Updated 5/13/2014 11:36 PM
3. ZBA14-20: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC - to Eliminate the Requirement for a Single
Loading Space; to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree Road; to Allow an ATM as an
Accessory Structure and to Vary from 27-728.15.7(A) and 27.728.15.12(F)(3); and to
Allow for an Additional Ground Sign (Chapter 21) - 4260 Peachtree Road
4. ZBA14-21: David Bennett -Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 50% to Build a
Swimming Pool and Associated Pool Deck - 1013 Pine Grove
5. ZBA14-22: Vance Dover -Reduce the Accessory Structure Setback from 10' to 7.5' and
Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 47.3% to Build a Swimming Pool and Associated
Pool Deck - 1175 Pinegrove Avenue
6. ZBA14-23: Adam Williamson - Reduce Average Front Yard Setback from 55.1' to 40'
and Reduce Side Yard Setback from 7.5' to 5.0' to Build a Single Family Home - 2481
Oostanaula Drive
7. ZBA14-24: Michael Field - Reduce the Front Yard Setback Along Sunland Drive from
30' to 9.5 Feet, Reduce the Side Yard Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' and Increase Lot Coverage
from 35% to 43% - 2599 Apple Valley Road
8. ZBA14-25: Carrera Homes - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 36.9% to Build a
Swimming Pool - 2727 North Thompson Road
9. ZBA14-26: JW Homes, LLC - to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree Road for Access to a
Proposed Townhome Development - 3804 & 3770 Peachtree Road
10. ZBA14-27: Gaddy Surveying & Design Inc. - to Reduce the Average Front Yard
Setback from 144.45 to 85 to Construct a New Single Family Home - 3188 Saybrook
Drive
F) ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
FINAL MINUTES
April 16, 2014 Work Session Meeting 5:30 PM
2 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 125, Brookhaven, GA 30329

I) CALL TO ORDER
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Tim Nama Chairman Present
Corey Self Late 5:38 PM
Don Bolia Late 6:07 PM
Glenn Viers Present
Hope Bawcom Present
Jed Beardsley Present
Kent Gipson Late 5:43 PM

II) ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ITEMS
Director Canon noted that there will be ten cases next month. Several members stated that they will not be in
attendance. Therefore we will need a special called meeting.

Director Canon also noted the procedures that were adopted in February regarding hearing special exceptions and
appeals will need to be utilized tonight on one case, ZBA13-27.
III) UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ZBA 13-27: JEG Family Trust and Trop, Inc. D/B/A Pink Pony - Variance to Appeal Administrative Decision
Concerning Nonconformance. Property Location: 1837 Corporate Boulevard.
Attorney Scott Bergthold provided an overview of the case which was originally deferred during the October 16,
2013 hearing.
He stated the City's position is twofold:
#1 - The appellant has not met the burden of proving the business was lawful and conforming.
#2 - And if they had met the burden, any expansion of the business would be an expansion of a nonconforming use
under section 27-936 of the zoning ordinance.
The distinction is were they lawful at the commencement of the business. Mr. Bergthold said the answer to that is
they were not.

ZBA14-07: Patsios Homes C/O Roberts & Daughdrill, PC - Increase Lot Coverage, and Reduce Front and Rear
Yard Setback - 3165 Lynwood Drive
Ms. Canon stated that staff are in receipt of emails from several individuals who previously were in opposition to
this case and now have stated they have withdrawn their objections.
IV) NEW BUSINESS
14-08 - 1082 Wimberly Road - increase lot coverage from 35% to 62% and waive lot merger requirement
Staff recommended denial of both requests.

14-09 - 1628 Wayland Circle - reduce rear yard setback from 40 to 30, reduce average front yard setback from
33.4 to 30.8 for lot 26 and waive lot merger requirement
Staff recommended approval of two of the three requests but denial of the request for reduction of the average front
yard setback.
B.1
Packet Pg. 3
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

5
:
3
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals April 16, 2014

14-10 - 3020 Buford Hwy - reduce the side yard setback along Curtis Drive from 50 to 39, reduce the rear yard
setback from 30 to 10, reduce the transitional buffer zone along the west property line from 50 to 21 and reduce
parking from 72 to 45 spaces
Staff recommended approval.

14-11 - 2508 Appalachee Drive - increase lot coverage from 35% to 53.8% and reduce setback for an accessory
structure (swimming pool and associated patio) from 10 to 1

14-12 - 1380 Sylvan Circle - increase lot coverage from 35% to 39%
Staff recommended denial.

14-13 - 3028 Mabry Road - reduce side yard setback from 10' to 5.2'

14-14 - 2423 Coosawattee - reduce rear yard setback from 30 to 15 for deck addition and reduce setback for an
accessory structure (fireplace) from 10 to 3
Staff recommended approval of the first request but denial of the accessory structure setback request.

14-15 - 2465 E. Osborne Rd. - reduce 75' stream buffer to 50' to construct a single family home

14-16 - 1290 Oaklawn Avenue - reduce rear yard setback from 40 to 20 to construct a single family home
Staff recommended denial.

14-17 - 4189 Oak Forest Drive - Reduce front yard setback 109.4' to 76.6' to construct a staircase
V) ADJOURNMENT
1. Adjournment
APPROVED:

_____________________
Tim Nama, Chairman

ATTEST:

___________________________
Community Development

Approved
B.1
Packet Pg. 4
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

5
:
3
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
FINAL MINUTES
April 16, 2014 Regular Meeting 7:00 PM
2 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 125, Brookhaven, GA 30329

A) CALL TO ORDER
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Tim Nama Chairman Present
Corey Self Present
Don Bolia Present
Glenn Viers Present
Hope Bawcom Present
Jed Beardsley Present
Kent Gipson Present

B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of March 19, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Work Session Meeting Minutes
Board member Viers moved to accept the minutes and Board member Beardsley seconded. The vote was
unanimous.
RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Glenn Viers
SECONDER: Jed Beardsley
AYES: Nama, Self, Bolia, Viers, Bawcom, Beardsley, Gipson
2. Approval of March 19, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes
Board member Self noted one error in the minutes. When referencing Board members, the word
"Commissioners" was used by mistake. Mr. Viers made a motion to approve the minutes, subject to the revision
to change "Commissioner" to "Board member" instead. Board member Bawcom seconded the motion. The vote
was unanimous.
RESULT: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Glenn Viers
SECONDER: Hope Bawcom
C) ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ITEMS
There was discussion concerning next month's meeting. Ms. Canon stated that it appeared Board members Viers and
Self would be absent and possibly Ms. Bawcom. Therefore a special called meeting would be required.

Ms. Canon stated that the new procedures for appeal of administrative decisions would be used tonight for case
ZBA13-27. Mr. Kurrie explained the process and stated in tonight's first matter each side receives 10 minutes to
B.2
Packet Pg. 5
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

7
:
0
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
state their case and the appellant can reserve any unused time for rebuttal. However, the City does not have the
opportunity to make a rebuttal. He went on to state unless the ZBA wanted to open the meeting for public comment,
there was no need because the public hearing had already been held.
D) UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. ZBA 13-27: JEG Family Trust and Trop, Inc. D/B/A Pink Pony - Variance to Appeal
Administrative Decision Concerning Nonconformance. Property Location: 1837
Corporate Boulevard, Brookhaven, GA
Absent a motion to reopen the public hearing, the applicant, represented by Linda Dunlavy, started presenting
their case. She began by stating there were two issues to decide; the first was whether there was evidence that
the Pink Pony was a legal, nonconforming use entitled to grandfathered status, and the second issue was
whether making improvements to the business constituted an increase in non-conformance. Ms. Dunlavy stated
that yes the Pink Pony has a grandfathered status, but that an expansion of restrooms for patrons and dressing
rooms and administrative offices for staff does not constitute an increase in nonconformity. ms. Dunlavy
reserved the remaining time for rebuttal.

Attorney Scott Bergthold then presented the Citys case but first stated he had a concern about the new
procedures and how it is not the way a court functions. In court, no new evidence can be presented in rebuttal
and by operating this way, without laying out the case up front, there is no opportunity for the City to
effectively argue against the appellant. He requested additional time to match what the appellant did not use,
however, the Board did not agree and did not grant the request.

Mr. Bergthold stated the answer to the question of whether the Pink Pony is a lawful, nonconforming use is no,
and that yes the expansion of any part of the business does constitute an expansion of the nonconformity. He
cited the pertinent ordinance section 27-936 which prohibits the expansion of a nonconforming use. He stated
that the applicant must show that the decision made by Ms. Canon was based on an erroneous finding of
material fact or it was an arbitrary interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bergthold said that since neither
one of those issues can be met they cannot meet the standard set out in the ordinance and the appeal should be
denied.

In her rebuttal, Ms. Dunlavy stated there was no validly adopted zoning map or zoning ordinance by the city of
Brookhaven which means these questions become mute without a valid map or ordinance. Ms. Dunlavy said
this case was not about grandfathering or legal conformance but it was about the City trying to put the Pink
Pony out of business. She went on to say that in analyzing the land disturbance permit application which was
submitted by JEG Family Trust and Trop, Inc., the City used an ordinance which was not validly adopted.

Ms. Dunlavy gave an history of the business license first issued to the Pink Pony in November of 1990 under a
broad category of nightclub or more specifically in a C-1 zoning district category of a commercial recreation
entertainment facility within a fully enclosed building. This was allowed in 1990 and therefore was a legal non-
conforming use and the request does not increase the degree of nonconformity. She stated the ordinance
prohibits the expansion of a legal nonconforming use only if it in increases the degree of nonconformity which
this does not. The improvements are to the administrative offices which are 300 square feet; the ladies bathroom
has one stall and two sinks; and the small size of the dressing room which dictates the dancers must go in shifts.
Ms. Dunlavy concluded that Ms. Canons decision was arbitrary and capricious.

The Board then asked a variety of questions.
Chairman Nama inquired about the status of the land disturbance permit to which Ms. Canon responded staff
were currently awaiting answers to City engineers comments, however, Ms. Dunlavy said she was under the
impression everything had been answered and they are awaiting an answer. Ms Canon said there has been more
than one submittal and staff has not received an answer back to their questions.

The question of deferral came up but after discussions the chairman stated that a decision needs to be made
tonight.
B.2
Packet Pg. 6
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

7
:
0
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)

In reading from one of the appellants exhibits, Ms. Bawcom stated that any increase in square footage, in any
manner, is an increase in the manner of the business. Mr. Nama agreed by stating that is what needs to be
decided.

Mr. Nama reminded the Board they were here to deal with the zoning aspects of the case, not the sexually
oriented business characteristics. There was discussion of ways the Pink Pony could expand without adding to
the degree of nonconformity.

Ms. Bawcom made a motion to affirm Ms. Canons decision. Mr. Beardsley seconded the motion. The vote
was 3-4 and the motion failed. Mr. Bolia made a motion to reverse the directors decision. Mr. Self seconded.
The vote was 4-3.
RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 3]
MOVER: Don Bolia
SECONDER: Corey Self
AYES: Nama, Self, Bolia, Gipson
NAYS: Viers, Bawcom, Beardsley
2. ZBA14-07: Patsios Homes C/O Roberts & Daughdrill, PC - Increase Lot Coverage, and
Reduce Front and Rear Yard Setback - 3165 Lynwood Drive
Mr. Bolia and Mr. Gipson recused themselves from the case due to conflicts.

Mr. Song briefly recapped that a thirty day deferral had been granted at the March 19th meeting so that the
applicant could work with the neighbors. He stipulated to the staff report and mentioned staff were in receipt of
emails from those in opposition to the case stating they would like to withdraw their opposition.

Mr. Nama asked the applicant if they agreed to the conditions stated in Alan Powell's email and the applicant
said yes, plus those conditions in the staff report.

Mr. Beardsley made a motion to approve with conditions and Mr. Viers seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0.
RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITION [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jed Beardsley
SECONDER: Glenn Viers
AYES: Nama, Self, Viers, Bawcom, Beardsley
RECUSED: Bolia, Gipson
E) NEW BUSINESS
1. ZBA14-08: Michael Patrick - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 62% and Waive Lot
Merger Requirement - 1082 Wimberly Road
Mr. Song reminded the board of the two requested variances and stipulated to the staff report. He noted staff
recommended denial.

The applicant - Mike Patrick at 1082 Wimberly Road - gave an overview of his request and asked that the board
approve the requested variances.

There were no speakers in either support or opposition.
B.2
Packet Pg. 7
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

7
:
0
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)

The board asked questions of staff and discussed the case.
Mr. Nama asked Development Services Manager Bennett White about impervious materials that could be used
on a driveway so that the percentage of impervious surface and lot coverage could be reduced. The applicant
stated his willingness to work with pervious surface materials.

Ms. Bawcom made a motion to waive the lot merger requirement and to allow for an increase in lot coverage
but not to exceed 50% on lot 7, and once that requirement is met, the lot merger requirement will be granted,
pending completion and approval by city staff. Mr. Self seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
MOVER: Hope Bawcom
2. ZBA14-09: HSC Intown, LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback from 40' to 30', Reduce
Average Front Yard Setback from 33.4' to 30.8' for Lot 26 and Waive Lot Merger
Requirements - 1628 Wayland Circle
Mr. Song stipulated to the staff report and stated staff recommended an approval of waiver of the lot merger
requirement and reduction of the rear yard setback for lot 26. However, he stated staff recommended a denial of
the average front yard setback for lot 26, and reduction of the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 30 feet for lot 1
and substitute in lieu thereof 35 feet (lot1).

The applicant - Carter Richardson - spoke and stated that both lots would be conforming and since receiving
staff's report, he has worked with his engineers and architects to fit the house within the parameters stated by
staff. Due to the irregular configuration of the lots, they have been unable to but are only one foot off so would
request that the front yard setback be granted to 32.4 feet.

Those who spoke in support included:
Carmen Carreno - 1619 Ridgewood Drive
Catherine Stillwell - her parents own the property
Ronnie Mayer - 2709 Redding Road

Opponents
Aaron Savinski - 1623 Wayland Circle

Board members discussed the case.
Mr. Nama asked the applicant if the intent was to build both houses at the same time because if lot 26 were
developed first, average front yard setback would not be an issue.

After further discussion, the applicant withdrew the average front yard setback request.

Mr. Self made a motion to approve to waiver of lot merger requirement, the rear yard setback on lot 1 to 35' and
lot 26 to 30 feet, based on conditions in the staff report. Mr. Bolia seconded the motion. The vote was
unanimous.
B.2
Packet Pg. 8
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

7
:
0
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
MOVER: Corey Self
SECONDER: Don Bolia
3. ZBA14-10: Bright Ventures LLC/Hakim Hilliard - Reduce the Side Yard Setback Along
Curtis Drive from 50 to 39, Reduce the Rear Yard Setback from 30 to 10, Reduce the
Transitional Buffer Zone Along the West Property Line from 50 to 21 and Reduce
Parking from 72 to 45 Spaces - 3020 Buford Highway
Mr. Song stipulated to the staff report with one condition and noted staff recommended approval.

Hakim Hilliard, representing the applicant, spoke and gave a brief history of the site. He stated the current
building is in a state of disrepair and needs extensive renovations.


Mr. Self made a motion to approve and Mr. Viers seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
MOVER: Corey Self
SECONDER: Glenn Viers
4. ZBA14-11: Wayne Nicholls - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 53.8% and Reduce
Setback for an Accessory Structure (Swimming Pool and Associated Patio) from 10 to
1 - 2508 Appalachee Drive NE
Ms. Bawcom made a motion to move this case ahead of ZBA14-10. Mr. Self seconded and the vote was
unanimous.

Mr. Song stipulated to the report and stated staff recommended approval.

Applicant - Wayne Nicholls - spoke. He stated the pool had passed all of the City's inspections during
construction and that down spouts were connected to underground flow wells.

Those who spoke in support included
Stephanie Elliott - 1380 Canoocchee Drive

There was no opposition.

Mr. Beardsley made a motion to approve the variance as requested and based on the one condition in the staff
report. Mr. Self seconded the motion as stated. The vote was unanimous.
B.2
Packet Pg. 9
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

7
:
0
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
MOVER: Jed Beardsley
5. ZBA14-12: Alton Moss - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 39% - 1380 Sylvan Circle
Mr. Song stipulated to the staff report and stated staff recommended denial.

The applicant, Alton Moss, spoke about the need to expand the driveway area.


Mr. Beardsley asked staff to elaborate on reasons for denial and Mr. Song stated that the applicant knew of the
lot's limitations when they started building the house and staff felt the request is more of a convenience and
preference rather than a hardship.

Mr. Nama asked if the applicant was open to using pervious pavers. There was discussion with the applicant
and Mr. White concerning the types of measures the applicant could take to allow him to be approved for
additional lot coverage.

Mr. Viers moved to approve to allow the applicant to increase lot coverage provided they install a storm water
runoff system that meets approval of the Community Development Department. Ms. Bawcom seconded the
motion. The vote was unanimous.
MOVER: Glenn Viers
6. ZBA14-13: Michalene and Gerald Donegan - Reduce Side Yard Setback from 10' to 5.2'
- 3028 Mabry Road
Mr. Song stipulated to the staff report and noted staff recommended approval.

Applicants, Michalene and Gerald Donegan, spoke.


Ms. Bawcom moved to approve with staff condition. Mr. Self seconded the motion and the vote was
unanimous.
B.2
Packet Pg. 10
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

7
:
0
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
MOVER: Hope Bawcom
7. ZBA14-14: Ryan and Irina Connelly - Reduce Rear Yard Setback from 30 to 15 for
Deck Addition and Reduce Setback for an Accessory Structure (Fireplace) from 10 to 3
- 2423 Coosawattee Drive
Mr. Song stipulated to the report and incorporated condition, and noted staff recommended approval of the
reduction of the rear yard setback from 30' to 15' but denial of the side yard setback from 10' to 3'.

The applicants, Ryan and Irina Connelly, explained the yard's topography was the reason for the requested
fireplace's placement and their inability to move the deck stairs.


Board members discussed placement of the stairs and the fireplace. The applicant agreed to reduce the side yard
setback request to 6'.

Mr. Gipson made a motion to approve the rear yard setback as requested, and the side yard setback reduction
from 10' to 6' with the recommended staff condition. Mr. Beardsley seconded the motion and the vote was
unanimous.
MOVER: Kent Gipson
8. ZBA14-15: Ralph Reilly - Reduce Stream Buffer from 75' to 50' to Construct a Single
Family Home - 2465 E. Osborne Road
After a brief recess, the meeting reconvened with the Chairman announcing the next Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting will be Tuesday, May 20 in the new City Hall location. Mr. Beardsley made a motion and Mr. Self
seconded. The vote was unanimous.

Mr. Song stipulated to the report with one staff condition and recommended approval.
Ms. Canon noted this application had been received after the stream buffer moratorium had expired and was
prior to the new guidelines being adopted.

Applicant, Ralph Reilly, spoke and requested support of the Board.

Those who spoke in support included:
Byron Williamson - 2523 Drew Valley Road

There were no opponents.

During Board discussions, Mr. Beardsley asked Mr. White to explain why this application was supported and
did not require capturing of storm-water runoff. Mr. White explained that the proposed site plan limits the area
of disturbance to the area immediately adjacent to the proposed encroachment, and that implementation of
storm-water measures would adversely impact the existing buffer which contains numerous large growth trees.
B.2
Packet Pg. 11
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

7
:
0
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)

Mr. Bolia made a motion to approve with one staff recommended condition. Mr. Self seconded and the vote
was unanimous.
MOVER: Don Bolia
9. ZBA14-16: Rockhaven Homes LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback from 40' to 20' to
Construct a Single Family Home - 1290 Oaklawn Avenue
Mr. Song stipulated to the staff report and noted a recommendation of denial.

The applicant was represented by Doug Dillard who reiterated the request was for a reduction in the rear yard
setback from 40' to 20' to build a single family home. He went on to say the rear yard abuts an alley and the
property located behind is zoned industrial, and the proposed home and site plan are commensurate with other
homes in the neighborhood. He read a letter from a neighbor which was in support of the application.


Mr. Viers made a motion to approve. Mr. Gipson seconded the motion. The motion failed.
Ms. Bawcom made a motion to deny. Mr. Self seconded. The motion failed. Mr. Bolia made a motion to defer
the case until May 20th, 2014. Mr. Beardsley seconded and the vote was unanimous.
RESULT: DEFERRED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 5/20/2014 7:00 PM
MOVER: Don Bolia
10. ZBA14-17: Nelson Consunji - Reduce Front Yard Setback from 109.4' to 76.6' to
Construct a Staircase - 4189 Oak Forest Drive NE
Mr. Song stipulated to report and recommended approval.

Morgan Moore, 1001 Gardenview Dr., spoke on behalf of the applicant.


Mr. Gipson made a motion to approve and Ms. Bawcom seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
MOVER: Kent Gipson
F) ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Bawcom moved to adjourn and Mr. Gipson seconded. The vote was unanimous.
B.2
Packet Pg. 12
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

7
:
0
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
APPROVED:

_____________________
Tim Nama, Chairman

ATTEST:

___________________________
Community Development

Approved
B.2
Packet Pg. 13
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:

M
i
n
u
t
e
s

o
f

A
p
r

1
6
,

2
0
1
4

7
:
0
0

P
M

(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

o
f

M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)

Page 1
MEMORANDUM

MEETING OF: May 20, 2014
COMMITTEE: Zoning Board of Appeals
DEPARTMENT: Community Development

ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
ZBA14-06: Gipco Southern Inc. C/O Jay Gipson - Increase Lot Coverage (Sec. 27-586) and
Vary from the Requirements of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District: (27-
728.15.10(A)(2)&(3); 27-728.15.10(G)&(K); 27-728.15.12 (D)(3), (4)&(8); 27-
728.15.12(F)(3)(A); 27-728.15.12(L)(6)) - Peachtree Road and Colonial Drive

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:
Please see attached files

FISCAL IMPACT: (Budgeted over or under)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Update: This case was deferred for 60 days and placed on the May 20th agenda. Enclosed please
find a revised building elevation received May 5, 2014. No other revisions have been received.

Please see attached files.

ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA 14-06 Staff memo (PDF)
ZBA14-06_Application, LOI & supplemental documentation (PDF)
ZBA14-06_Site Plan (PDF)
ZBA14-06_Survey (PDF)
Memo Style (PDF)
Revised building elevation (PDF)
D.1
Packet Pg. 14

Case: ZBA14-06
Location: 3925 & 3927 Peachtree Road, Brookhaven, GA 30319
2425 & 2427 Colonial Drive, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel # 18-239-05-003, 18-239-05-002, 18-239-05-011 & 18-
239-05-005
Property Owner: Walgreens c/o Brant Heflin, M. Spencer Newman & Howard
David Raflo
Applicant: Gipco Southern Inc. c/o Jay Gipson
Request: Variances to sections 27-728.15.10(a)(2) & (3), 27-728.15.10(g), 27-
728.15.10(k), 27-728.15.12(d)(3), 27-728.15.12(d)(4), 27-
728.15.12(d)(8), 27-728.15.12(f)(3)(a), 27-728.15.12(l)(6), and 27-586.

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting nine variances associated with this case as noted:

1. Parking Section 27-728.15.10(a)(2) & (3)
o (2) Commercial: 1 per 400 SF (Office related)
Proposed 36,449 SF results in 91 spaces required
o (3) Retail: 1 per 300 SF (Walgreens portion)
Proposed 14,140 SF results in 47 spaces required
Variance request: Reduce total parking from 138 spaces to 125 spaces.

2. Parking deck screening 27-728.15.10(g) - Any portion of a parking deck that is
adjacent to a public street shall be screened with retail on the ground floor. Any upper
stories of a parking deck that are visible from a public street shall be clad with materials
permitted in subsection 27-728.15.7(a) to resemble office or residential buildings with
fenestration.
Variance request: Eliminate retail screening on the ground floor parking deck facing
Colonial Drive.

3. Landscape strips for parking structures 27-728.15.10(k) - All parking decks and
parking structures shall have a landscape strip a minimum of six (6) feet in width
immediately contiguous to the parking facility for the whole of the exterior perimeter of
the parking facility except at vehicular or pedestrian entrances and exits. Such landscape
strips shall contain no less than one (1) understory or overstory tree per fifty (50) linear
feet, ten (10) shrubs per fifty (50) linear feet, and a minimum of ninety (90) percent living
groundcover, sod and/or annual or perennial color in the landscape strip surface area.
Variance request: Reduce the six foot landscape strip along the rear of the property
adjacent to the Marta rail line.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
0
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
2
8
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
0
6
:

G
i
p
c
o

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

I
n
c
.

-
)

4. Access/curb cuts 27-728.15.12(d)(3) - All parking shall be accessed via shared alleys
or private drives. No curb cuts shall be allowed on primary streets (Peachtree Road and
Apple Valley Road) if the development is accessible by another street. If an existing block
face on a primary street exceeds seven-hundred (700) linear feet, then one (1) curb cut
per seven-hundred (700) linear feet is allowed. If a development is accessible from more
than one (1) secondary or tertiary street (Dresden Drive, North Druid Hills Road,
Hermance Drive, Ashford-Dunwoody Road, Lanier Drive, Osborne Road and
Brookhaven Place), the development shall be limited to one (1) curb cut per block face. If
a development is only accessible from one (1) street, the development is limited to two (2)
curb cuts on that street.
Variance request: To allow a right-in/right-out only curb-cut on Peachtree Road.

5. Curb cut width 27-728.15.12(d)(4) - All curb cuts shall be a maximum of twenty-four
(24) feet wide.
Variance request: Increase curb-cut widths to 30 feet (Peachtree Road and Colonial
Drive).

6. Building Entrance 27-728.15.12(d)(8) - The primary entrance to all buildings shall
be clearly visible from the street, shall face the street, and if the building is used for
nonresidential purposes, shall be unlocked during operating business hours for all
nonresidential uses. If a building fronts more than one (1) public street, the primary
entrance shall face the street with the highest classification as follows: Primary:
Peachtree Road and Apple Valley Road; Secondary: Dresden Drive, North Druid Hills
Road, Hermance Drive, Ashford-Dunwoody Road, Lanier Drive, Osborne Drive,
Brookhaven Place; Tertiary: new streets and other existing streets.
Variance request: Allow the Walgreens entrance to face the parking deck, but provide
the appearance of an entrance facing Peachtree Road through building architecture.

7. Gross floor area of second floor 27-728.15.12(f)(3)(a) The second story shall
encompass 100% of the gross floor area of the 1
st
floor.

Variance request: Allow the second floor to encompass more than 100% of the gross
floor area of the 1
st
floor (cannot be requested per Section27-915(k) of Brookhaven
Peachtree Overlay District. However, based upon the site plan submitted it would
appear that this variance request is not needed).

8. Entrance for upper stories 27-728.15.12(l)(6) - The primary entrance for all upper
story uses shall be clearly visible from the street and shall face the public street. If a
building fronts more than one (1) street, the primary entrance should face the street with
the highest classification as follows: Primary: Peachtree Road and Apple Valley Road;
Secondary: Dresden Drive, North Druid Hills Road, Hermance Drive, Ashford-
Dunwoody Road, Lanier Drive, Osborne Drive, Brookhaven Place; Tertiary: new streets
and other existing streets.
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
0
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
2
8
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
0
6
:

G
i
p
c
o

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

I
n
c
.

-
)

Variance request: Allow the second floor entrance to face the parking deck.

9. Lot coverage 27-586 Lot coverage maximum for C-1 is 80%.
Variance Request: Increase lot coverage from 80% to 89.4%.

SITE PLAN AND SITE ANALYSIS
The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Peachtree Road and Colonial
Drive and with proximity to the city limits the property may be considered as a gateway into the
City of Brookhaven. The subject property includes an assemblage of four lots zoned C-1 (Local
Commercial District) and located within sub-area 1 of the Brookhaven Peachtree Overlay
District (BPOD). Based on the submitted site plan, the site has approximately 199 feet of
frontage along Peachtree Road and 345 feet of frontage along Colonial Drive and totals 1.47
acres. Under the requirements of BPOD, the applicant plans to construct a three-story building
that will consist of 14,140 square feet for Walgreens with an additional 36,449 square feet of
office space. The building observes zero lot lines from all property lines and is proposed to be
constructed predominantly of brick. Along the ground floor, the proposed building would consist
of a white precast faade with a transparent glass storefront. The applicant seeks to demolish the
existing commercial buildings and combine the lots into a single parcel of land.

A two-story, 125 space parking deck is proposed to be located behind and along the side of the
proposed commercial building. Review of the proposed parking deck design would show that a
large portion of the parking structure will remain open and be absent of screening that would be
contextual to the architectural theme of the building, and as a result parked vehicles will be
visible from the street. Under the guidelines of BPOD, parking decks adjacent to a public street
are required to be screened with retail on the first floor and upper stories are required to be
screened and clad with materials that resemble an office building with fenestration. The applicant
has expressed that due to the confines of the site, it would be unfeasible to screen the proposed
parking deck on the ground floor with retail along both street frontages and would instead
supplement the required screening with landscaping. Although, staff would acknowledge that
locating retail uses may not be plausible based upon the layout of the proposed development;
however, the applicant would be able to create a faade that would resemble and extend the retail
facade to the full extent of the parking deck except at vehicle ingress/egress points. Additionally,
screening shall be provided on the second level of the parking deck along both street fronts to
resemble an office building and constructed in compliance with building materials permitted
under subsection 27-728.15.7(a).

Staff would point out that parking decks are required to install a six-foot landscape strip
immediately contiguous to parking facility, except at vehicular or pedestrian entrances. The
applicant has stated in the letter of intent that 23 feet of the total 580 feet of linear frontage will
be less than six feet in width adjacent to the MARTA rail line.

The proposed building would require a total of 138 parking spaces with 47 spaces required for
Walgreens and 91 spaces required for the proposed office use. The applicant has stated in the
letter of intent that Walgreens has estimated at their peak 28 spaces would be utilized. Given the
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
0
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
2
8
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
0
6
:

G
i
p
c
o

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

I
n
c
.

-
)

limitations of the site, projected demand of the facility, and the intent of BPOD to promote
greater pedestrian access and activity, the applicant would seeks to reduce parking by 13 spaces
for a total of 125 parking spaces dedicated for the development.

The overlay requires that the primary entrance to the building be clearly visible from the street
and face Peachtree Road. Based on the applicants letter of intent, the primary entrance is
proposed to face the parking deck to better serve customers that arrive by car. As an alternative,
the applicant has indicated that the architecture of the building on the ground floor will create an
appearance of an entrance facing Peachtree Road.

The subject property as existing has one point of ingress/egress off Peachtree Road and two off
of Colonial Drive. With the proposed Walgreens development, the access off Peachtree Road
will be relocated closer towards the east property line and away from the intersection. Although
the requirements of BPOD restrict curb-cuts along Peachtree Road if the property is accessible
by another street, the applicant has requested a curb-cut be allowed on Peachtree Road to
facilitate the circulation of ingress/egress for delivery and emergency vehicles, such as
ambulances and fire apparatuses. Subsequently, the applicant has requested a variance to widen
curb-cut widths to 30 feet from 24 feet to better accommodate larger vehicles onto the property.
The applicant believes that if the property is limited to provide access only from Colonial Drive,
the proposed development would not be viable and would further concentrate traffic directly
onto Colonial Drive and negatively impact traffic at the intersection. The applicant has proposed
a right-in/right-out only drive on Peachtree Road to coordinate for the safe flow of traffic on the
subject property and to minimize vehicular impacts on Peachtree Road. The Department would
note that the applicant must obtain approval from the Georgia Department of Transportation to
locate a curb-cut on Peachtree Road, as it is a state route.

Lastly, the applicant seeks a variance to 27-728.15.12(f)(3)(a), which requires the second story
of the building encompass one-hundred percent of the gross floor area of the first floor. Although
the applicant has requested this variance, staff would note that this provision cannot be varied as
outlined in Section 27-915(k) of the citys Zoning Ordinance. However, the submitted site plan
would demonstrate that the second and third floors of the building would encompass a greater
footprint than that of the first floor and be compliant with the above-referenced section of BPOD.
Therefore, the requested variance is not needed.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks variances to the development standards. Consideration of this request should
be made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the City Zoning Ordinance:
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of
the intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The Zoning Board of
Appeals shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:

(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by
reason of exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
0
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
2
8
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
0
6
:

G
i
p
c
o

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

I
n
c
.

-
)

applicant, the strict application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the
property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same
zoning district;
Staff Comment:
The subject property takes on a trapezoidal shape and would appear that the site as
currently existing would exceed the lot coverage maximum of eighty percent associated
with the C-1 zoning district. Although the subject property would combine four lots
together, the property would equate to a small tract of land at 1.47 acres. Due to the size
of the property and the requirements of BPOD, requiring buildings constructed in the
overlay district to be at minimum two stories, the development is obligated to take on a
larger impervious footprint to comply with parking requirements. Furthermore, similar
commercial developments located along Peachtree Road have existed with lot coverage
exceeding eighty percent. Therefore, due to the size of the property, requirements of
BPOD, and neighboring properties in the same zoning district existing with lot coverage
exceeding eighty percent, the applicants request to increase lot coverage to 89.4 percent
would be supported by staff.

(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief,
and does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
The overall design of the proposed Walgreens development would conform to the general
design aspects of the overlay related to pedestrian zones (landscaping and sidewalks),
scale, building materials, setbacks, and mixed use. Based upon the urban design
principles required by the overlay, it is the opinion of staff that the development will be a
catalyst to creating a dynamic built environment along Peachtree Road. Therefore, staff
would note that the requested variance to not provide a primary entrance to the building
on Peachtree Road (Section 27-728.15.12(d)(8)) and not providing the required
screening of the parking deck (Section 27-728.15.10(g)) would go beyond the minimum
necessary to afford relief. However, with proper conditions to provide for a primary
entrance along Peachtree Road and extending screening along the ground floor and
second floor of the parking deck to resemble retail and office faade, respectively, the
design aspects incorporated into the development would be consistent with the intent of
the Brookhaven Peachtree Overlay District.

(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject
property is located;
Staff Comment:
With the exception of variances related to screening of the parking deck (Section 27-
728.15.10(g)) and providing for a primary entrance on Peachtree Road ((Section 27-
728.15.12(d)(8)), granting of the other seven variances would not appear to be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the
zoning district as these variance would not stray overwhelmingly from the intent and
vision of the overlay. It is the opinion of staff, however, that the proposed parking
structure as designed is not an integral component of the architectural theme, lacking the
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
0
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
2
8
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
0
6
:

G
i
p
c
o

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

I
n
c
.

-
)

required architectural screening that is reflective of the building. As previously noted,
the first and second floors of the parking structure must be developed to include
screening that would resemble a faux retail storefront on the ground floor and an office
faade on the second story of the proposed parking deck, along all sides fronting a public
street. Furthermore, lacking a primary entrance into the building from Peachtree Road
would be inconsistent with the intent of BPOD, which seeks to promote alternative modes
of travel, interconnectivity of parcels and improving pedestrian access; thus, locating the
primary entrance to Walgreens on Peachtree Road would help to promote pedestrian
traffic.

The applicants survey shows that the existing property would exceed the lot coverage
requirement. Although increase in lot coverage may contribute to additional stormwater
run-off, the applicant has proposed installation of a detention pond in the southwest
corner of the property to support the increase in impervious area of the property to 89.4
percent.

(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or
requirements of this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely
impose a casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of provisions to parking (Sections 27-
728.15.10(a)(2) & (3)), landscape strips (Section 27-728.15.10(k)), curb cuts (Section 27-
728.15.12(d)(4)), access (Section 27-728.15.12(d)(3)), lot coverage (Section 27-586), and
entrances for upper stories (Section 27-728.15.12(1)(6)) could be considered a hardship
since the full vision and utility of the design would not be realized without granting of
variances. The provision for parking deck screening (Section 27-728.15.10(g)) and
primary entrance on Peachtree Road (Section 27-728.15.12(d)(8)) however, do not appear
to be hardships. Without appropriate and effective screening of the parking deck and
provision of a primary entrance on Peachtree Road, the development would detract from
the intent of BPOD, which promotes a design initiative that seeks to hide the view of
parking structures from the street and seeks to create a safer and inviting streetscape for
pedestrians to travel by foot adjacent to the citys primary thoroughfare.

(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter
and the DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
Staff Comment:
With the exception of variances related to parking deck screening and providing for the
primary entrance on Peachtree Road, the requested variances would be consistent with
the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Variance to Section 27-728.15.10(a)(2) & (3) Parking
Request: Reduce total parking from 138 spaces to 125 spaces.

Recommendation: Approval.
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
0
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
2
8
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
0
6
:

G
i
p
c
o

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

I
n
c
.

-
)

2. Variance to Section 27-728.15.10(g) Parking deck screening
Request: Remove retail screening on the ground floor parking deck facing Colonial
Drive.

Recommendation: Denial. However, substitute in lieu thereof that a faux retail faade
be extended to incorporate the ground floor parking deck and for the second story of
the parking deck to resemble an office building with fenestration, except for areas
providing vehicular access.

3. Variance to Section 27-728.15.10(k) Landscape strips for parking structures
Request: Remove the six foot landscape strip along the rear of the property adjacent
to the Marta rail line.

Recommendation: Approval. Staff would support as this request would affect a
minimal area of the landscape strip surrounding the perimeter of the parking deck.

4. Variance to Section 27-728.15.12(d)(3) Access/curb cuts
Request: Allow a curb-cut on Peachtree Road.


5. Variance to Section 27-728.15.12(d)(4) Curb cut width
Request: Increase curb-cut widths from 24 feet to 30 feet.

Recommendation: Approval

6. Variance to Section 27-728.15.12(d)(8) Building Entrance
Request: Allow the Walgreens entrance to face the parking deck, but provide the
appearance of an entrance facing Peachtree Road through building architecture

Recommendation: Denial. The requirement to provide a primary entrance facing
Peachtree Road is an integral urban design aspect of BPOD.

7. Variance to Section 27-728.15.12(f)(3)(a) Gross floor area of second floor
Request: Allow the second floor to encompass more than 100% of the gross floor
area of the first floor.

Recommendation: Denial. The applicant cannot request a variance to this section as
prohibited per Section 27-915(k) of the Zoning Ordinance.

8. Variance to Section 27-728.15.12(l)(6) Entrance for upper stories
Request: Allow the 2
nd
floor entrance to not face Peachtree Road.
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
0
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
2
8
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
0
6
:

G
i
p
c
o

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

I
n
c
.

-
)

Recommendation: Approval. Based on the layout of the development and overall
fenestration design of the upper levels, the applicant has expressed that the primary
entrance for upper stories cannot face Peachtree Road. Majority of occupants of the
proposed office area may predominantly consist of commuters by car. Per the layout
of the development, elevators leading into the upper levels of the building will be
situated to provide direct access from the parking deck. Therefore, staff would
recommend approval of granting Section 27-728.15.12(f)(3)(a) to allow the upper
story entrance to face the parking structure.

9. Variance to Section 27-586 Lot coverage
Request: Increase lot coverage from 80% to 89.4%.

Staff suggests the following condition(s):

1. Development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted on
February 5, 2014 to the Community Development Department.
2. Owner/developer shall provide an access easement from the first entrance on Colonial
Drive through the subject property to allow for future interparcel access with the adjacent
parcel to the east.
3. The curb-cut on Peachtree Road shall be limited to a right-in and right-out drive only, and
the owner/developer must obtain a Driveway Permit from GDOT.
4. The widths of all curb-cuts associated with the development are limited to 30 feet.
5. Owner/developer shall obtain a Driveway Permit from GDOT to increase the width of the
curb-cut on Peachtree Road.
6. The ground level of the parking deck facing a public street shall be screened with a
faade resembling retail, except for areas associated with vehicle access.
7. The second story parking deck facing a public street shall be screened with a faade that
resembles an office building with fenestration. The required screen shall match the full
height of the second story of the building.
8. Owner/developer shall submit a combination plat for approval by the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of any permit related to the Walgreen
development.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 22
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
0
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
2
8
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
0
6
:

G
i
p
c
o

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

I
n
c
.

-
)
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
3
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 0 6 _ A p p l i c a t i o n , L O I & s u p p l e m e n t a l d o c u m e n t a t i o n ( 1 2 8 6 : Z B A 1 4 - 0 6 : G i p c o
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
4
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
5
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
6
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
7
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
9
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
0
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
1
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
2
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
3
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
4
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
5
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
6
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
7
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
8
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
9
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

4
0
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

4
1
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

4
2
D
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

4
3
D.1.c
Packet Pg. 44
A
tta
c
h
m
e
n
t: Z
B
A
1
4
-0
6
_
S
ite
P
la
n
(1
2
8
6
: Z
B
A
1
4
-0
6
: G
ip
c
o
S
o
u
th
e
rn
In
c
. -)
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 45
A
tta
c
h
m
e
n
t: Z
B
A
1
4
-0
6
_
S
u
rv
e
y
(1
2
8
6
: Z
B
A
1
4
-0
6
: G
ip
c
o
S
o
u
th
e
rn
In
c
. -)
1
Becky Apter
From: Ben Song
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:11 PM
To: Becky Apter
Subject: FW: Upcoming ZBA Hearing
PleaseincludethisemailtotheZBApacketalongwithZBA1406(Walgreens).
Thankyou,
Ben
From:ThomasPorter,AIA,LEEDAP[mailto:thomasporter@earthlink.net]
Sent:Monday,March03,20144:27PM
To:J.MaxDavis;MarieGarrett;SusanCanon;BatesMattison
Cc:BenSong
Subject:UpcomingZBAHearing

City Officials;

Simply as a note of concern, the next ZBA Hearing has scheduled a series of variances on the property at the corner of
Colonial Drive & Peachtree Road, including variances for lot coverage and Overlay standards.

Members of the BPCA have reached out to the developers in an attempt to view their proposal along with neighborhood
groups, and, while they seem to feel it would be desirable to meet, the feasibility of scheduling, meeting, reviewing &
having any reasonable input in time for the hearing seems almost impossible. It is just over 2 weeks away. We are
continuing with that attempt though.

As the Mayor once said about the property adjacent, this is the Gateway of the City, and, a long history of significant
battles over the development plans for this site guarantee that it will be highly emotional with much energy expended
towards enforcement of the Overlay standards.

I have no idea exactly what the proposal is, I have no idea what the Staff recommendation will be, I only want to stress the
importance of how the City handles this will set a tone for the future and will be significant to many.

Thanks,

Thomas Porter, AIA, LEED AP
thomasporter@earthlink.net
mob: 404.844.7959

This email message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any
attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message
(including attachments). The City of Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated 501870 to 501876 concerning public
records. Email is covered under such laws and thus may be subject to disclosure.
D.1.e
Packet Pg. 46
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

M
e
m
o

S
t
y
l
e

(
1
2
8
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
0
6
:

G
i
p
c
o

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

I
n
c
.

-
)
D
.
1
.
f
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

4
7
A t t a c h m e n t : R e v i s e d b u i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n ( 1 2 8 6 : Z B A 1 4 - 0 6 : G i p c o S o u t h e r n I n c . - )

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-16: Rockhaven Homes LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback from 40' to 20' to Construct a
Single Family Home - 1290 Oaklawn Avenue

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:


Update: This application was deferred for thirty days and placed on the May 20, 2014 agenda.
No additional information has been received.


ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA 14-16 Staff memo (DOCX)
ZBA14-16 application (PDF)
ZBA14-16 site plan (PDF)
D.2
Packet Pg. 48

Case: ZBA14-16
Location: 1290 Oaklawn Avenue
Tax Parcel #: 18 241 04 012
Property Owner/ Linda Langford Tawzer
Applicant: Rockhaven Homes, LLC
Request: To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 20 feet for the
construction of a single family residential home.

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a variance associated with this case as noted:

A. To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 20 feet for the construction of a single
family residential home (Section 27-196 (e).

The subject property is located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Oaklawn Avenue
and Apple Valley Road. The property is zoned R-75 (Single Family Residential District) and is
located in the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District. The subject parcel totals 0.23 acres (9,904
square feet). The existing parcel has approximately 105 feet of street frontage along Apple Valley
Road and 68 feet of street frontage along Oaklawn Avenue. The applicant seeks to construct a
two-story Glenwood style home with a width of 31 feet and depth of 66 feet. The proposed area
for the primary structure is identified as 4,092 square feet.

The applicant is seeking to demolish an existing home and re-construct a larger home on the subject
property. The new single family structure proposes a 20-foot encroachment to the rear yard
setback. The applicant seeks to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 40 feet to 20 feet.

The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the City Zoning Ordinance:

granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The Zoning Board of Appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason
of exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant,
the strict application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner
of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;

D.2.a
Packet Pg. 49
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
2
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
6
:

R
o
c
k
h
a
v
e
n

H
o
m
e
s

L
L
C

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

R
e
a
r

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

4
0
'

t
o

2
0
'

t
o

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

a

S
i
n
g
l
e
)

Staff Comment:
The building envelope as the result of required setbacks does not create exceptional shape for
the lot. The requested building footprint that has been created by the owner or applicant results
in an encroachment into the rear yard setback which may not be necessary. The strict
application of the requirements of this chapter may not deprive the property owner of rights
and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district.

(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and
does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;

Staff Comment:
The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback appears to go beyond the minimum
necessary to afford relief and may grant a special privilege inconsistent with other properties
within the zoning district.


Staff Comment:
The granting of this variance request maybe materially detrimental to the public welfare in
that there appears a sizable home could be built within the established building envelope.

(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements
of this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and

Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions of this chapter
may not cause undue or unnecessary hardship to the applicant but may merely impose an
inconvenience as an alternative building footprint could be reconfigured to comply with the
requirements of the setbacks.

(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and
the DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.

Staff Comment:
The requested variance has no impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the variance requested.

D.2.a
Packet Pg. 50
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
2
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
6
:

R
o
c
k
h
a
v
e
n

H
o
m
e
s

L
L
C

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

R
e
a
r

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

4
0
'

t
o

2
0
'

t
o

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

a

S
i
n
g
l
e
)
D
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

5
1
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 1 6 a p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 3 2 6 : Z B A 1 4 - 1 6 : R o c k h a v e n H o m e s L L C - R e d u c e R e a r Y a r d S e t b a c k
D
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

5
2
D
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

5
3
D
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

5
4
D
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

5
5
D
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

5
6
D
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

5
7
D
.
2
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

5
8
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 1 6 s i t e p l a n ( 1 3 2 6 : Z B A 1 4 - 1 6 : R o c k h a v e n H o m e s L L C - R e d u c e R e a r Y a r d S e t b a c k
D
.
2
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

5
9
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 1 6 s i t e p l a n ( 1 3 2 6 : Z B A 1 4 - 1 6 : R o c k h a v e n H o m e s L L C - R e d u c e R e a r Y a r d S e t b a c k

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-18: Drew Clough D.B.A Waterford Homes - Reduce 75' Stream Buffer to 50' and
Reduce Side Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' to Build a Single Family Home on Lot 12 - 2492 Ellijay
Drive

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:



ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA14-18 Application (PDF)
ZBA14-18 Site Plan stamped (PDF)
Fwd Rezoning Proposal on Ellijay Dr (PDF)
FW Comment ZBA-18 ZBA-19 (PDF)
E.1
Packet Pg. 60

Case: ZBA14-18
Location: 2492 Ellijay Drive (Lot 12)
Tax Parcel # 18-238-14-031
Property Owner: Eugene C. Aultman
Applicant: Drew Clough d.b.a Waterford Homes
Request: To reduce the stream buffer requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet and
reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet to build a single-
family home on lot 12

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting variances associated with this case as noted:

To reduce the stream buffer requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet; and
To reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet.

The stream buffer application was received after the stream buffer moratorium was lifted and
prior to the adoption of the amended ordinance on March 25, 2014. Therefore, review of this
request falls under the previous ordinance. In that regard, the Director opted not to consider the
request administratively which is construed as a denial and therefore defaults to the ZBA for
consideration.

The subject property exists as an interior lot along the west side of Ellijay Drive, approximately
80 feet south of its intersection with Canoochee Drive. The subject property was originally
platted as two 50-foot lots, then subsequently combined into one (1) lot. In February 2014, a lot
merger wavier was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, recognizing two separate parcels.
There is an existing single family home on the parcel. The applicant proposes to demolish the
existing structure and construct a larger home on the subject property. The lot size of the subject
property is 0.251 acres or 10,970.58 square feet. The current zoning of the property is R-75
(Single Family Residential District).

The applicant proposes two alternative plans to construct a home on the subject property. Plan
A proposes a home with 3,200 square feet including a deck. According to the applicant, heavy
equipment may be needed on site to build the home as indicated. Land disturbance is proposed
within the outer 25 feet of the 75-foot stream buffer, no impervious surface is proposed in that
area. Additionally, the applicant seeks a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to
4.0 feet.

Plan B proposes a narrower, deeper configuration for a 2,800 square-foot, two-story single
family home with a basement and deck. Plan B does not require a variance to reduce the side
setback but indicates an encroachment into the 75-foot stream buffer by approximately 20 feet.
E.1.a
Packet Pg. 61
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
8

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

S
i
d
e

The buffer intrusion of the proposed deck, portion of the home and associated land disturbance
area will equate to 251.35 square feet under Plan B.

The Department would note that the applicant identified an administrative variance under Plan
A with this request. However, the proposed administrative variance is not valid as it would
exceed the provision for granting of an administrative variance not to exceed 10% of the front
yard setback.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD IN REGARD TO THE STREAM BUFFER
VARIANCE
The Community Development Director nor the Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to
consider or to grant variances which are the responsibility of the Director of the Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) pursuant to O.C.G.A. 12-2-8. This first twenty five (25) feet
adjacent to the stream is the purview of the EPD and has not been requested. (The pertinent Land
Development Regulations which include stream buffers for the City of Brookhaven fall under the
provisions of DeKalb Countys Development Code (Chapter 14), as adopted by City of
Brookhaven.)

The following criteria shall be considered in evaluating the stream buffer variance request:
(A) The request will be protective of natural resources and the environment as would a plan
which met the strict application of these requirements. In making such a judgment, the
Board shall examine whether the request will be at least as protective of the natural
resources and the environment with regard to the following factors:
1. Stream bank or soil stabilization;
2. Trapping of sediment in surface runoff;
3. Removal of nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides and other pollutants from surface runoff;
4. Terrestrial habitat, food chain, and migration corridor;
5. Buffering of flood flows; and
6. Infiltration of surface runoff.

Staff Comment:
According to the stream buffer variance requested, the applicant proposes a robust
mitigation plan that will enhance the environment. The proposed mitigation plan will
provide replanting of indigenous, native plantings along the stream.

(B) By reason of exceptional topographic or other relevant physical conditions of the subject
property that were not created by the owner or applicant, there is no opportunity for any
development under any design configuration unless a variance is granted.

Staff Comment:
The creek and 75-foot stream buffer are relevant physical conditions that exist on the
subject property. The location of these physical elements were not created by the owner
or applicant. Additionally, the lot appears narrow in shape and the 75-foot stream
buffer encompasses the majority of the rear yard on lot 12. A design such as plan A
could be constructed on the property with minimal intrusion and without locating
impervious surfaces in the stream buffer.
E.1.a
Packet Pg. 62
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
8

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

S
i
d
e

(C) The request does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and does not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties that are similarly situated.

Staff Comment:
The requested variance to encroach into the stream buffer for both plans do not appear
to go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and would not constitute a grant of
special privilege. The proposed encroachment would allow for a house to be constructed
comparable to neighboring properties.

(D) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the area in which the property is located.

Staff Comment:
Staff would recognize that the subject property presents environmental challenges
associated with the stream buffer. Given appropriate mitigation and recommended
conditions, granting a variance to the stream buffer would not appear to be detrimental
to the public welfare of the area.

(E) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or
requirements of Chapter 14 would cause an extreme hardship, provided the hardship was
not created by the owner.

Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the stream buffer ordinance appears
to cause hardship to the applicant due to the relevant physical conditions applied by the
stream buffer and shape of the lot. Plan A proposes a minimal encroachment into the
stream buffer limited to grading and land disturbance; wherein, Plan B would require
a 20-foot encroachment into the stream buffer, but would not require an additional
variance to reduce the side yard setback and be in keeping with the design and form of
existing dwellings in the area.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD IN REGARDS TO SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS

The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should
be made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the City Zoning Ordinance: No relief
may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be granted
without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the intent
and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall
apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:

E.1.a
Packet Pg. 63
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
8

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

S
i
d
e

zoning district;

Staff Comment:
The proposed building footprint for Plan A would require an encroachment into the
side yard setback. The strict application of the requirements of this chapter under Plan
A, may not deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the same zoning district, as Plan B would show an alternative
building footprint that would comply with the required side yard setback.

(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and
does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon

Staff Comment:
The requested variance to reduce the side yard setback (Plan A) appears to go
beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and may grant a special privilege
inconsistent with other properties within the zoning district. Although Plan B would
require an encroachment into the stream buffer, the intrusion would occur in the outer
25-foot portion, similar to existing homes in the area and would not require additional
variances.


Staff Comment:
The granting of this variance request to reduce the side yard setback under Plan A
may be materially detrimental to the public welfare in that there appears a sizable
home could be built within the established building envelope. In addition, the reduction
in the side yard setback may negatively impact the neighboring properties.


Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions of this
chapter may not cause undue or unnecessary hardship to the applicant but may merely
impose an inconvenience as a building footprint in compliance with the required side
yard setback could be achieved under Plan B.

E.1.a
Packet Pg. 64
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
8

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

S
i
d
e


Staff Comment:


Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the requested variance to reduce the stream buffer
from 75 feet to 55 feet on Lot 12, as proposed under Plan B.

Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the requested variance to reduce the side yard setback
from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet on Lot 12, as proposed under Plan A.


1. Development of the subject property shall occur in accordance with Plan B
submitted on March 24, 2014 to the Community Development Department.

2. Development on the lot shall include practice(s) that will capture 1.2 inches of runoff
from rooftops to be discharged in no less than 24 hours and that facilitates discharge
through infiltration, evaporation, and/or transpiration.

3. Submittal of a stream buffer mitigation plan for approval by the City Arborist at time
of building permit.

E.1.a
Packet Pg. 65
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
8

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

S
i
d
e
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

6
6
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 1 8 A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 3 7 2 : Z B A 1 4 - 1 8 : D r e w C l o u g h D . B . A W a t e r f o r d H o m e s - R e d u c e 7 5 '
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

6
7
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

6
8
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

6
9
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

7
0
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

7
1
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

7
2
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

7
3
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

7
4
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

7
5
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

7
6
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

7
7
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

7
8
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

7
9
E
.
1
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

8
0
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 81
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8

S
i
t
e

P
l
a
n

s
t
a
m
p
e
d

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 82
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8

S
i
t
e

P
l
a
n

s
t
a
m
p
e
d

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 83
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8

S
i
t
e

P
l
a
n

s
t
a
m
p
e
d

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e
1
Becky Apter
From: Susan Canon
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 7:24 AM
To: Becky Apter; Ben Song
Subject: Fwd: Rezoning Proposal on Ellijay Dr
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bates Mattison <bates.mattison@brookhavenga.gov>
Date: May 5, 2014, 7:02:04 AM EDT
To: Fergus Thomas <fergus.thomas@gmail.com>
Cc: Catherine Thomas <catiethomas@gmail.com>, Susan Canon <susan.canon@brookhavenga.gov>
Subject: Re: Rezoning Proposal on Ellijay Dr
Thank you for your comments. I've forwarded your concerns to our planning dept director, Susan
Cannon.
Sent from my iPhone
D. Bates Mattison
Executive Director
Institute for Healthcare IT
1600 Atlanta Financial Center
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30326
(404) 786-6482
www.InstituteForHIT.org
Sent from my iPhone
D. Bates Mattison
City Council- District 3
City of Brookhaven
4362 Peachtree Road
Brookhaven, GA 30319
Main: 404-637-0500
Direct: 678-390-3424
Cell: 404-786-6482
bates.mattison@brookhavenga.gov
www.brookhavenga.gov
On May 5, 2014, at 12:13 AM, Fergus Thomas <fergus.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Bates,
We live at 2488 Ellijay and wanted to speak with you regarding the proposed rezoning of
the lots adjacent to us. What is the best course to take to protest this proposed change.
E.1.d
Packet Pg. 84
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

F
w
d

R
e
z
o
n
i
n
g

P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l

o
n

E
l
l
i
j
a
y

D
r

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d
2
While we understand that development will happen, we want it to be done in a way that is
not detrimental to the neighborhood and in our case the protected waterway that runs
through this property. We have serious concerns about the setbacks on both the sides and
rear of the property.
Waterway concerns: (photos showing line of houses at rear which 50ft puts new house
rear about 10ft past our existing deck, pics also show flooding of creek and sewer lines
(note, this pic isn't the worst flooding we've seen but representative).
decreasing the rear set back to 50ft puts potential building far out of line with the
rest of the homes lining this street. It also encroaches on the stream that runs to
the rear of the property.
Along this creek runs the main sewer line with a sewer manhole in our property.
Over the past 8 months since the increased development and hence increased non-
porous surfaces we've seen significant increases in flooding and volume of water
down this creek so much so that we've taken to shoring up the land with erosion
control boulders. Our concern is that further washout will eventually washout the
brick sewer main contaminating the creek with sewage. All the houses along this
side of Ellijay have the main house sewers cross this stream and on frequent
occasions we find those pipes under water and impacted with debris from these
flash floods.
With the 2 sets of large apartment blocks, 5 new houses at the beginning of
Ellijay, and the 5 new homes being built (or proposed) above us on Fernwood this
flooding issue will get worse as all these properties drain into that creek bed.
Trying to squeeze even more sq footage onto the 2 lots next to us is disastrous
planning given the waterway on the property. The existing zoning and setbacks
would help protect the neighborhood.
Environmental concern 2: Specimen Tree (pics included)
At the rear of this property there is an 80 yr old oak on the street side of the creek.
The proposed rear setback would put excavation and damaging heavy equipment
operating around the root system of this tree. The proposed 50 ft setback would
have a building within 10-13 feet of this tree. Destabilizing this tree would be an
immediate danger to the safety of our house and our family and small children.
The 75ft ft setback protects not only the waterway but also native trees like this
water oak.
Property access concerns (side setbacks):
Decreasing the setback from 7.5ft to 4, creates a situation where access to our
yard or the proposed new house would be severally compromised. Our house and
our other neighbor both have the A/C units on the same side of the house creating
no access to our yard from the south side. The north side which is where the
proposed rezoning lot is located is our only access to the back. As mentioned,
with a main sewer out at the rear of our property, moving to a 4 ft side setback
would eliminate the ability of water management to get equipment back to repair
or maintain that sewer line that runs along the creek bank. 7.5ft is a reasonable
setback and one being adhered to by the builders of 4 new homes on Ellijay just 2
houses down from the lots next to us.
The move to rezone seems like an attempt by a builder to squeeze more sq footage onto a
lot in order to maximize their revenue. While good for the builder, it certainly isn't good
E.1.d
Packet Pg. 85
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

F
w
d

R
e
z
o
n
i
n
g

P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l

o
n

E
l
l
i
j
a
y

D
r

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d
3
for the neighborhood or the city which will be left with the impact to the creek,
inaccessibility to the sewer lines and potential loss of one of the most beautiful trees in
Brookhaven. The 4 other new homes being built just up the street on the same side of
Ellijay with the creek all have been constructed with the zoned 7.5ft side setbacks and
75ft rear setbacks. Why would these 2 lots just 2 houses down be any different? Those
houses that adhered to existing zoning have been easily constructed and sold without
creating houses sitting on top of each other or encroaching into our
waterway.Development can be great but not when its unrestricted and driven by builders
who don't have the best long term interest of our community in mind. We need to protect
our community.
I'd love for you to stop by the lots and see for yourself. We'd hope that you would support
us in opposing this rezoning and informing us on what information or action we'd need to
do in order for the zoning commission to make the right decision in this case. I'd love to
schedule time in person to discuss.
My number is 404-984-7230
Thank you for your help,
Fergus and Catie Thomas
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all
copies of the original message (including attachments). The City of Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated
50-18-70 to 50-18-76 concerning public records. Email is covered under such laws and thus may be subject to disclosure.
E.1.d
Packet Pg. 86
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

F
w
d

R
e
z
o
n
i
n
g

P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l

o
n

E
l
l
i
j
a
y

D
r

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d
1
Becky Apter
From: Ben Song
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:26 AM
To: External-Zoning Board of Appeals
Cc: Becky Apter; Susan Canon
Subject: FW: Comment ZBA-18 & ZBA-19
Board members,
Please see below for comment provided by Mr. Porter expressing his opposition to ZBA14-18 and ZBA14-19.
Thank you,
Ben Song
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Brookhaven | www.brookhavenga.gov
O: 404-637-0536
F: 404-637-0537
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). The City of
Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated 50-18-70 to 50-18-76 concerning public records. Email is covered under such laws and
thus may be subject to disclosure.
From:Thomas Porter, AIA, LEED AP [mailto:thomasporter@earthlink.net]
Sent:Wednesday, May 07, 2014 10:40 AM
To:Susan Canon; Ben Song
Subject:Comment ZBA-18 & ZBA-19
Ms. Canon & Mr. Song;
Please provide my comments below to all members of the ZBA as park of the packet in advance of the May hearing. Thank you.
Members of the ZBA;
With regard to the two referenced variances for stream buffer encroachment & side yard reductions, please enter my strong
opposition to both and note:
I TOLD YOU SO!
This property was legally conforming R-75 zoning before waiver of lot merger was approved two hearings ago. By the applicants
own writing it was merged not by the County but rather by his relative for monetary gain, it was/is as I argued unbuildable as two
lots. Mr. Nama asked Mr. Song what the buildable area was and the response was approx. 30 x 60 (see video), which, is a
misleading response. I am guessing the staff recommendation is approval... again.
This neighborhood is under siege, the stream buffer has been in place for a decade or more, when do current residents get the
benefit of ordinances they thought were in-place & would be upheld? If not when a property changes ownership then, when
exactly?
The waiver of lot merger was a sham by a ol fella that just wanted to sell the property for his family, no sale signs have gone up
since well before that waiver approval and now you have a new owner and new variance requests which couldnt have been
combined because an applicant cant create a hardship. It was orchestrated by the builder/purchaser before the waiver, it makes a
mockery of the ordinances, and, unfortunately, a mockery of the purpose of the ZBA.
E.1.e
Packet Pg. 87
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

F
W

C
o
m
m
e
n
t

Z
B
A
-
1
8

Z
B
A
-
1
9

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d
2
I implore you to deny these variances. Brookhaven Fields is a popular neighborhood because it is a quirky mix of all different
types, styles and sizes of homes as I have heard many say . Granting every builder the right to build commensurate size houses
will ruin the character of this neighborhood & most importantly, the environment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thomas Porter, AIA, LEEDAP
www.thomasporter.net
mob: 404.844.7959
E.1.e
Packet Pg. 88
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

F
W

C
o
m
m
e
n
t

Z
B
A
-
1
8

Z
B
A
-
1
9

(
1
3
7
2

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
8
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-19: Drew Clough D.B.A Waterford Homes - Reduce 75' Stream Buffer to 50' and
Reduce Side Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' to Build a Single Family Home on Lot 11 - 2496 Ellijay
Drive

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:



ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA14-19 Site Plan (PDF)
FW Comment ZBA-18 ZBA-19 (PDF)
E.2
Packet Pg. 89

Case: ZBA14-19
Location: 2496 Ellijay Drive (Lot 11)
Tax Parcel # 18-238-14-031
Property Owner/ Eugene C. Aultman
Applicant: Drew Clough d.b.a Waterford Homes
Request: To reduce the stream buffer requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet and
reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet to build a single-
family home on lot 11

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting two variances associated with this case as noted:

To reduce the stream buffer requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet
To reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet

The stream buffer application was received after the stream buffer moratorium was lifted and
prior to the adoption of the amended ordinance on March 25, 2014. Therefore, review of this
request falls under the previous ordinance. In that regard, the Director opted not to consider the
request administratively which is construed as a denial and therefore defaults to the ZBA for
consideration.

The subject property exists as an interior lot located along the west side of Ellijay Drive,
approximately 80 feet south of its intersection with Canoochee Drive. The subject property was
originally platted as two 50-foot lots, then subsequently combined into one (1) lot. In February
2014, a lot merger wavier was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), recognizing
two separate parcels. The applicant proposes to construct a larger home on the subject property.
The lot size of the subject property is 0.239 acres or 10,409.36 square feet. The current zoning of
the property is R-75 (Single Family Residential District).

The applicant proposes two alternative plans to construct a home on the subject property. Plan
A proposes a home with 3,200 square feet including a deck. The buffer intrusion proposed by
the house on Lot 11 under Plan A is 138.73 square feet. Land disturbance is proposed for the
location of impervious surfaces within the outer 25 feet of the 75-foot stream buffer.
Additionally, the applicant seeks a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.0
feet.

Plan B proposes a narrower, deeper configuration for a 2,800 square-foot, two-story single
family home with a basement and deck. Plan B does not require a variance to reduce the side
yard setback but indicates an encroachment into the 75-foot stream buffer by 25 feet. The buffer
intrusion, which includes a portion of the home and deck, will equate to 556.87 square feet.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 90
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
9

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
3

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
9
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

S
i
d
e

The Department would note that the applicant identified an administrative variance under Plan
A with this request. However, the proposed administrative variance is not valid as it would
exceed the provision for granting of an administrative variance not to exceed 10% of the front
yard setback.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD IN REGARD TO THE STREAM BUFFER
VARIANCE
The Community Development Director nor the Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to
consider or to grant variances which are the responsibility of the Director of the Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) pursuant to O.C.G.A. 12-2-8. This first twenty five (25) feet
adjacent to the stream is the purview of the EPD and has not been requested. (The pertinent Land
Development Regulations which include stream buffers for the City of Brookhaven fall under the
provisions of DeKalb Countys Development Code (Chapter 14), as adopted by City of
Brookhaven.)

The following criteria shall be considered in evaluating the stream buffer variance request:
(A) The request will be protective of natural resources and the environment as would a plan
which met the strict application of these requirements. In making such a judgment, the
Board shall examine whether the request will be at least as protective of the natural
resources and the environment with regard to the following factors:
1. Stream bank or soil stabilization;
2. Trapping of sediment in surface runoff;
3. Removal of nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides and other pollutants from surface runoff;
4. Terrestrial habitat, food chain, and migration corridor;
5. Buffering of flood flows; and
6. Infiltration of surface runoff.

Staff Comment:
According to the stream buffer variance requested, the applicant proposes a robust mitigation
plan that will enhance the environment. The proposed mitigation plan will provide replanting of
indigenous, native plantings along the stream.

(B) By reason of exceptional topographic or other relevant physical conditions of the subject
property that were not created by the owner or applicant, there is no opportunity for any
development under any design configuration unless a variance is granted.

Staff Comment:
The creek and 75-foot stream buffer are relevant physical conditions that exist on the subject
property. The location of these physical elements were not created by the owner or applicant.
Additionally, the lot appears narrow in shape and the 75-foot stream buffer encompasses the
majority of the rear yard on lot 11. A design such as plan A could be constructed on the
property with minimal intrusion into the stream buffer.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 91
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
9

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
3

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
9
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

S
i
d
e

(C) The request does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and does not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties that are similarly situated.

Staff Comment:
The requested variance to encroach into the stream buffer for both plans do not appear to go
beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and would not constitute a grant of special
privilege. The proposed encroachment would allow for a house to be constructed comparable to
neighboring properties.

(D) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the area in which the property is located.

Staff Comment:
Staff would recognize that the subject property presents environmental challenges associated with
the stream buffer. Given appropriate mitigation and recommended conditions, granting a variance
to the stream buffer would not appear to be detrimental to the public welfare of the area.

(E) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements
of Chapter 14 would cause an extreme hardship, provided the hardship was not created by
the owner.

Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the stream buffer ordinance appears to cause
hardship to the applicant due to the relevant physical conditions applied by the stream buffer and
shape of the lot. Plan A proposes a minimal encroachment of 14.0 feet into the stream buffer;
Wherein, Plan B would require a 25-foot encroachment into the stream buffer, but would not
require an additional variance to reduce the side yard setback and be in keeping with the design
and form of existing dwellings in the area.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD IN REGARDS TO SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS

The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the City Zoning Ordinance: No relief may
be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the intent and
purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall apply
the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:

(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the
strict application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights
and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
E.2.a
Packet Pg. 92
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
9

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
3

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
9
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

S
i
d
e

Staff Comment:
The proposed building footprint for Plan A would require an encroachment into the side yard
setback. The strict application of the requirements of this chapter under Plan A, may not
deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same
zoning district, as Plan B would show an alternative building envelope that would comply with
the required side yard setback.

(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located;

Staff Comment:
The requested variance to reduce the side yard setback (Plan A) appears to go beyond the
minimum necessary to afford relief and may grant a special privilege inconsistent with other
properties within the zoning district. Although both plans would require an encroachment into
the stream buffer, Plan B does not require a variance to reduce the site yard setback.

(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;

Staff Comment:
The granting of this variance request to reduce the side yard setback under Plan A maybe
materially detrimental to the public welfare in that there appears a sizable home could be built
within the established building envelope. In addition, the reduction in the side yard setback may
negatively impact the neighboring properties.

(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and

Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions of this chapter may
not cause undue or unnecessary hardship to the applicant but may merely impose an
inconvenience as a building footprint in compliance with the required side yard setback could be
achieved under Plan B.

(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.

Staff Comment:

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 93
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
9

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
3

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
9
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

S
i
d
e


Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the requested variance to reduce the stream buffer
from 75 feet to 50 feet on Lot 11, as proposed under Plan B.

Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the requested variance to reduce the side yard setback
from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet on Lot 11, as proposed under Plan A.

1. Development of the subject property shall occur in accordance with Plan B submitted
on March 24, 2014 to the Community Development Department.

2. Development on lot shall include practice(s) that will capture 1.2 inches of runoff from
rooftops to be discharged in no less than 24 hours and that facilitates discharge through
infiltration, evaporation, and/or transpiration.

3. Submittal of a stream buffer mitigation plan for approval by the City Arborist at time of
building permit.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 94
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
1
9

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
3

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
9
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

S
i
d
e
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

9
5
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

9
6
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

9
7
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

9
8
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

9
9
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
0
0
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
0
1
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
0
2
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
0
3
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
0
4
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
0
5
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
0
6
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
0
7
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
0
8
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
0
9
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
1
0
E
.
2
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
1
1
E
.
2
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
1
2
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 1 9 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 3 : Z B A 1 4 - 1 9 : D r e w C l o u g h D . B . A W a t e r f o r d H o m e s - R e d u c e 7 5 '
E
.
2
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
1
3
E
.
2
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
1
4
E
.
2
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
1
5
1
Becky Apter
From: Ben Song
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:26 AM
To: External-Zoning Board of Appeals
Cc: Becky Apter; Susan Canon
Subject: FW: Comment ZBA-18 & ZBA-19
Board members,
Please see below for comment provided by Mr. Porter expressing his opposition to ZBA14-18 and ZBA14-19.
Thank you,
Ben Song
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Brookhaven | www.brookhavenga.gov
O: 404-637-0536
F: 404-637-0537
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). The City of
Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated 50-18-70 to 50-18-76 concerning public records. Email is covered under such laws and
thus may be subject to disclosure.
From:Thomas Porter, AIA, LEED AP [mailto:thomasporter@earthlink.net]
Sent:Wednesday, May 07, 2014 10:40 AM
To:Susan Canon; Ben Song
Subject:Comment ZBA-18 & ZBA-19
Ms. Canon & Mr. Song;
Please provide my comments below to all members of the ZBA as park of the packet in advance of the May hearing. Thank you.
Members of the ZBA;
With regard to the two referenced variances for stream buffer encroachment & side yard reductions, please enter my strong
opposition to both and note:
I TOLD YOU SO!
This property was legally conforming R-75 zoning before waiver of lot merger was approved two hearings ago. By the applicants
own writing it was merged not by the County but rather by his relative for monetary gain, it was/is as I argued unbuildable as two
lots. Mr. Nama asked Mr. Song what the buildable area was and the response was approx. 30 x 60 (see video), which, is a
misleading response. I am guessing the staff recommendation is approval... again.
This neighborhood is under siege, the stream buffer has been in place for a decade or more, when do current residents get the
benefit of ordinances they thought were in-place & would be upheld? If not when a property changes ownership then, when
exactly?
The waiver of lot merger was a sham by a ol fella that just wanted to sell the property for his family, no sale signs have gone up
since well before that waiver approval and now you have a new owner and new variance requests which couldnt have been
combined because an applicant cant create a hardship. It was orchestrated by the builder/purchaser before the waiver, it makes a
mockery of the ordinances, and, unfortunately, a mockery of the purpose of the ZBA.
E.2.d
Packet Pg. 116
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

F
W

C
o
m
m
e
n
t

Z
B
A
-
1
8

Z
B
A
-
1
9

(
1
3
7
3

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
9
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d
2
I implore you to deny these variances. Brookhaven Fields is a popular neighborhood because it is a quirky mix of all different
types, styles and sizes of homes as I have heard many say . Granting every builder the right to build commensurate size houses
will ruin the character of this neighborhood & most importantly, the environment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thomas Porter, AIA, LEEDAP
www.thomasporter.net
mob: 404.844.7959
E.2.d
Packet Pg. 117
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

F
W

C
o
m
m
e
n
t

Z
B
A
-
1
8

Z
B
A
-
1
9

(
1
3
7
3

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
1
9
:

D
r
e
w

C
l
o
u
g
h

D
.
B
.
A

W
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
d

H
o
m
e
s

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

7
5
'

S
t
r
e
a
m

B
u
f
f
e
r

t
o

5
0
'

a
n
d

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-20: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC - to Eliminate the Requirement for a Single Loading
Space; to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree Road; to Allow an ATM as an Accessory Structure and
to Vary from 27-728.15.7(A) and 27.728.15.12(F)(3); and to Allow for an Additional Ground
Sign (Chapter 21) - 4260 Peachtree Road

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:



ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA 14-20 Staff memo_revised (PDF)
ZBA14-20 Full application (PDF)
ZBA14-20 Revised Site Plan (PDF)
ZBA14-20 Site Plan_ATM (PDF)
E.3
Packet Pg. 118

Case: ZBA14-20
Location: 4260 Peachtree Road
Tax Parcel # 18-241-03-015
Property Owner: George Menzoian
Applicant: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC
Request: To eliminate the requirement for a single loading space (Section 27-
755(b)(2)); to allow a curb cut on Peachtree Road (Section 27-
728.15.12 (d)(3)); to allow an ATM as an accessory structure (Section
27-731(d)) and to vary from Sections 27-728.15.7(a) and
27.728.15.12(f)(3); and to allow for an additional ground sign
(Chapter 21)

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting six variances associated with this case as noted:

1. Loading space Section 27-755(b)(2) - Retail uses including all first floor
nonresidential uses with a gross floor area of less than twenty thousand (20,000) square
feet, and all wholesale and light industrial operations with a gross floor area of less than
ten thousand (10,000) square feet shall provide one (1) loading space.
Variance request: Eliminate requirement for a single loading space

2. Access/curb cuts 27-728.15.12(d)(3) - All parking shall be accessed via shared alleys
or private drives. No curb cuts shall be allowed on primary streets (Peachtree Road and
Apple Valley Road) if the development is accessible by another street. If an existing block
face on a primary street exceeds seven-hundred (700) linear feet, then one (1) curb cut
per seven-hundred (700) linear feet is allowed. If a development is accessible from more
than one (1) secondary or tertiary street (Dresden Drive, North Druid Hills Road,
Hermance Drive, Ashford-Dunwoody Road, Lanier Drive, Osborne Road and
Brookhaven Place), the development shall be limited to one (1) curb cut per block face. If
a development is only accessible from one (1) street, the development is limited to two (2)
curb cuts on that street.
Variance request: To allow a full access curb cut on Peachtree Road

3. ATM as an accessory structure 27-731(d) - No accessory building or structure in a
nonresidential district shall be used by other than employees of the owner, lessee or
tenant of the premises, unless otherwise allowed by provisions of this chapter.
Variance request: Allow for an accessory drive-up ATM kiosk

4. Architectural design requirements 27-728.15.7(a) - Allowable building materials
shall include brick, stone, wood, architectural metal siding, and fiber cement siding.
Building facades that are visible from primary roadways (Peachtree Road, Apple Valley
Road) and secondary roadways (Dresden Drive, North Druid hills Road, Hermance
Drive, Ashford-Dunwoody Road, Lanier Drive, Osborne Drive, or Brookhaven Place)
E.3.a
Packet Pg. 119
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
0

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

should predominantly use brick and stone. The following building materials shall be
prohibited: vinyl siding, exposed concrete block or concrete masonry units, exposed
plywood, plastic or PVC, and synthetic stucco or EIFS.
Variance request: To eliminate building materials requirement for the proposed ATM
kiosk

5. Development standards (Building height) 27-728.15.12(f)(3) All buildings within
the Peachtree-Brookhaven Overlay District shall be a minimum of two (2) stories tall and
twenty-eight (28) feet in height.
Variance request: To eliminate the two-story requirement for the ATM kiosk

6. Ground sign 21-20(c) - No property zoned for non-residential use may have more than
one (1) ground sign that is oriented towards travelers along the same street.
Variance request: To allow a 19-foot tall ground sign for identification of the proposed
ATM kiosk

The subject property is a vacant gas station located at the southwest corner of Kendrick Road and
Peachtree Road. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and redevelop the
site into a two-story building. The first level proposes 2,500 square feet for a financial institution
and 2,500 square feet for retail use. The second level is proposed to be occupied by 5,000 square
feet of office space. The subject property containing 0.617 acres is zoned C-1 (Local
Commercial District) and located in the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District. The applicant
proposes to maintain the existing curb cut on Kendrick Road and relocate the existing curb cut
on Peachtree Road closer towards the southern property line. Based on the submitted site plan,
the site has approximately 136.91 feet of frontage along Peachtree Road and 169.46 feet of
frontage along Kendrick Road. The proposed building will observe zero lot lines from all
property lines and is proposed to be constructed predominantly of brick. A total of thirty-three
(33) parking spaces are proposed for the site.

In addition to the construction of the two-story commercial building, the applicant seeks to
construct a drive-up ATM kiosk in the rear of the site as an accessory to the financial institution.
The drive-up ATM will include as part of its design a 19-foot tall ground sign emblazoned with
the bank logo for identification purposes and an orange canopy. The overlay requires that all
buildings be at minimum two-stories and comply with the building material requirements;
however, the proposed ATM will not comply with both requirements.

Lastly, regarding the proposed ground sign as part of the ATM kiosk, the applicant has identified
a monument sign along Peachtree Road as shown on the submitted site plan. The ground sign
associated with the ATM appears to be oriented towards Peachtree Road and therefore, is
required to apply for this variance as two ground signs are proposed to be oriented toward
travelers along the same street.

E.3.a
Packet Pg. 120
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
0

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g


zoning district;

Staff Comment:
There are no issues associated with the subject property relating to shape of the lot or
topography. However, strict application of the requirements of this chapter related to
loading space and relocation of the curb cut on Peachtree Road would deprive the
zoning district. Based on the submitted site plan, retail use would only occupy one-fourth
of the proposed building with the remaining portions of the building occupied by office
use or a bank. The subject property currently exists with a full access drive on Peachtree
Road and the applicant seeks to relocate the access point further away from the
intersection with Kendrick Road.


Staff Comment:
The requested variances related to the proposed drive-up ATM kiosk would go beyond
the minimum necessary to afford relief. Varying from Sections 27-728.15.7(a) and 27-
728.15.12(f)(3), and allowing for an ATM kiosk with a 19-foot tall sign to be located in
the rear of the property would grant a special privilege inconsistent with limitation upon
other properties, and further detract from the purpose and intent of the Brookhaven-
Peachtree Overlay District in promoting walkability and pedestrian access. An
alternative ATM location could be provided inside or along the exterior wall of the bank
for better access for pedestrians.


Staff Comment:
With the exception of variances related to the proposed drive-up ATM kiosk - Sections
27-728.15.7(a) and 27-728.15.12(f)(3), allowing an ATM kiosk as an accessory structure,
and a 19-foot tall ground sign for the purpose of identification of the ATM in the rear of
E.3.a
Packet Pg. 121
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
0

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

the site; granting of the other two variances would not appear to be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zoning district as these
variances would not stray overwhelmingly from the intent and vision of the overlay. It is
the opinion of staff, however, that the proposed curb cut on Peachtree Road be limited to
a right-in and right-out only access to minimize traffic impacts associated with the
intersection of Kendrick Road and Peachtree Road.

The proposed drive-up ATM kiosk may be additionally detrimental to the public welfare
as the subject property abuts residential uses to the west and may adversely impact the
existing residential use with the visibility of a 19-foot tall sign and with the increase in
vehicular traffic on the site with a 24-hour available ATM kiosk.


Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of provisions to loading space (Section 27-
755(b)(2) and access (Section 27-728.15.12(d)(3)) could be considered as hardships since
the full vision and utility of the design would not be realized without granting of variances.
The variances related to the proposed drive-up ATM kiosk - Sections 27-728.15.7(a) and
27-728.15.12(f)(3), allowing an ATM kiosk as an accessory structure, and a 19-foot tall
ground sign for the purpose of identification of the ATM; however, do not appear to be
hardships. Allowing for a drive-up ATM would promote vehicular usage over pedestrian
accessibility. Furthermore, the design standards established for the Brookhaven-Peachtree
Overlay District would discourage the implementation of drive-up facilities and instead
promotes the design and arrangement of structures, buildings, streets, and open spaces to
create an inviting, walkable, mid-rise, human-scale environment.


Staff Comment:
With the exception of variances related to the drive-up ATM kiosk, the remaining
variances would be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.

1. Variance to loading space Section 27-755(b)(2)
Request: Eliminate requirement for a single loading space.

Recommendation: Approval

2. Variance to access/curb cut 27-728.15.12(d)(3)
Request: To allow a full access curb cut on Peachtree Road

E.3.a
Packet Pg. 122
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
0

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

Recommendation: Approval for a right-in and right-out only curb cut

3. Variance to allow an ATM as an accessory structure 27-731(d)
Request: Allow for an accessory drive-up ATM kiosk.

Recommendation: Denial

4. Variance to architectural design requirements 27-728.15.7(a)
Request: To eliminate building materials requirement for the proposed ATM kiosk.


5. Variance to development standards (Building height) 27-728.15.12(f)(3)
Request: To eliminate the two-story requirement for the ATM kiosk.


6. Variance to Ground sign 21-20(c)
Request: To allow a 19-foot tall ground sign for identification of the proposed ATM
kiosk.



1. Development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted on April
17, 2014 to the Community Development Department.
2. Owner/developer shall provide an access easement on the subject property to allow for
future interparcel access with the adjacent parcel to the south.
3. The curb-cut on Peachtree Road shall be limited to a right-in and right-out drive only, and
the owner/developer must obtain a Driveway Permit from GDOT.

E.3.a
Packet Pg. 123
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
0

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g
E.3.b
Packet Pg. 124
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0

F
u
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e
;
E.3.b
Packet Pg. 125
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0

F
u
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e
;
E.3.b
Packet Pg. 126
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0

F
u
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e
;
E.3.b
Packet Pg. 127
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0

F
u
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e
;
E.3.b
Packet Pg. 128
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0

F
u
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e
;
E.3.b
Packet Pg. 129
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0

F
u
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e
;
E.3.b
Packet Pg. 130
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0

F
u
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e
;
E.3.b
Packet Pg. 131
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0

F
u
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
3
7
4

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
0
:

C
a
l
i
b
e
r

B
r
o
o
k
h
a
v
e
n
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

t
h
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e
;
E
.
3
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
3
2
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 0 F u l l a p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 3 7 4 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 0 : C a l i b e r B r o o k h a v e n , L L C - t o E l i m i n a t e t h e
E
.
3
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
3
3
E
.
3
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
3
4
E
.
3
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
3
5
E
.
3
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
3
6
E
.
3
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
3
7
E
.
3
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
3
8
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 0 F u l l a p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 3 7 4 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 0 : C a l i b e r B r o o k h a v e n , L L C - t o E l i m i n a t e t h e R e q u i r e m e n t f o r a S i n g l e L o a d i n g S p a c e ; t o A l l o )
E
.
3
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
3
9
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 0 R e v i s e d S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 4 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 0 : C a l i b e r B r o o k h a v e n , L L C - t o E l i m i n a t e t h e R e q u i r e m e n t f o r a S i n g l e L o a d i n g S p a c e ; t o A l l o )
E
.
3
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
4
0
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 0 R e v i s e d S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 4 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 0 : C a l i b e r B r o o k h a v e n , L L C - t o E l i m i n a t e t h e R e q u i r e m e n t f o r a S i n g l e L o a d i n g S p a c e ; t o A l l o )
E
.
3
.
d
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
4
1
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 0 S i t e P l a n _ A T M ( 1 3 7 4 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 0 : C a l i b e r B r o o k h a v e n , L L C - t o E l i m i n a t e t h e R e q u i r e m e n t f o r a S i n g l e L o a d i n g S p a c e ; t o A l l o )

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-21: David Bennett -Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 50% to Build a Swimming Pool
and Associated Pool Deck - 1013 Pine Grove

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:



ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA14-21 pic (PDF)
E.4
Packet Pg. 142

Case: ZBA14-21
Location: 1013 Pine Grove Avenue, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel # 18-200-04-030
Property Owner: Brad Lewis
Applicant: David Bennett
Request: Increase the lot coverage from 35% to 50%

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the lot coverage from 35% to 50% to allow the
development of a swimming pool.

The subject property is located at the west end of Pine Grove Avenue just south of its
intersection at Standard Drive NE. The property is zoned R-75 (Single-Family Residential
District) wherein the district requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 75 feet of street
frontage. Under the district requirements, the property is viewed as a legal non-conforming lot
of record as it totals 0.212 acres (9,125 square feet) and has 50 feet of street frontage. It should
be noted that many of the nearby lots are also legal non-conforming as they were originally
platted with 50 foot frontages. Currently the property contains a two-story brick home that was
constructed in 2004. As it exists today, the lot coverage stands at approximately 39%.


zoning district;

Staff Comment:
The lot appears to be narrow; however, the strict application of requirements concerning
lot coverage would not appear to deprive the property owner of rights and privileges
enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district as the proposed lot
coverage appears to be greater than other R-75 zoned lots in the neighborhood. As
noted, the coverage on the lot already exceeds the 35% lot coverage requirement at 39%.
E.4.a
Packet Pg. 143
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
1

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
5

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
1
:

D
a
v
i
d

B
e
n
n
e
t
t

-

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

L
o
t

C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
r
o
m

3
5
%

t
o

5
0
%

t
o

B
u
i
l
d

a

S
w
i
m
m
i
n
g

P
o
o
l

a
n
d


Staff Comment:
The requested variance does not appear to go beyond the minimum necessary to afford
relief but would appear to grant a special privilege inconsistent with lot coverage placed
upon other properties in the same district.

(3) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or

Staff Comment:
Due to the potential for greater storm water run-off, granting the requested variance may
be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property and surrounding area.
Additionally, the pool may impact critical root zones of trees found on the neighboring
properties.


Staff Comment:
It appears that the literal interpretation and strict application of the requirements of the
chapter may merely impose an inconvenience to the applicant as they would be unable to
construct a pool in their back yard.


Staff Comment:

Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the application.

Should the Board vote in favor of the request to increase the lot coverage from 35% to 50% staff
recommends the following conditions:

1. Development of the subject property shall occur in accordance with the site plan
E.4.a
Packet Pg. 144
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
1

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
5

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
1
:

D
a
v
i
d

B
e
n
n
e
t
t

-

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

L
o
t

C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
r
o
m

3
5
%

t
o

5
0
%

t
o

B
u
i
l
d

a

S
w
i
m
m
i
n
g

P
o
o
l

a
n
d

2. Construction of new pool and deck shall include practice(s) that will capture 1.2 inches of
runoff from new impervious surfaces and that facilitates discharge through infiltration,
evaporation, and/or transpiration.

E.4.a
Packet Pg. 145
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
1

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
5

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
1
:

D
a
v
i
d

B
e
n
n
e
t
t

-

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

L
o
t

C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
r
o
m

3
5
%

t
o

5
0
%

t
o

B
u
i
l
d

a

S
w
i
m
m
i
n
g

P
o
o
l

a
n
d
E
.
4
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
4
6
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 1 A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 3 7 5 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 1 : D a v i d B e n n e t t - I n c r e a s e L o t C o v e r a g e f r o m 3 5 % t o
E
.
4
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
4
7
E
.
4
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
4
8
E
.
4
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
4
9
E
.
4
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
5
0
E
.
4
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
5
1
E
.
4
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
5
2
E
.
4
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
5
3
E
.
4
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
5
4
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 1 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 5 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 1 : D a v i d B e n n e t t - I n c r e a s e L o t C o v e r a g e f r o m 3 5 % t o 5 0 % t o B u i l d a S w i m m i n g P o o l a n d A s s o c i a )
E
.
4
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
5
5
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 1 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 5 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 1 : D a v i d B e n n e t t - I n c r e a s e L o t C o v e r a g e f r o m 3 5 % t o 5 0 % t o B u i l d a S w i m m i n g P o o l a n d A s s o c i a )
E
.
4
.
d
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
5
6
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 1 p i c ( 1 3 7 5 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 1 : D a v i d B e n n e t t - I n c r e a s e L o t C o v e r a g e f r o m 3 5 % t o 5 0 % t o B u i l d a S w i m m i n g P o o l a n d A s s o c i a )

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-22: Vance Dover -Reduce the Accessory Structure Setback from 10' to 7.5' and Increase
Lot Coverage from 35% to 47.3% to Build a Swimming Pool and Associated Pool Deck - 1175
Pinegrove Avenue

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:
Please see the attached files.



ATTACHMENTS:

E.5
Packet Pg. 157

Case: ZBA14-22
Location: 1175 Pine Grove Avenue, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel # 18-200-07-061
Property Owner: Martin and Kim Neary
Applicant: Vance Dover
Request: Increase the lot coverage from 35% to 47.3% and reduce the setback
of an accessory structure (pool) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet along both side
yards.

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting the following variances to construct a swimming pool:
To increase the lot coverage from 35% to 47.3%
To reduce the setback of an accessory structure (pool) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet along both
side yards.

The subject property is an interior lot, located 120 feet east of its intersection with Matthews
Street. The property is zoned R-75 (Single-Family Residential District) wherein the district
requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 75 feet of street frontage. Under the district
requirements, the property is viewed as a legal non-conforming lot of record as it totals 0.21
acres (9,169 square feet) and has 48.45 feet of street frontage. It should be noted that many of the
nearby lots are also legal non-conforming as they were originally platted with 50 foot frontages.
Currently the property contains a two-story residence that was constructed in 2006. As it exists
today, the lot coverage stands at approximately 32.1%. With the construction of the pool and
decking, the total lot coverage will increase to 47.3%.


zoning district;

E.5.a
Packet Pg. 158
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
2

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
2
:

V
a
n
c
e

D
o
v
e
r

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
y

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

1
0
'

t
o

7
.
5
'

a
n
d

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

L
o
t

Staff Comment:
The lot appears to be narrow; however, the strict application of requirements of this
chapter concerning lot coverage would not appear to deprive the property owner of
rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners.


Staff Comment:
The requested variance to the accessory structure setback does not appear to go beyond
the minimum necessary to afford relief as the proposed setback of 7.5 feet would be
consistent with the applicable setback for the principle structure. Based upon the lot
coverage placed upon other properties in the same district, however, the requested
variance to the lot coverage would appear to go beyond the minimum necessary to afford
relief. As such, the request would appear to constitute a grant of a special privilege.


Staff Comment:
Due to the potential for greater storm water run-off, granting the requested variance may
be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property and surrounding area.


Staff Comment:
It appears that the literal interpretation and strict application of the requirements of the
setback and lot coverage may merely impose an inconvenience upon the applicant as they
would be unable to construct a pool in their back yard.


Staff Comment:


E.5.a
Packet Pg. 159
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
2

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
2
:

V
a
n
c
e

D
o
v
e
r

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
y

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

1
0
'

t
o

7
.
5
'

a
n
d

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

L
o
t

Should the Board vote in favor of the request to increase the lot coverage from 35% to 47.3%
and reduce the setback of an accessory structure (pool) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet along both side
yards staff recommends the following conditions:

1. Development of the subject property shall occur in accordance with the site plan
2. Construction of new pool and deck shall include practice(s) that will capture 1.2 inches of
runoff from new impervious surfaces and that facilitates discharge through infiltration,
evaporation, and/or transpiration.

E.5.a
Packet Pg. 160
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
2

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
6

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
2
:

V
a
n
c
e

D
o
v
e
r

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
y

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

1
0
'

t
o

7
.
5
'

a
n
d

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

L
o
t
E
.
5
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
6
1
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 2 A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 3 7 6 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 2 : V a n c e D o v e r - R e d u c e t h e A c c e s s o r y S t r u c t u r e
E
.
5
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
6
2
E
.
5
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
6
3
E
.
5
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
6
4
E
.
5
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
6
5
E
.
5
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
6
6
E
.
5
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
6
7
E
.
5
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
6
8
E
.
5
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
6
9
E
.
5
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
7
0
E
.
5
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
7
1
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 2 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 6 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 2 : V a n c e D o v e r - R e d u c e t h e A c c e s s o r y S t r u c t u r e
E
.
5
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
7
2
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 2 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 6 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 2 : V a n c e D o v e r - R e d u c e t h e A c c e s s o r y S t r u c t u r e

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-23: Adam Williamson - Reduce Average Front Yard Setback from 55.1' to 40' and
Reduce Side Yard Setback from 7.5' to 5.0' to Build a Single Family Home - 2481 Oostanaula
Drive

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:



ATTACHMENTS:

E.6
Packet Pg. 173

Case: ZBA14-23
Location: 2481 Oostanaula Drive
Tax Parcel # 18-238-09 -08
Property Owner: Mark Puckett
Applicant: Adam Williamson
Request: To reduce the average front yard setback from 55.1 feet to 40 feet,
and reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 5.0 feet to build a
single-family home.

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting two variances associated with this case as noted:

Reduce the average front yard setback from 55.1 feet to 40 feet; and
Reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 5.0 feet

The subject property is an interior lot located at the intersection of Etowah Drive and Oostanaula
Drive. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story single-family home with a basement and
front porch. The proposed dwelling size is approximately 2,900 square feet. The lot size is
0.222 acres or 9,675 square feet. The total proposed impervious area would be 35% based upon
the square footage provided in the submitted site plan.



zoning district;

Staff Comment:
The legal non-conforming lot appears to be narrow in shape. Given the character of the
area, the strict application of the average front yard setback on this property could
E.6.a
Packet Pg. 174
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
3

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
7

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
3
:

A
d
a
m

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

5
5
.
1
'

t
o

4
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in
the same zoning district.

It appears that the narrowness of the lot does not adversely impact the applicants
request to reduce the side yard setback as the applicant would have the ability to shift the
proposed residential structure to the south and meet the required side yard setback. The
strict application of the side yard setback would not deprive the property owner of rights
and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district.


Staff Comment:
The requested variance to reduce the average front yard setback does not go beyond the
minimum necessary to afford relief and would not constitute a grant of special privilege
as the proposed residence will be constructed within the general area of the existing
home and maintain the same front yard setback.

The requested variance to reduce the side yard setback appears to go beyond the
minimum necessary to afford relief to the applicant. There appears to be ample room on
the southern side of the property to expand the single-family home and allow a driveway
in compliance with the required side yard setback.


Staff Comment:
The front yard setback as requested for the new residence will be the same as the existing
home and granting of the variances will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the
subject property is located. However, allowing for the reduction in the side yard setback
would locate the proposed residence closer to the adjacent property to the north and may
adversely impact the neighbor that currently occupies a single-story dwelling.


Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application to reduce the average front yard set
setback may cause undue and unnecessary hardship to the applicant. Requiring the
average setback would set the proposed home further back than the current location of
the home and may adversely impact existing vegetation in the rear yard.

E.6.a
Packet Pg. 175
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
3

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
7

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
3
:

A
d
a
m

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

5
5
.
1
'

t
o

4
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e

The literal interpretation and strict application to reduce the side yard setback may not
cause undue and unnecessary hardship. The applicant could expand the home on the
southern side of the property and comply with the minimum side setback requirement.


Staff Comment:
The requested variances have no impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the variance request to reduce the average front
yard setback from 55.1 feet to 40.0 feet.

Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the variance request to reduce the side yard setback
from 7.5 feet to 5.0 feet.

The following condition is recommended:

1. The development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted on
March 17, 2014 to Community Development Department.

E.6.a
Packet Pg. 176
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
3

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
7

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
3
:

A
d
a
m

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

5
5
.
1
'

t
o

4
0
'

a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
e
E
.
6
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
7
7
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 3 A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 3 7 7 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 3 : A d a m W i l l i a m s o n - R e d u c e A v e r a g e F r o n t Y a r d
E
.
6
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
7
8
E
.
6
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
7
9
E
.
6
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
8
0
E
.
6
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
8
1
E
.
6
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
8
2
E
.
6
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
8
3
E
.
6
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
8
4
E
.
6
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
8
5
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 3 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 7 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 3 : A d a m W i l l i a m s o n - R e d u c e A v e r a g e F r o n t Y a r d S e t b a c k f r o m 5 5 . 1 ' t o 4 0 ' a n d R e d u c e S i d e )
E
.
6
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
8
6
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 3 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 7 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 3 : A d a m W i l l i a m s o n - R e d u c e A v e r a g e F r o n t Y a r d S e t b a c k f r o m 5 5 . 1 ' t o 4 0 ' a n d R e d u c e S i d e )

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-24: Michael Field - Reduce the Front Yard Setback Along Sunland Drive from 30' to 9.5
Feet, Reduce the Side Yard Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' and Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to
43% - 2599 Apple Valley Road

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:



ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA14-24 Application (2) (PDF)
Neighborhood letters (PDF)
Elliot-OConnor letter (PDF)
E.7
Packet Pg. 187

Case: ZBA14-24
Location: 2599 Apple Valley Road, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel # 18-241-08-034
Property Owner: Ashford Park Group, LLC
Applicant: Michael Field
Request: Increase lot coverage from 35% to 43%, reduce the front yard
setback along Sunland Drive from 30 feet to 9.5 feet, and reduce the
side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4 feet.

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting three variances associated with this case as noted:

Increase the lot coverage from 35% to 43%.
Reduce the front yard setback along Sunland Drive from 30 feet to 9.5 feet.
Reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4 feet.

The subject property is an infill lot, located at the corner of Apple Valley Road and Sunland
Drive. The property is zoned R-75 (Single Family Residential District) wherein the district
requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet in lot size and 75 feet of street frontage. Under the
district requirements, the property (as platted) is a legal non-conforming lot of record as it totals
0.148 acres (6,450 square feet) and has 45.64 feet of street frontage along Apple Valley Road.
However, staff would note that only a select few of existing lots in the area conform to the R-75
zoning district standards for frontage and lot size, as typical lots are 50 feet by 150 feet or
approximately 7,500 square feet in size. The subject property is adjacent to R-75 lots to the
north, south and east. The Department would note that the subject site is located within sub-area
2 of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District.


zoning district;
E.7.a
Packet Pg. 188
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
4

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,

Staff Comment:
The strict application of the 35 percent lot coverage requirement may appear to deprive
the property owner of constructing a home of similar size and form with existing homes
along Apple Valley Road. Lots within the area exhibit narrow shaped lots with lot
frontages of 50 feet. However, increasing lot coverage to 43% would not be appropriate
as alternative design for a smaller or pervious driveway could be constructed. Staff
would note that the applicant met before the Zoning Board of Appeals in February
concerning the lot coverage on the adjoining property to the north, located at 2603 Apple
Valley. The Board granted approval to increase the lot coverage from 35% to 37%,
taking into consideration the relative size of the subject property in comparison with
larger lots, averaging 7,100 square feet, fronting on Apple Valley Road. The same
rational would apply to this request. Therefore, an increase to 37% lot coverage may be
appropriate to construct a residence on the subject property.

As evidenced by the submitted site plan, due to the narrowness and size of the lot, the
strict application of two front yard setbacks and interior side yard would deprive the
property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by adjacent property owners. It should
be noted that the requested reduction of the setback along Sunland Drive from 30 feet to
9.5 feet appears to be consistent to other corner lots in the neighborhood.


Staff Comment:
The requested variances to the setbacks appear to be the minimum necessary to afford
relief to build a 30 foot wide home on the lot. The request does not appear to be a
special privilege, as a similar request for reduction to a street side yard setback was
approved in 2007 by DeKalb County (A-07-13279) for 2635 Apple Valley Road (a corner
lot), allowing for the reduction in setback along Oaklawn Avenue from 30 feet to 7.5 feet.
The staff would note that the approval was granted on the basis that the requested
setback reduction was consistent with the interior side yard setback required by the R-75
zoning district and exhibited by adjacent properties.

The request for lot coverage would appear to grant a special privilege that is inconsistent
with the limitations imposed on the neighboring lots. For the applicant to have the ability
to construct a residential dwelling that would be of similar size and form with
neighboring properties, it appears that the minimum needed would be 37% lot coverage,
due to the relevant size of the subject property.


E.7.a
Packet Pg. 189
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
4

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,

Staff Comment:
The request to reduce the setbacks is the minimum necessary to build a home similar in
width as other homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, the grant of the variance would not
appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the zoning district. However, due to the potential for greater storm water
run-off, granting the requested variance for lot coverage as requested may be detrimental
to the public welfare or harmful to the property and surrounding are; therefore, a increase
of lot coverage limited to 37% may be warranted.


Staff Comment:
The strict application of the requirement concerning the 35% lot coverage requirement
may cause undue and unnecessary hardship since it would prevent the applicant from
constructing a home similar in size to nearby lots. As noted, in lieu of the request for 43%
lot coverage, 37% appears to be sufficient to construct a residential dwelling that would
be of similar size and form with neighboring properties, as the applicant could reduce the
length of the home or provide an alternative design for the driveway.

In reviewing the submitted site plan, the limitation imposed by the setbacks would not
allow for construction of a residence that is similar in size and form with neighboring
properties if the required front and side yard setbacks were strictly enforced, limiting the
property to a building envelope of 8 feet by 92 feet. Therefore, it appears that the literal
interpretation and strict application concerning the setback requirements would cause
undue hardship.


Staff Comment:

Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the increase of the lot coverage from 35% to 43% and
substitute in lieu thereof recommend 37% lot coverage.

Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the reduction of the front yard setback along
Sunland Drive from 30 feet to 9.5 feet and to reduce the interior side yard setback from 7.5 feet
to 4 feet.

The following conditions are recommended:
1. Development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted on March
20, 2014 to the Community Development Department.
E.7.a
Packet Pg. 190
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
4

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,

2. Development on lot shall include practice(s) that will capture 1.2 inches of runoff from
rooftops and that facilitate discharge through infiltration, evaporation, and/or
transpiration.

E.7.a
Packet Pg. 191
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
4

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
9
2
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 4 A p p l i c a t i o n ( 2 ) ( 1 3 7 8 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 4 : M i c h a e l F i e l d - R e d u c e t h e F r o n t Y a r d S e t b a c k
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
9
3
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
9
4
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
9
5
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
9
6
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
9
7
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
9
8
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

1
9
9
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
0
0
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
0
1
E
.
7
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
0
2
E
.
7
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
0
3
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 4 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 8 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 4 : M i c h a e l F i e l d - R e d u c e t h e F r o n t Y a r d S e t b a c k A l o n g S u n l a n d D r i v e f r o m 3 0 ' t o 9 . 5 F e e t , R e )
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 204
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 205
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 206
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 207
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 208
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 209
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 210
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 211
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 212
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 213
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 214
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 215
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 216
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 217
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 218
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 219
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 220
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 221
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 222
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 223
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 224
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 225
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 226
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 227
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 228
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 229
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 230
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 231
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 232
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 233
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 234
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 235
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 236
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 237
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 238
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 239
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 240
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 241
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 242
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 243
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 244
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 245
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 246
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 247
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 248
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 249
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 250
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 251
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E.7.d
Packet Pg. 252
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

(
1
3
7
8

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
4
:

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

F
i
e
l
d

-

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

A
l
o
n
g

S
u
n
l
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e

f
r
o
m

3
0
'

t
o

9
.
5

F
e
e
t
,
E
.
7
.
e
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
5
3
A t t a c h m e n t : E l l i o t - O C o n n o r l e t t e r ( 1 3 7 8 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 4 : M i c h a e l F i e l d - R e d u c e t h e F r o n t Y a r d S e t b a c k A l o n g
E
.
7
.
e
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
5
4
E
.
7
.
e
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
5
5
E
.
7
.
e
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
5
6
E
.
7
.
e
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
5
7
E
.
7
.
e
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
5
8
E
.
7
.
e
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
5
9
E
.
7
.
e
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
6
0
E
.
7
.
e
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
6
1

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-25: Carrera Homes - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 36.9% to Build a Swimming
Pool - 2727 North Thompson Road

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:



ATTACHMENTS:

E.8
Packet Pg. 262
E
.
8
.
a
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
6
3
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 5 A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 3 7 9 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 5 : C a r r e r a H o m e s - I n c r e a s e L o t C o v e r a g e f r o m 3 5 % t o
E
.
8
.
a
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
6
4
E
.
8
.
a
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
6
5
E
.
8
.
a
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
6
6
E
.
8
.
a
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
6
7
E
.
8
.
a
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
6
8
E
.
8
.
a
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
6
9
E
.
8
.
a
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
7
0
E
.
8
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
7
1
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 5 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 9 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 5 : C a r r e r a H o m e s - I n c r e a s e L o t C o v e r a g e f r o m 3 5 % t o 3 6 . 9 % t o B u i l d a S w i m m i n g P o o l )
E
.
8
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
7
2
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 5 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 7 9 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 5 : C a r r e r a H o m e s - I n c r e a s e L o t C o v e r a g e f r o m 3 5 % t o 3 6 . 9 % t o B u i l d a S w i m m i n g P o o l )

Case: ZBA14-25
Location: 2727 North Thompson Road
Tax Parcel # 18-242-08-06
Property Owner: Cindy and Gary Heusel
Applicant: Carrera Homes
Request: Increase lot coverage from 35% to 36.9% to build a swimming pool

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a variance to increase lot coverage from 35% to 36.9% to construct a
swimming pool.

The subject property is an interior lot, located 330 feet east of its intersection with Valvedere
Drive. The property is zoned R-75 (Single-Family Residential District) wherein the district
requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 75 feet of street frontage. The applicant proposes
to construct a pool with spa surrounded by sod. The proposed pool and coping, and pool
equipment will total 328 square feet. The total impervious area with the addition of the pool is
proposed to be 36.9%. According to the site plan, no grading will take place for installation and
construction of the swimming pool, as the proposed area of construction has previously been
graded and disturbed in conjunction with the construction of the residential dwelling.


zoning district;

Staff Comment:
The lot does not appear to be narrow or shallow in shape or size. The subject property
does not present exceptional topographic conditions which were not created by the owner
or applicant. The request to increase the maximum lot coverage is based upon
conditions created by the applicant. The strict application of the requirements of this
E.8.c
Packet Pg. 273
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
5

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
9

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
5
:

C
a
r
r
e
r
a

H
o
m
e
s

-

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

L
o
t

C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
r
o
m

3
5
%

t
o

3
6
.
9
%

t
o

B
u
i
l
d

a

S
w
i
m
m
i
n
g

P
o
o
l
)

chapter would not deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the same zoning district.


Staff Comment:
The requested variance appears to go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief.
According to the site plan, the proposed location of the swimming pool does not
adequately illustrate compliance with required setbacks for accessory structures of ten
(10) feet from all property lines. The variance request constitutes a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the zoning district in
which the subject property is located, as the site plan would show that alternative design
methods were incorporated to reduce impervious cover to allow for a larger building
footprint, patio area, and detached garage.


Staff Comment:
Due to the potential for increase in storm water run-off, granting the requested variance
may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property and surrounding area.
Additionally, the proposed pool location is in violation of the required setback for an
accessory structure. If this request was to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals,
the applicant will be required to redesign the pool layout in compliance with the required
setback for an accessory structure.


Staff Comment:
According to the applicants letter of intent, the design for the garage, landscape design
and house were based upon the pool location. The lot identifies physical conditions
created by the applicant. It appears that the literal interpretation and strict application
of the requirements of the maximum lot coverage would not cause undue and
unnecessary hardship to the applicant.


Staff Comment:

E.8.c
Packet Pg. 274
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
5

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
9

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
5
:

C
a
r
r
e
r
a

H
o
m
e
s

-

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

L
o
t

C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
r
o
m

3
5
%

t
o

3
6
.
9
%

t
o

B
u
i
l
d

a

S
w
i
m
m
i
n
g

P
o
o
l
)


E.8.c
Packet Pg. 275
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
5

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
7
9

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
5
:

C
a
r
r
e
r
a

H
o
m
e
s

-

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

L
o
t

C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
r
o
m

3
5
%

t
o

3
6
.
9
%

t
o

B
u
i
l
d

a

S
w
i
m
m
i
n
g

P
o
o
l
)

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-26: JW Homes, LLC - to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree Road for Access to a Proposed
Townhome Development - 3804 & 3770 Peachtree Road

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:



ATTACHMENTS:

Neighborhood letter (PDF)
E.9
Packet Pg. 276

Case: ZBA14-26
Location: 3770 Peachtree Road, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel # 18-239-02-001 and 18-239-02-002
Property Owner: 3804 Peachtree Road, LLC c/o Susan Tomlinson
Applicant: JW Homes, LLC
Request: Variance to section 27-728.15.12(d)(3) to allow a curb cut on
Peachtree Road.

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a curb cut on Peachtree Road.

The site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Peachtree Road and Bellaire
Drive, adjacent to the citys western border with the City of Atlanta. The subject property is an
assemblage of two RM-75 (Multi-Family District) zoned lots and is located within sub-area 1 of
the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District (BPOD). Based on the submitted site plan, the
subject property has approximately 378 feet of frontage along Peachtree Road and 270.57 feet of
frontage along Bellaire Drive and totals 2.28 acres. Under the requirements of BPOD, the
applicant plans to construct a 24 townhome development. Currently, the site contains three (3)
two-story apartment buildings, a two-story house, and two accessory garage units.The applicant
seeks to demolish the complex and combine the lots into a single parcel of land to construct the
proposed townhomes.

Currently, the site is accessed by one curb cut on Bellaire Drive and the other off Peachtree Road.
Although the requirements of BPOD restrict curb cuts along Peachtree Road if the property is
accessible by another street, the applicant has requested a curb cut be allowed. Based on the
submitted site plans, the existing curb cut on Peachtree Road will be relocated away from the
intersection closer to the west property line and the curb cut on Bellaire Drive will be removed. In
absence of the Bellaire Drive curb cut, the applicant has proposed a full access entrance on
Peachtree Road. Due to the proximity of the site to Club Drive, which contains a signal, the
proposed drive on Peachtree Road would be an unsignalized driveway. The Department would
note that the applicant must obtain approval from the Georgia Department of Transportation to
locate a curb cut on Peachtree Road, as it is a state route.

E.9.a
Packet Pg. 277
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
8
0

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
6
:

J
W

H
o
m
e
s
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

A
l
l
o
w

a

C
u
r
b

C
u
t

o
n

P
e
a
c
h
t
r
e
e

R
o
a
d

f
o
r

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

a

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

zoning district;
Staff Comment:
The subject property takes on a trapezoidal shape; however, the shape and size of the lot
would not appear to deprive or limit the owners ability to develop the property.

Staff Comment:
The request for the curb cut along Peachtree Road appears to be the minimum to afford
relief. A curb cut on Peachtree Road is existing, and the proposal would seek to relocate
the access point but will still be limited to one curb cut. Therefore, granting of this
variance would not appear to be a special privilege.
Staff Comment:
Granting of this variance with a condition to allow access off Peachtree Road with a
right-in/right-out curb cut and access to Club Drive from the subject property will
improve circulation of traffic internal to the site and potentially reduce the usage of local
roads to access the subject property.

Staff Comment:
The strict application of the provisions may cause a hardship upon the applicant and in
larger part to the existing residence as use of the local roads may be increased by the
proposed development. Limiting the curb cut to right-in/right-out only with the provision
by the applicant to provide internal access onto Club Drive will further limit the traffic
associated with the proposed development to be concentrated on the subject property and
not burden interior local roads.

Staff Comment:
A request for a curb cut facing Peachtree Road would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.

E.9.a
Packet Pg. 278
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
8
0

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
6
:

J
W

H
o
m
e
s
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

A
l
l
o
w

a

C
u
r
b

C
u
t

o
n

P
e
a
c
h
t
r
e
e

R
o
a
d

f
o
r

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

a

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

Staff recommends that the Board vote in favor of this request with the following conditions:
1. Development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted on March
20, 2014, to the Community Development. A revised site plan to include conditions 2
and 3 shall be submitted at time of Land Disturbance Permit.
2. The curb cut on Peachtree Road shall be limited to a right-in and right-out drive only,
and the owner/developer must obtain a driveway permit from GDOT.
3. The owner/developer shall provide interparcel access to the adjacent tract to the west
(located in the City of Atlanta) and full access onto Club Drive.
4. Owner/developer shall submit a combination plat for approval by the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of any building permit related to the
development.

E.9.a
Packet Pg. 279
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
6

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
8
0

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
6
:

J
W

H
o
m
e
s
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

A
l
l
o
w

a

C
u
r
b

C
u
t

o
n

P
e
a
c
h
t
r
e
e

R
o
a
d

f
o
r

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

a

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
0
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 6 A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 3 8 0 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 6 : J W H o m e s , L L C - t o A l l o w a C u r b C u t o n P e a c h t r e e
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
1
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
2
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
3
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
4
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
5
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
6
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
7
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
8
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
8
9
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
9
0
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
9
1
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
9
2
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
9
3
E
.
9
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
9
4
E
.
9
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
9
5
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 6 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 8 0 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 6 : J W H o m e s , L L C - t o A l l o w a C u r b C u t o n P e a c h t r e e
E
.
9
.
c
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

2
9
6
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 6 S i t e P l a n ( 1 3 8 0 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 6 : J W H o m e s , L L C - t o A l l o w a C u r b C u t o n P e a c h t r e e
E.9.d
Packet Pg. 297
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r

(
1
3
8
0

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
6
:

J
W

H
o
m
e
s
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

A
l
l
o
w

a

C
u
r
b

C
u
t

o
n

P
e
a
c
h
t
r
e
e

R
o
a
d

f
o
r

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

a

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
E.9.d
Packet Pg. 298
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

l
e
t
t
e
r

(
1
3
8
0

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
6
:

J
W

H
o
m
e
s
,

L
L
C

-

t
o

A
l
l
o
w

a

C
u
r
b

C
u
t

o
n

P
e
a
c
h
t
r
e
e

R
o
a
d

f
o
r

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

a

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

Page 1
MEMORANDUM


ZBA14-27: Gaddy Surveying & Design Inc. - to Reduce the Average Front Yard Setback from
144.45 to 85 to Construct a New Single Family Home - 3188 Saybrook Drive

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:



ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA14-27 Revised Application (PDF)
E.10
Packet Pg. 299

Case: ZBA14-27
Location: 3188 Saybrook Drive, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel # 18-276-18-010
Property Owner: Harold V. Shumacher and Nancy E. Nolan
Applicant: Frank Gaddy Gaddy Surveying and Design, Inc.
Request: Reduce the average front yard setback from 144.45 feet to 85 feet.

DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting to reduce the average front yard setback from 144.45 feet to 85 feet.

The subject property is an interior lot, located approximately 800 feet north of its intersection
with Windsor Parkway. The property is zoned R-100 (Single-Family Residential District)
wherein the district requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet and 100 feet of street frontage.
Under the district requirements, the property is viewed as a legal conforming lot of record as it
totals 0.78 acres (33,956 square feet) and has 100.28 feet of street frontage. Currently the
property contains a one-story single-family residence that was constructed in 1957. The
applicant is proposing to demolish the existing house in order to build a new single-family home.
Staff would note that the proposed residence will be set back 96.6 feet from the front property
line; however, the applicant has requested a setback variance of 85 feet to include the proposed
front entry staircase.


zoning district;

Staff Comment:
The subject property does not exhibit issues related to exceptional narrowness,
shallowness, or shape. However, the site displays challenging topographic conditions
not created by the owner or applicant.

E.10.a
Packet Pg. 300
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
7

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
8
1

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
7
:

G
a
d
d
y

S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g

&

D
e
s
i
g
n

I
n
c
.

-

t
o

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

1
4
4
.
4
5
?

Based on the site plan, the neighboring property to the north (3200 Saybrook Drive) is
located 189.6 feet from the right-of-way and the property to the south (3180 Saybrook
Drive) is located 99.3 feet from the right-of-way. By applying setback averaging, the
subject property would be required to be setback 144.5 feet from the right-of-way.
Considering that the proposed residence not including the staircase will be set back
further from the right-of-way that the current home, the strict application of the
requirements of this chapter related to front yard setback averaging would appear to
deprive the property owner of similar privileges enjoyed by nearby properties.


Staff Comment:
The requested variance appears to be the minimum necessary to afford relief and would
not constitute a grant of special privilege, as the new residence will be constructed within
the general area of the existing home.


Staff Comment:
The setback as requested for the new residence will be similar to the existing home, and
granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare.


Staff Comment:
As noted, an average setback of 144.5 feet from the right-of-way would be required under
the literal and strict application of the zoning requirements. Requiring the average
setback would push the home back from its original location approximately 56 additional
feet towards the rear property line. Such placement would appear to result in
unnecessary hardship as seven (7) hardwood trees would be impacted. Additionally, due
to the effect of the stream impacting the property adjacent to the north (3200 Saybrook
Drive), it creates an unnecessary hardship on the subject property by requiring an
average setback that is inconsistent with the existing setback of homes fronting on
Saybrook Drive.


Staff Comment:
E.10.a
Packet Pg. 301
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
7

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
8
1

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
7
:

G
a
d
d
y

S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g

&

D
e
s
i
g
n

I
n
c
.

-

t
o

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

1
4
4
.
4
5
?

Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the requested variance with the following
condition:

1. Development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted April 21,
2014 to the Community Development Department.

E.10.a
Packet Pg. 302
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:

Z
B
A

1
4
-
2
7

S
t
a
f
f

m
e
m
o

(
1
3
8
1

:

Z
B
A
1
4
-
2
7
:

G
a
d
d
y

S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g

&

D
e
s
i
g
n

I
n
c
.

-

t
o

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
r
o
n
t

Y
a
r
d

S
e
t
b
a
c
k

f
r
o
m

1
4
4
.
4
5
?
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
0
3
A t t a c h m e n t : Z B A 1 4 - 2 7 R e v i s e d A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 3 8 1 : Z B A 1 4 - 2 7 : G a d d y S u r v e y i n g & D e s i g n I n c . - t o R e d u c e
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
0
4
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
0
5
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
0
6
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
0
7
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
0
8
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
0
9
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
1
0
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
1
1
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
1
2
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
1
3
E
.
1
0
.
b
P
a
c
k
e
t

P
g
.

3
1
4

2014-05-20 Zoning Board of Appeals - Full Agenda-1191

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2014-05-20 Zoning Board of Appeals - Full Agenda-1191

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CITY OF BROOKHAVEN

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen