Board of Zoning Adjustment - Regular Meeting

One, two, three.

JT Johnson wins! We honor JT Johnson today for his work in the civil rights movement. Not only did JT help organize the Poor People's Campaign, But he marched alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Abernathy, Joseph E. Boone, Jose Williams, and so many other civil rights leaders. JT Johnson was jailed. He was beaten. He had acid thrown on him in the pool. There are times when a name reminds us of who we are. and who we're called to be. Those names carry history, sacrifice, and the quiet strength that helped shape a nation. Today we lift up one of those names, J.T. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson, you were a young man when you stepped into that segregated swimming pool at the Monson Motor Lodge in St. Augustine because you believed America could become the country it promised that it would be.

And we need to know that. We need to celebrate that. When I got beat up in St. Augustine, JT was right there with me. In fact, he and Jose probably schemed to get me beat up. We are what we are because you are the man you are. God has blessed us by blessing you, and we're grateful.

When you know people who have actually given blood, sweat, and tears... to not only our community, to my family, to the city, to the state, to the nation, to the world, through the civil rights movement. If there's a moment that we can honor their legacy, the great work they've done, the history that they have affected in the positive direction of humanity, while they're still alive, we should be doing it. Thank you, J.T. Johnson, for all you've done for all of us.

JT has been an integral part of SCLC since 1960. He was there on the front lines with John Lewis, Reverend Durley, Andy Young. They were all very young men. And since that time, he has been part of the mortar. The cement that has held the wall of freedom and civil rights up.

To be here today to celebrate the naming of a street after him and to know that the city has appreciated him so is absolutely wonderful because he never asked for it.

To see all of the civil rights leaders, elected officials, clergy, community activists, it is really a special day for JT and his family, but also a special day for me to be a part of this. And I just want to thank the City of Atlanta for sponsoring it. It's long overdue.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This meeting is being held in compliance with the Georgia OCGA 5014-1. This meeting is the Board of Zoning Adjustment, a five-member board created by the Atlanta City Council and confirmed by the Atlanta City Council. It is created to exercise and perform all the functions, powers and duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals. My name is Michael Williams, Chair of the Board. I have the honor of introducing the other members of the Board. With us today is Mr. Philip Perry and Ms. Aisha J. Thomas. Also with us, Ms. Angela Blatch is Secretary of the Board. Mr. Francis Rozier is with the Office of Zoning and Development. Also present is the Board's Attorney, Mr. David Patton. Before we get started, I would like to acquaint us all with some of the rules and procedures of this meeting. Official records of the proceedings are being taped. When given testimony... Please speak directly into the microphone and address comments to board members. Please be advised that the board may adopt a consent agenda today to approve non-controversial or routine applications. Non-controversial or routine applications may include applications with unanimous recommendations for approvals with no conditions attached from both the planning staff and NPU. If conditions are attached to the approval recommendation from either staff or NPU, the application will not be included on the consent agenda unless the conditions are the same from the staff and NPU. If the application is included within the consent agenda, testimony from any party will not be required, including the applicant. After the consent agenda is sounded, the board will immediately go into deliberations and vote on the consent agenda. However, before this occurs, the chair will ask whether any board member wishes to remove any item from the proposed consent agenda. The chair will also ask whether any applicant or any other interested party wishes to be heard on any proposed consent agenda item. If so, the application will be removed from the consent agenda and will not be heard in the order in which it was received by the secretary and listed on the published agenda as amended. Unless the board acts to amend the agenda, cases are generally heard in the following order, deferrals or withdrawals, consent agenda cases, appeals, remaining new cases, and previous deferred cases. Our secretary will sound each case on the agenda and will give the planning staff and NPU recommendations. All cases will be heard in the orders listed on the agenda or in accordance with the amended agenda as adopted by the board. Everyone who wishes to speak must fill out sign-in sheet located on the podium. Prior to presenting testimony, each speaker will be asked to state his or her name and address for the record. If the applicant wishes to defer his or her case, please make the request to defer immediately after the case is sounded and before making any statements on the merits of the case. The board may defer or postpone on a motion of any board member or... on the request of the filing party only for good cause and the consent of the majority of the board. Cases that are deferred that the request of the applicant will be assessed at deferral fee, the secretary of the board will notify the applicant of the amount of the required fee, which should be paid within three days of notification in order for the case to be placed on a subsequent agenda. For cases being heard today, the applicant will be allowed a total of 10 minutes to present his or her case. Testimony by members of the public in support of the case shall be included within the 10-minute applicant presentation time. Since the burden of proof is upon the applicant, the applicant may choose to save part of the 10-minute time period for rebuttal following all other testimony. The rebuttal time will be limited to addressing concerns or questions that have been raised by opposition or for clarification purposes. After the initial presentation by the applicant, parties who oppose the case shall be allotted a total of 10 minutes to present their testimony. It benefits these parties to be as concise and organized as possible regarding each presentation and to be considered of the number of parties that wish to speak in opposition of the application. All testimonies taken as if under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury However, all testimony should be relevant, although we do not adhere to formal court rules of evidence. All materials that you submit to the board becomes evidence. If it can be easily copied, you may request that it be returned and our secretary will do so. Following all testimony, the board will promptly go into deliberations, have time to consider the presentations by all parties and any relevant materials presented, as well as ask questions of each party as desired or necessary, then vote immediately following each case. No participation by the public is permitted during deliberations unless requested by a board member. Written notification from the Office of Zoning Development confirming the results of the hearing will be sent within one week. Only matters this board will address are zoning issues related to applicable zoning, applicable variance, special exceptions, or appeals as advertisers stated in the published agenda for this meeting. Please address and confine all comments to that specific subject. In the interest of time, the chair reserves the right to caution any speaker who has strayed too far from this subject at hand and to request that the party remove his or herself from the room if disruptive to the proceedings. The board will decline to mediate disputes that are not related to the case. Please note that this board does not have authority over the policies, procedures, and operations of the Department of the City of Atlanta. We will be addressing zoning matters pursuant to the City of Atlanta zoning ordinance. as it relates to relevant facts, the particular application and comments and evidence from the parties that are before us and speaking in either support or denial. One other matter, should be mentioned. Differing viewpoints may be presented today, and it is possible and even probable that not everyone will agree with or be pleased with the decisions of the board. However, this board intends to make fair decisions based on the relevant facts of the case and in accordance with the relevant ordinance contained in the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance. After this hearing, result letters reflecting the board's decision will be available seven business days from the date of the hearing. Finally, no demonstrations will be permitted in the chambers. Please refrain from any applause or dialogue when any person is speaking. And at the conclusion of a particular application hearing, please depart the chamber in a quiet and orderly manner. At this time, we ask that you turn off all cell phones, paging devices, and flashes from cameras so that we can proceed with as little disruption as possible. I will now entertain a motion to adopt today's published agenda. Mr.

Chair, I move that we adopt today's agenda with the exception of moving the following cases to the top of our agenda for consideration of a possible defer or withdrawal. Case number V-25-249. Case number V-26-073. Case number V-26-079. Case number V-26-080. All those in favor? Second. H.J. Thomas, second.

Motion's been made and properly second. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay.

Philip Perry. Aye.

Aisha J. Thomas. Aye.

Michael Williams. Aye. We'll now entertain a motion to move to the consent agenda. Items to the consent agenda.

Mr. Chair, I move that the following cases be moved to the consent agenda. Case number V-26-074, Case number V-26-075. Case number V-26-076. Case number V-26-081. Case number V-26-084. Ayesha J. Thomas, second.

Before we put the consent agenda to a vote, is there anyone present wish to remove any consent agenda items to be heard on the regular hearings? Is there any board member wish to remove any consent agenda items?

No, sir. No.

A motion has been made and properly seconded. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay.

Phillip Perry, aye.

Laisha J. Thomas, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Motion passes.

Case number V25-249, appeal of Hassana to Barry of a decision of an administrative officer in the Office of Buildings for property located at 2775 Camelton Road Southwest, front of 223.97 feet on the north side of Camelton Road and beginning at the northwest intersection of Harburn Road and Camelton Road, zone MRC1C. Mixed Residential Commercial Conditional, Campbellton Road Overlay, Sub Area 4, Landlocked 218 of the 14th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Zane Jelani and Campbellton Holdings LLC, Council District 11, NPUR. The recommendation is for deferral.

Is the applicant present? Seeing no one, we'll go into deliberations and entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, on case number V-25-249, I recommend that we defer this case to a regular scheduled meeting to be determined.

Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. We'll respect the case V-25-249. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Philip Perry, aye.

Aisha J. Thomas, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Motion passes.

Case number V26.073, application of Crescent Acquisitions LLC, care of Trotman Pepperlock LLP for variances to increase the required transitional height plane from 35 feet to 59 feet and reduce the required transitional yard from 20 feet to 0 feet for the construction of a new multifamily development for property located at 1425 Ellsworth Industrial Boulevard NW and 1475 Ellsworth Industrial Boulevard NW, aka 1425 Ellsworth Industrial Drive NW. Fronting 408.78 feet on the east side of Ellsworth Industrial Drive and beginning approximately 1,606.03 feet from the northeast intersection of Huff Road and Ellsworth Industrial Drive. Zone I-2 heavy industrial beltline overlay upper west side. overlay and MR2C multifamily residential conditional beltline overlay, Upper West Side overlay. Landlot 188 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Lumberyard Lofts LLC, Council District 9, NPUD. The recommendation is for deferral.

Is the applicant present? Seeing no one, what we'll do is go into deliberation and entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, on case number V-26-073, I recommend that we defer this case to a regular scheduled meeting in November 2026.

Ayesha J. Thomas, second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded with respect to case V-26-073. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Philip Perry, aye.

Ayesha J. Thomas, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Motion passed.

Case number V26-079, application will mark honorable variances to reduce the east side yard setback from 7 feet to 2.6 feet and reduce the west side yard setback from 7 feet to 3.9 feet for an addition to an existing single-family dwelling for a property located at 915 Courtney Drive NE. Fronting 56.03 feet on the south side of Courtney Drive and beginning approximately 369 feet from the southwest intersection of North Highland Avenue and Courtney Drive. Zone R4, single-family residential, Landline 2 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owners Andrew and Meredith Calt, Council District 6, NPUF. The recommendation is for a deferral.

Is the applicant present? And you understand your case is on deferral? Okay.

With that in mind, what we'll do is go into deliberation and entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, on case number V-26-079, I recommend that we defer this case to a regular scheduled meeting in August 6th, 2026.

Fisher J. Thomas, second.

Motion's been made. Motion has been made and properly seconded with respect to case V26-079. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Phillip Perry. Aye.

Aisha J. Thomas.

Aye.

Michael Williams. Aye. Motion passed.

Case number V26-080, application of Mishka Parker for variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from 50% to 55.2%. and reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 13.7 feet for a deck extension for property located at 1185 Lanier Boulevard Northeast, running 55 feet on the east side of Lanier Boulevard and beginning at approximately 110 feet from the southeast intersection of Amsterdam Avenue and Lanier Boulevard. Zone R, four single-family residential landlocked, one of the 17 districts of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Lawrence R. Summerfield, Council District 6, NPUF. The recommendation is for deferral.

Is the applicant present? You understand your case on deferral?

With that in mind, what we'll do is go into deliberation and entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, on case number V-26-080, I recommend that we defer this case to a regular scheduled meeting in September 2026. H.J.

Thomas, second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded with respect to V-26-080. 080. All those in favor state your name and say aye or nay. Philip Perry. Aye.

Ayesha J. Thomas. Aye.

Michael Williams. Aye. Motion passes.

The following cases are on consent. Case number B26-074, application of Randy E. Pimsleur for variances to reduce the west side yard setback from 7 feet to 2 feet and reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 2 feet for the construction of a detached garage with an outdoor kitchen. For property located at 618 Crest Hill Avenue Northeast, fronting 52.97 feet on the north side of Crest Hill Avenue, and beginning at 150 feet from the northeast intersection of Monroe Drive and Crest Hill Avenue. Zone R, Foresting and Family Residential Beltline, overlay landlocked 53 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. August C, Council District 6, NPUF. Case number V26-075, application of Mark Honor for a variance to reduce the east side yard setback from seven feet to... 0.21 feet and reduce the front-facing garage recess from 10 feet to 0 feet behind the front-facing facade of the main structure for the construction of an addition for property located at 1267 Reeder Circle Northeast. Front is 63.61 feet on the south side of Reeder Circle and beginning 100 and 720 feet from the southeast intersection of by Lane and Rita circle zone are forcing from residential and 55 of the 18th district of DeKalb County, Georgia on us Austin and Victoria Bush Council district 6 in P U F K some of the 2, 6, 0, 7, 6 applications Stephen L rainwater for there is to increase the maximum finish floor elevation from 3 feet above grade to 4 feet for the construction of a single-family dwelling for property located at 2097 Fairhaven Circle Northeast, running 99.91 feet on the south side of Fairhaven Circle and beginning at approximately 1,165 feet from the southeast intersection of Peachtree Road and Fairhaven Circle. Zone R4, single-family residential, beltline overlay, land lot 111 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. on a rainwater family partnership, LLLP, Council District 6, MPUB. Case number V26-081, application of Michael Renssel for a variance to reduce the half-depth front yard from 15 feet to 7 feet for the construction of a new single-family dwelling for property located At 1434 Hosea L. Williams Drive, Northeast, front at 46.17 feet on the north side of Hosea L. Williams Drive, and beginning at the northeast intersection of Hutchinson Street and Hosea L. Williams Drive. Zone R4A, single-family residential, Landlot 208 of the 15th District of DeKalb County, Georgia. Owner James Hubert, Council District 5, NPUO. Case number V26-084, application of Jamila Brown for a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 5.5 feet for the enclosure of a screen porch for a property located at 3000 Rodenhaven Drive NW, fronting 222.61 feet on the west side of Rodenhaven Drive and beginning approximately 526 feet from the northwest intersection of Mornington Drive and Rodenhaven Drive. Zoned R3, single-family residential land, lot 156 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owners Rachel and Barrett Brightwell, Council District 8, NPUC.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Reading those consent agenda cases into the record, we'll go into deliberation and entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve each of the cases listed on the consent agenda as read into the record by Madam Secretary.

Laisha J. Thomas, second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded with respect to the consent agenda cases. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay.

Phillip Perry, aye.

Laisha J. Thomas, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Motion passes. If your case was read into record by Secretary Blatch on the consent agenda, they have been approved and you are free to go.

Case number V26-077, application of Steve Schmidt for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 33 feet for the construction of a front porch roof for property located at 468 Gift Avenue Southeast. Front is 75.5 feet on the east side of Gift Avenue and beginning 226.89 feet from the southeast intersection of Sanders Avenue and Gift Avenue. Zone R4, single-family residential beltline overlay Landlot 12 of the 14th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Honor Steve Smith, Council District 5, NPUW. Staff recommendation is denial. NPU recommendation is approval.

Is the applicant present? Please state your name and address for the record.

Okay.

OK. That concludes your comments on your case?

One moment, sir.

One moment, sir.

No.

Testing, testing.

She's bringing the microphone.

Thank you.

Can you hear now? I can hear me. There we go. Yes. All right. So once again, my name is Mike Gardner. I'm the president of South Atlantans for Neighborhood Development, which represents five specific neighborhoods in the southeast portion of Atlanta. and North Wormwood Park is a part of our association. This application was reviewed at the SAND meeting and approved without objection. This is a standard kind of change that has to be made in our community where many of the existing zoning ordinances were put in and houses were not effectively grandfathered to allow them to maintain their existence on their existing footprint, which is what this applicant is asking for.

Thank you, Mr. Gardner. That concludes your comments. Thank you. Is there anyone here speaking in opposition of this case, V26077? Seeing no one, would you like to add any final comments before we go into deliberations? Use the microphone, please.

Over half the houses on my street have that A-frame roof, so it will be matching with the street.

Thank you, sir.

With that, what we'll do is go into deliberations to ask any questions of the applicant or put forth a motion.

Mr. Chair, based on the finding of fact of the staff report, but not with the conclusion, In recommendation provided by staff, I move to approve case number V-26-077.

Aisha J. Thomas, second.

Motion has been made and properly seconded with respect to V-26-077. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay.

Phillip Perry, aye.

Aisha J. Thomas, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Motion passed. Good luck to you.

Case number V26-083, application of Earl Jackson for a special exception to reduce the front-facing garage from 10 linear feet behind the front facade of the principal structure to zero feet for the construction of a single-family dwelling for property located at 2899 Reachmore Road NW. front is 75.27 feet on the west side of Ridgemoor Road and beginning approximately 443.3 feet from the southwest intersection of Ridgemoor Place and Ridgemoor Road. Zone R4, single-family residential land, lot 220 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Mike Polkowski, Council District 9, NPUC. Staff recommendation is denial. NPU recommendation is approval conditional.

Is the applicant present? Please state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Mike Podkolsky, the owner of 2899 Ridgemore Road Northwest. We're looking to, the request is to push the garage back and we're looking to push the front porch forward. We've got some drawings here. We've got letters signed by neighbors approving the request.

That concludes the comment, Mr. Pocosa.

I'm Brian Patterson. I'm the designer.

Name and address for the record, sir. Name and address for the record, sir.

address of the property i don't know what it is your name your name and address sir oh my address is 2343 eastway road decatur georgia your name and your name sir brian patterson brian patterson thank you mr patterson what would you like to add well the existing topography um of of the house that was originally there A tree fell through the house, so we're basically trying to put another house back on the pad that the original house sat within, which met all the requirements for setbacks and such. The lot slopes back steeply beyond where the existing pad is, and part of the reason we need to keep the garage on the main level is that we have an ailing parent And there's a need to make sure that we have a situation where parking can happen in the garage. And we've provided a provision for the bedroom suite on the main level for egress and use for an elderly person. The other thing we've got that we've considered is we are allowed to have a front porch that encroaches 10 feet closer to the street than the house.

So what we've done is we've designed

entry porch that has a major presence it is it includes the elements that are part of the house as well and it is designed to obscure the view of the garage and we do have an image okay did you all make that part of the record mr. Patterson those images because there is a cutoff for us to receive those we did not

Okay.

We provided the site plan which was requested.

Got you. So what we'll, does that conclude your comments? Yes. Okay. What we'll do is see if there's someone in opposition and then we could take it to a vote whether we would like to see these additional drawings for our deliberation purposes.

Any opposition?

Would you like us to provide these drawings right now?

One second. We'll see if there's someone in opposition of your case. Is there anyone present in opposition of V260, I'm sorry, V2683? V2683. Seeing no one. So what we'll do, since you all missed the cutoff, we'll have to put receiving new drawings in the hearing. We have a Wednesday prior to the hearing cutoff date, typically. But what we'll do is put that to a vote to see if we will accept these drawings the day of the hearing. All those in favor of receiving this new information, state your name and say aye or nay.

Philip Perry, aye.

Alicia J. Thomas, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Please.

I don't care what you share.

No.

Are these on the plan? Do we have this on the plan?

No, those were not a part of the packet.

So now we know this is what he's going to do.

That's a good question. So what we'll do now that there's no opposition in reviewing this new information, what happens now is we enter deliberations. Any board member may have additional questions, particularly about the new information we just received, in hopes of getting some clarity around your project. So with that, we'll enter deliberations. And any board member have any questions for the applicant? Pekusik or Mr. Patterson?

Were these included on the vertical plan or site plan? Was another rendering of this like this on the plan shown on your plan? You know what I'm saying? Besides the site plan where it's just showing the topography and everything, I'm saying was this shown as well?

So the site plan that you actually submitted is showing these renderings.

Yes, if they were submitted prior to the hearing.

I don't have access to it. I don't see it.

I don't see that. 083?

Yeah. I searched the site. It's not in here.

One second, Mr. Patterson. Okay.

If I understand, you're wanting to know whether or not these renderings were submitted with their... We don't know whether it's reflected in the plan.

We can't see it here in...

In the meeting material.

In the application, the elevations were submitted in the application. However, the color rendering were not.

We understand that. I'm just saying, what you're looking at, we don't have that. It's not in here. Okay.

083.

If you edit it, I can refresh to see that. Well, in the interim, I guess you can ask your question if you want.

It's the same as 03. The application is the same.

Mr. Patterson, I know you're looking for a variance for the front garage recess to be 10 feet behind the principal structure to zero feet. I could be wrong. But in my mind, that means that the front garage is not actually pushed out 10 feet. It's actually in line with your garage, from my understanding. So you... I'm sorry, say that again. Could you get the microphone, please?

The garage is set back 10 feet from the large entry porch.

From the entry porch, okay. So it is set back 10 feet.

And we purposefully created that dimension to be compliant with the rules.

So you don't need the variance?

You don't need the variance.

Okay.

Is that what you're saying? If I could, just as a point of clarification, I was The requirement is that the front-facing garage must be recessed from the front facade.

Facade.

The porch is not considered the beginning of the front facade. Okay. So that's the reason why he's applying for this relief. Essentially, he's asking for the garage to be recessed from the porch, not the front facade. However, the regulation is that it's recessed from the front facade. The porch is allowed for an additional allocation or a different additional allowance for a 10-foot encroachment into the front facade. the front yard setback, the required yard. So that's the reason why he's asking for this request, because it will not recess from the front facade.

Okay, gotcha. Understood, okay.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for that clarification. Do you have any additional questions, Mr. Perry and Ms. Thomas? No, sir. I have a question or two. And you are aware obviously, or maybe you are that the staff's recommendation is denial because of the, it does not recess 10 linear feet from the front facade, which the porch as madam secretary, uh, explained is not considered a part of the front facade. So that's, that's why we're here. So, um, Has it been discussed what the possibilities are? It looks to be a pretty sizable lot that other options are available.

Part of the other situation is that the topography drops quickly. If we push the house back, the garage is basically going to wind up requiring a bunch of retaining walls and things like that because the land slopes back pretty quickly. So our goal was to not have to go through that. And also we have a water garden that is required in the rear. And we've done a lot of retaining walls to save trees. And there's not as much room in the rear of the house as one might imagine due to those circumstances.

Sounds good. I'm bringing the porch 10 feet forward. Could it be a possibility to bring the facade 10 feet forward, not just the porch? Just a question. So that you'd meet the 10 foot from the front facing, from the facade.

To recess the garage door portion of the facade 10 feet behind the.

Say that into the microphone, Mr. Patterson.

Think of the house as having a left side and a right side. We would have to push the left side back while not pushing the right side back. So it would drastically alter the way the house was laid out.

So when you brought the porch forward, could we not bring it forward?

Can't, because the porch is allowed 10 extra feet towards the front setback. Certainly. That the main house is not allowed.

Gotcha. Okay. Just solutions is what, because it looks, the lot seems to be... There seems to be some options, but I'm not an architect. I just had some questions.

I have one.

Go ahead, Mr. Perry. What about just making the garage to the side, and then you want to require for that? Side facing. Yeah, side facing garage. Are you guys willing to do that? Instead of having the garage in the front, are you willing to put it on the side facing?

If we put it on the side, we have to narrow the whole design and then the garage is going to be basically on the second floor because we're gonna have to push it back and scoot the house over. So we have issues with the topography once again if we attempt to do that. And we did investigate doing that, it just didn't work.

As a point of clarification, Board, you can actually, in your meeting materials, that application is available for your review.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Okay.

I'll say once again, that goes back to the need for the parking to be on level one with the suite for aging in place.

Understood, understood. What we're trying to arrive at is a path forward, Mr. Patterson, with the strict zoning ordinance where the garages in this district and this zoning classification recess 10 linear feet from the front of the principal structure, not including the porch. How can we... How can this project be adhered to that?

Well, if the house didn't have a front porch, the garage would be front and center, which is why we built a large statement porch to obscure the garage door as opposed to putting windows on it and calling it the inside of the house.

Understood. Understood.

Mr. Chair, based on the findings, the fact that the staff report, but not with the conclusion and recommendation provided by staff, I move to approve Case number V-26-083.

Philip Perry, second.

Motion has been made and properly seconded with respect to V-26-083. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Philip Perry, nay.

Asha J. Thomas, aye.

Give me a second, y'all. Before I cast my vote, would the applicant be interested, possibly, in a, there's a motion on the floor, I understand that, but it's, Is a deferral an option to work on these plans further? We've been working on them for about two years since the tree came down. It's been a labor of love. Yeah, I'd just like to give that option because You may or may not know in our rules when applicants come before us, if there's a denial of the board, then that applicant is 12 additional months before you come before the board with similar or the same application. I just want to make that point clear before

Yeah.

With the motion on the floor, and it has been seconded, and just for clarification purposes, there's a vote of aye, and there's a vote of nay, and there's one remaining vote, which is mine, on this particular application, and It's tough, but Michael Williams, aye. Your application has been approved. You are free to go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Case number V26-043, application of Kasha Scott for a variance to reduce the rear transition yard from 20 feet to 10 feet and a special exception to reduce the required off-street parking from 21 spaces to three spaces for the construction of a new multi-family apartment building for property located at 668 McDonough Boulevard Southeast. Front is 78.57 feet on the north side of McDonough Avenue and beginning at the northwest intersection of Funston Street and McDonough Boulevard. Let me make a correction, I don't know if I stated the address correct 6, 6, 8, mcdonough Boulevard Southeast I just want to make sure me that correct statement. Zone, see one community business land like 25 to 14 district of Fulton County, Georgia on a cost of Scott has a district one in the UW staff recommendation is denial in the recommendation is approval.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Yes. Good evening. Good afternoon. My name is Kushka Scott. My address is 668 McDonough Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia. That's the address of the property I own. I actually live at 437 Harper Road, Atlanta, Georgia, 30315, which is approximately... right in this neighborhood directly south of this property.

Okay, Mr. Scott, please get into the merits of your case.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board. My name is Kushka Scott. I'm here as an applicant regarding the 668 McDonald Boulevard, South Reese, a proposal to build 21 affordable homes. housing units on a lot in Benton Park. I want to start with the backdrop the board, I would hope the board will evaluate this application against. Three weeks ago the council adopted Mayor Dinkins neighborhood, the city council adopted Mayor Dinkins neighborhood reinvestment act by a voter 13 to two. most comprehensive anti-displacement and affordable housing package in this city's history, especially targeting South and West Atlanta neighborhoods like this one. This city has told us in the clearest possible terms that the old way of evaluating development in these corridors Parking first, car-centric, unit count averse is exactly what got us into the affordable housing crisis. This application is a chance for the board to start a new policy direction to an actual project or actual lot today. The site is a 13,000 square foot corner lot on McDonough and Funston. currently occupied by a one-story building. It's Zone C1. We are proposing a three-story, 21-unit residential building, a productive, tax-paying, affordable housing producing use on a site that today is a commercial building. To make that project work, we're asking for two things, a reduction in required off-street parking and a reduction in the rear transition yard from 20 feet to 10 feet. The staff's position is that this area lacks sufficient infrastructure or density to support reduced parking. Respectfully, that gets the causation backwards. This site is served by sidewalks on both frontages frontage that will be served. I will be installing sidewalks on both frontages and MARTA Route 49 with direct connections to Georgia State and North Avenue rail stations. Most importantly, these are affordable units. This residence project will be built for disproportionately transit dependent, and pricing structure parking into every unit is one of the surest ways to price the unit itself out of availability. Each parking space this board requires is square footage, cost, and rent that doesn't go toward housing. And this isn't a novel ask on this street. Property at 614 McDonough, one block away, same MPU, same zoning district, sought this board's approval to reduce required parking for a comparable multifamily project. This corridor has already seen similar conversions. We're not asking the board to ignore parking impacts. We're prepared to... make this as accessible and possible for the neighborhood as we can. The variance criteria are met because of the following. The extraordinary conditions in hardship. This is a corner with frontage on two public streets, which under this code means it carries a front yard, half-depth side yard, side yard, and rear transitional yard obligations simultaneously. Four setback... REQUIREMENTS STACKED ON A .3 ACRE LOT. THE STAFF'S OWN SITE PLAN SHOWS HOW MUCH OF THIS LOT'S BUILDABLE ENVELOPE EVAPORATES ONCE ONE OF THOSE BUFFERS IS APPLIED AT FULL WIDTH. A DOUBLE FRONTED CORNER LOT ADJOINING A R4 DISTRICT ON THREE SIDES IS NOT THE TYPICAL MID-BLOCK C1 PARCEL DISORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN FOR. THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CONDITION. Peculiar to this property, the combination of corner lot geometry and R4 adjacency on the northeast and northwest sides is something most C1 lots in this corridor, it's not something most C1 lots in this corridor face. Most parcels along McDonough border C1 or the federal prison across the street. The one that is boxed by residential zoning on three sides is particular to this site. Staff argues that reducing buffer brings incompatible uses close together, but the public good calculus has to weigh both sides of this ledger. Affordable housing is needed in this neighborhood, in the city of Atlanta, and at the end of the day, we have to understand what type of Atlanta we want to live in. Do we want to live in a city where people who don't have vehicles can still maintain residence in the city or are we going to continue to push zoning where everyone has to have a vehicle if they need to to live in the city. The council has told this city in the 13-12 vote that South Atlanta neighborhoods like South Benteen Park are a priority. We're asking this board to approve the parking in rear variance and so this lot can become 21 units of housing instead of what it currently sits at. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scott.

You got 3 minutes and 30 seconds should you need it should there be anybody in opposition that you can respond to those concerns. But that is there anyone speak. Additional in support of this application. Is there anyone to speak in opposition of the support. Just keep in mind your support will be counted against the 3.30 that I mentioned to Mr. Scott. Okay, I'll keep it brief. Thank you.

All right. Hello, my name is Christy Baskett. I am currently living at 1610 Woodland Ave, Southeast, which is in the neighborhood. I am in the process of transitioning. I have recently received my degree in mental health counseling from Agnes Scott and have worked in real estate for a number of years, and I want to speak in support of this application because affordable housing is directly affecting the quality of life for young professionals in this city. And I think it's important that we prioritize being able to actually experience the growth of that neighborhood as well as the ability to experience walkability, to experience the opportunity to also save money while you rent in order to be able to provide the ability to save money towards purchasing. This is a huge deal. And I think more people are leaning towards walkability and quality of life, and I think that should be considered when we're looking and reviewing this application. Thank you.

Thank you. There's 240 remaining, should you need it, after anyone in opposition speaks. Mr. Scott. With that said, is there anyone in opposition of V26043? V26043. Keep in mind that the total time of opposition is 10 minutes. Please speak. The total opposition time is 10 minutes.

Thank you. I don't think I'll speak that long. I've never been here before and spoke.

Name and address for the record. Please state your name and address for the record.

Okay, like this?

Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Eula Tyree. I live at 659 Federal Terrace, Southeast Atlanta. I'm in opposition of this apartment complex going on because it will take out our trees and our green space. We only have... two-lane roads in the area among 1920s cottages. My homestead, this has been my homestead on the corner of Federal Terrace and Funston since 1946. We do not have street parking. Nobody parks on the street in our neighborhood. And if you put this complex up, there'll be people all over our streets. In addition, there's no room. We have a school down the street, which there's a lot of traffic. The city uses our streets, Federal Terrace and Funston, as cut-throughs to McDonough Boulevard and Funston all the time. I just, I don't want to see a huge monstrosity building across the street from my home.

That concludes your comment, Ms. Tyree?

Yeah, you know, there's up and down Boulevard and McDonough Boulevard, there's like 10,000 of these apartments, and it needs to stop. Because along with these apartments and condos, there's cars everywhere. And somebody needs to put a stop to all this because Atlanta does not look like Atlanta anymore. And there's no green space in the city.

So thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Terry. You have eight. 13 remaining.

Hello, good afternoon. My name is Lupe Hernandez. I live on 1525 Funston Street, and I live right across from that property, and it will... And when I do have parking, we park two vehicles there, me and my husband. We work full-time. And I don't see... Coming up, I don't see the parking, because there's an alley right behind there, too. And there's a lot of trees... Right now, as it is, the property's not kept well anyway because there's a lot of bushes and debris. And when I come out at 5 in the morning, I'm always scared, you know, because somebody broke into my car recently in there. And, you know, it's scary to come out. And going up like that, like she says, it's just school down the road, and there's a lot of traffic up and down in the morning, people dropping off their kids, and then here we go again at 3 o'clock when they're picking up the kids, you know? When I'm off, I see all the traffic, and it's kind of hard to walk the dog at that. I already know what time to walk the dog after school, of course, before school lets out, you know? And it's elementary school, so we also have to be careful what's... who's going to be living in these apartments too? Because it's a family-oriented. There's kids in that neighborhood, and we have dogs walking all the time. You know, it's fairly, you know, friendly, dog-friendly. I see a problem, too, when they do, if it comes up, the construction, the trees coming down, because I live right across from there. If somebody would park in front of my house where I have my mailbox, that would be a problem. I'd probably have to put signs that they would be told away. Because, you know, taxes in Fulton County are very expensive. My husband pays the mortgage, but we both work full-time. He works for the Atlanta City, and I work for the Marriott Marquis. Both of us have been, I've been working at the Marquis for 18 years, and he's been living, working for the city for a while also. Works at the airport. And, like I say, I just worried about that, you know. Sure, you know, he stays affordable, and... And, you know, he spoke to us a while ago, and he said he was thinking about college kids. I have nothing against college kids, but how is he going to know if they're going to have one or two cars, right, you know? And then in the morning, if I have to go drive out of my driveway, you know, if they're parked so close to me, I'm going to be scared. You know, it's still dark out there at 5 o'clock in the morning. And I work full time. So does my husband. He leaves right behind me. Bad enough, we don't have a garage. You know, I usually have to come out. You know, he has to come out and let me out. There's one or the other, you know, we have our kind of parking, you know, situations as it is, you know. Sometimes I leave my car just for a little bit because I don't want to block the parking as it is, you know, the driveway, you know. It's okay. This is all I'm going to say. I think somebody else is going to speak now. Thank you. Thank you.

I appreciate you all very much. No worries. You have 509 remaining. Name and address for the record.

My name is Mike Gardner, as I said, and I live at 1145 Moreland Place Southeast. That's in Ormwood Park. I am the president of South Atlantans for Neighborhood Development, and the two neighborhoods most impacted by this development are our Custer McDonough Geist neighborhood and our Benteen Park neighborhood. It is physically located within the Benteen Park neighborhood. Following a thorough public review process that included the applicant across two separate monthly SAND meetings, SAND strongly recommended denial of this application without objection. The first reason is there has been a lack of good faith engagement with a property owner. And the applicant, he attended meetings and categorically refused to answer any questions from community members about the development. Second, while he has repeatedly verbally said that this is affordable housing, when both in conversations with me individually in my role as president, as well as in public hearings, he has refused to commit to any kind of affordable housing component, number of units, percent of targeted AMI, et cetera. And so the community believes this is simply an excuse to reduce his construction costs and placing the burden on the nearby neighbors. And third, this project is just simply wrong for this particular lot. The property has very limited access to public transit. It is more than a mile from the Beltline, so walkability scores in this area are not exactly the highest in the city. And then the impact on the immediate neighbors on Funston, two of whom you have heard from here, would be pretty meaningful if we're looking at 18, 19, 20 cars on a very, very narrow street. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Gardner. 315 is remaining.

Brent Huff, 1145 Moreland Place, Southeast Atlanta. I am the transportation chair for the Sand Neighborhood Association as well as the co-chair of the South Moreland Avenue Working Group, and I'm a 29-year resident of Ormwood Park. To be clear, I support smart density, affordable housing, and creative development. but there's a line between smart density and a complete disregard for the community. In fact, in all my years of neighborhood service, I have never seen an applicant be more disrespectful to community volunteers at our meetings. Setting aside conduct, look at the logistics. The applicant is proposing a 21-unit building while requesting a variance to provide just three parking spaces. As transportation chair, I can tell you unequivocally, this is a major public safety hazard. Benteen Elementary sits just 1,000 feet away at the end of Funston Street. Funston is narrow and completely lacks sidewalks for most of its length. Right now, children walking to school are forced to walk directly in the roadway along a constant stream of neighborhood traffic. By under-parking this building so drastically, the applicant will invariably push nearly two dozen vehicles onto the street. Adding a wall of parked cars to this narrow road will choke visibility, eliminate safe shoulder space, and create incredibly dangerous sight lines for both drivers and children. We support growth, but we cannot support variances that compromise the physical safety of elementary school students. I strongly urge the Board to deny this variance request. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Huff. We have 141 remaining.

I'm Peggy Halls. I live at 592 Flat Shoals Avenue, southeast Atlanta. And within our MPU, we're all in favor of affordable housing. We're very committed to it. but we also expect, and maybe it's too much for us to expect this, but for developers to be able to explain to us what they mean by affordable housing. So far from this applicant, we've got housing for people, these people are not going to need transportation in the form of an automobile, that within some blocks there is a bus that they could catch, that he's going to put in sidewalks that are going to connect, not the sidewalks, but to nothing that's really walkable. And he has really not given us any idea of what he means by affordable. His answers as to his definitions have been really just putting us down for asking that, because how can he know what it's going to be? His main emphasis on reducing the parking has been if it doesn't get reduced, then he's not going to be able to do affordable housing, and he will just build something else there that will not require the reduction. I oppose this because I don't think it's a serious affordable housing application, which isn't anything you really get to consider, but he has not engaged in giving us the information we need to know that this is a serious application. taking into consideration where the lot is, how people are going to get where they need to go.

Thank you. That concludes the time for rebuttal for this application. You have 241, Mr. Scott.

I'll be brief. I've heard what the opposing people have said. They're mainly members of the South Atlanta Neighborhood Association. They did deny it, but we did have a full hearing almost an hour and a half with the NPU. They expressed their concerns, but the NPU eventually voted for it. I expressed to the NPU my intention. And the affordable housing, one of the issues they're speaking on is because they wanted me to give affordable housing numbers as if I'm asking for some type of credit or some type of subsidy. I'm doing this out of my pocket just because I want to do this because I feel like this is best for the neighborhood. And this is my opportunity to do that. And in fact, yes, if This is not approved. I will just fall back on what's being built in the neighborhood. It's just a bunch of townhomes that have have parking below the townhome. It's not going to be affordable. I'm going to have to sell it for what's going on in the neighborhood. I mean, we're talking about two bedroom townhomes going for $400,000. This is what's changing this neighborhood. And in my opinion, if we sit back and allow, I mean, I get their concerns. But on my property, I'm building sidewalks, but I'm also adding diversity to this neighborhood. Right now, it's a situation where if you don't have a car, you don't have a house, you can't even afford to live in this neighborhood. The minimum pricing for these houses in this neighborhood is almost a half a million dollars. There are not any diversity of income, and I'm trying to improve that. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Scott. Well, that concludes the applicant's comments on this application, as well as those in opposition. So what happens now, just so everybody understands, we as a board will go into deliberations. Those that have spoken, we may have some additional follow-up questions for you so that we can arrive at a motion on this item. With that in mind, Ms. Thomas or Mr. Perry, do you have questions for those in opposition?

Not in opposition. I have questions for Mr. Scott.

Mr. Perry, you have any questions?

Yeah, we both do. Mr. Scott, you know, we definitely appreciate your desire to invest and develop in the community. We did have a few questions based on the application. It says that you are going to do 21 units. How many bedrooms are each unit?

They're all going to be, I have, I have planned for seven, one bedrooms and the rest will be studios. So these are being built for, you know, single, you know, specialty studios for one person, you know, So occupancy in the one-bedrooms, maybe two people could live there. But that's the plan. These are being built for people who can't afford to pay what it costs to get into a one-bedroom or two-bedroom house. I mean, in this neighborhood right now, anywhere over there, you have to pay your first month, last month. And you have to pay basically three months of rent to get an apartment in this neighborhood. And most people can't afford that.

Okay. Now, I know you stated that affordable housing, because I kind of had the same question that your neighbors have about I work heavily in affordable housing. Okay. If they are going to be affordable, what is your target AMI? Have you done the numbers? Because we know the capital stack to create development, since you say you're not seeking subsidies, what is your target AMI?

I did not put it in terms of AMI. I put it in terms of the average market for one bedroom or studio. I want it to be at least 25% below that number. And I don't know what that's going to be when I build this, but that's my goal, to be at least 25% below the average rent for similar units.

So let's say hypothetically you were able to get them built within, you know, the next three months. Like hypothetically, we know what rents are right now. So have you at least done a pro forma to show those numbers and how that could work and actually sustain your development?

Yes. One of the reasons it works, I own this property. I've owned it for years. I own it free and clear. So I don't, this is not me asking a bank for something. I'm a general contractor. I'm going to build this myself. I know exactly how much it's going to cost me per door to build this. And I know exactly what my return needs to be. And it falls in with me being able to pay less than 25% of the, I mean, being able to offer these units at 25% below the market value.

And the other question I have, your application is just showing kind of a site plan for Did you develop a vertical plan to kind of show everybody what it's gonna look like or how it would work with parking, without parking? Did you kind of explore those with your neighbors?

No, we did not. I worked with the zoning staff. This was what was required for the application. And a lot of things to keep this affordable is being able to figure out if we're going to be able to do this before we go to full drawn vertical drawings. Because I paid my silver engineer to do these documents, and that wasn't cheap. And if I go follow up with an architect to build something out that might not even be approved, You know, it's cost prohibitive. These are the things that help me keep the cost, be able to build this building within the cost to afford, to be able to provide these units below the market rate.

She asked all the questions. I don't have many for you, Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I have some follow-up questions for Mr. Scott. So usually when... Applicants and Ms. Thomas will know better than I with her work in affordable housing. Some projects are 80% AMI and some are 60%. So that gives a clear delineation what this project will look like, right? So those involved with capital stacks and those, anybody that coming in to view this project have a clear sight lines. That's what we're after, just a clear sight line. Every project that I've seen, it'll say 80% AMI, 60% AMI. We can really do quick math to that 80% number. I think that's one thing that's ambiguity is not a good thing when we're talking about these projects in these communities however affordability is a good thing when we talk about projects in these communities and it's that's that's that's kind of the intersection we we as a board sit at the the affordability um however the neighborhood impact as a result as it relates to the ordinance is is kind of the intersection of of our work here um with with that in mind i understand that um You're interested in three parking spaces and you want to increase the off street parking. Is that what your ask is of the board of this application?

No, I have no interest in pursuing increasing the off street parking. That's something that is brought into this debate without me. I intend to market these units to people who do not have vehicles. It's 21 units. I don't think that's outside of the realm of finding some people who don't have cars. That is going to be one of the selling points. And I intend to enforce that through the leases. This is an initiative that I intend on pursuing for affordable housing. And if you do at some point get a car, then you might need to move. If you can afford a car, then you can afford to live somewhere else. And free this unit up for people who don't. And you mentioned the AMI, the median income. I get where that's coming from. Most of those applications you see are people asking for money for some type of subsidy or some type of kickback or whatever they want to do this. I'm not asking for anything.

It's twofold. It's twofold.

I'm going to get to it.

Yes, it's twofold. It's giving everybody involved the indication what the 80 percent, what the criteria is for this development project.

But I'm reason I stated the way I did. I think most people understand 25 percent below market that market. You know, somebody, anybody I say that to can look and say, hey, what's the average rate? amount for a one-bedroom or a studio in this area, and they're going to say $1,000. And then I'm going to say, okay, I'm guaranteeing 25% off that. When you tell people the AMIs and all this income, a lot of these people, they don't know what that means. Y'all know what that means, and some of these people know because they have been presented this stuff. But if I tell somebody, hey, you're getting 25% off what the average market is, I think they understand that. And I try to keep it simple. And that's what it is. I'm trying to do something simple for a community that I grew up in so people like me. I grew up in this neighborhood. I went to Georgia State. I live in a studio apartment off Boulevard. No parking. And I rode my bike to school. And I graduated, guess what, without any student loans because I didn't have to do that. I was able to do this. And I'm here now, a successful student. entrepreneur in this community and I want to do the same for others.

Mr. Scott, I think some of the concern is since there's not any kind of MOU or any kind of understanding, anything holding you to, yeah, it could be presented right now that it's gonna be 20 units, you're gonna stay under market. It can be presented that way now, but of course, we know as markets change, I think that's one of the other additional concerns of the community is that you're saying this, but what is gonna keep it that way, even if that is the case?

I understand that, and we talked about that in the NPU meeting, and I stated what I said.

Which was?

They've even already said they get these promises from other people, and then the developer sells it to another developer, and those promises don't get transferred because you have a new property owner. So there's really no teeth in this at the end of the day. Either you take me for my word or you don't, but I have no reason to lie about this. That's just facts.

Would you be amenable to I know you presented the 21 unit. Have you explored some other possible designs? Yeah.

What fits is basically what everybody else is doing. It's townhomes. That's what people are doing. I mean, on these lots, on these kind of irregular lots, if you look all over this neighborhood to up and down Moreland, down Boulevard, they're all building the same thing that is not affordable. None of these units, renting or for sale, are affordable for someone who wants to live in the city and be able to enjoy the city. I grew up doing, I went to college doing that. I mean, I just think it's a shame that Atlanta is not going to be that city no more if we keep doing stuff like this.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas, for that clarity. Having said that, to flush out MOUs or any more clarity on your project? Are you all open to maybe a deferral? I know it's a bad word for projects and timelines and that kind of thing. So that more clarity, more can be done around this development. Are you open to that?

What I'm afraid of with that is there's nothing I can say to some of these people to make them change their mind. You've heard what they said. They just don't want... The possibility of people parking on streets in the neighborhood. So I would prefer if we had this discussion in the NPU and people ask this, do we want to wait or condition this? And the NPU voted, no, we don't want to condition him. We take him as a presentation, I present it, and they moved it forward with no conditions.

Understood.

That's not part of it. Yeah, that's not part of it. So as we're deliberating, when we take out, we understand the reasoning and the cause and the want to do the development and the reason why, but as a body, we're still here only really to focus on the zoning aspect and whether it's in compliance with the city requirements. Again,

If I could jump in, I would say it's in compliance with what the council.

Sir, please allow her to speak if she asks you a question, then you can respond.

I apologize. Kind of lost my train of thought. I was going to say, again, so it's, you know, outside of what all of the emotional and the things that, possibilities, we really here only to focus on what the law says and the application and applying it consistently. And we were hoping, because if we deny this, you can't come back in front of the board for the same thing for at least, what, 12 months. So if we defer it and possibly give you more time to maybe come up with some kind of alternative plan or some other possible design that could still meet your affordability desires, but also meet the zoning. Not even talking about what the neighbors want, but just the zoning requirements as they're stated right now, right? That could give you more time. Otherwise, based on what's presented in terms of the law and the ordinance, we would more than likely have to deny this just because you have not presented outside of just the NPU supporting it in terms of the parking, losing the buffer, being a detriment to the neighboring residential properties, you haven't really explained how you can... you know, reduce that or why it wouldn't be a detriment to the neighboring residential properties when they're going to lose their buffer. You said it's going to be maybe 21 spaces, but seven... you're already going to have possibly two cars per those seven one-bedrooms possibly, right? Even though you said you can, I don't know how you can enforce that in a lease per se, but even when they're visitors. So if you have something else you want to add to that, if you're open to deferral and want to go try to figure it out again, but otherwise we're probably going to be more inclined to deny it. based on the ordinance.

I understand. I wanted to do this for affordable housing. It's not approved. Like I said, we already have an alternative plan for townhomes.

I mean, we definitely want developers. I work with developers all day, every day. So we want developers to make the investment in the city. We don't want to deter people from spending their money, especially, like you said, you don't need anybody else's money to accomplish it. But we still have to be cognizant of what's here right now. You know, of course that could change, but as of right now we would, we have to go by what the ordinance states.

And I would lean on toward what just was passed by Mayor Dinkins' neighborhood reinvestment program. And these are the type of programs or projects that are going to have to be built for this city to turn and address the affordable housing. And I understand that this is going to make some people uncomfortable. I understand. I mean, in this neighborhood right now, you have houses that have the people who have signs in front of their neighborhood or, or cones saying, don't park in front of my house on a public street. I mean, at some point, you know, these things, these not in my backyard type of arguments are going to have to, um, be addressed by by the city down because it's not going to work and me as a developer telling you know people in their neighborhood hey you know this might not be what you wanted it to be and that's going to be the trade-off to be to live in the city of Atlanta with especially if we want a diverse city where people who you know can be in this community and not have to be in a at minimum, lower middle class to even afford to live in this city. But I get it. And in terms of deferral, again, I think there's nothing I can come back and come with that will get this neighborhood's approval. I got the NPU approval. I was just hoping that this would work. But if it doesn't, I totally understand. I'm a business person, and everybody has a job to do.

Randy Michael? Yes, I have no questions.

Mr. Chair, based on the finding of fact, conclusion, and recommendation as found in the staff report, I move to deny case B-26-043. Second. Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. We'll respect the case V26043. All those in favor, state your name, say aye or nay.

Philip Perry, aye.

Aisha J. Thomas, aye.

Michael Williams, nay. Your application has been denied.

Case number V26-056, application of Christopher Learson forbearances to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet and reduce the half-depth front yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling and a two-story accessory dwelling unit for property located at 1014 Kirkwood Avenue southeast, running 40 feet on the north side of Kirkwood Avenue and beginning at the northeast intersection of Weatherby Street and Kirkwood Avenue. Zone R5, two-family residential, beltline overlay, landlot 13 of the 14th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, Adobe LLC, Council District 5, NPU in. Staff recommendation is approval of conditional. NPU recommendation is approval.

Please state your name and address for the record.

You on now?

Check. Hello, my name is Christopher Learson. I am the owner of 1014 Kirkwood. Quick introduction, I'm a Georgia Tech architect practicing in town Atlanta since 1996. I'm one of the longest serving board members on the Reynolds Town Civic Improvement League for over 24 years when my wife and I moved in at 902 Kirkwood Avenue, just a short two minute walk from the subject property. I served on the NPUN as a representative for five years and the chair for an additional three. I received UDC awards for my developments and have designed, built, and renovated 74 homes in Reynolds Town as a licensed GC. I would like to discuss with you and have removed this curious condition placed upon the variance. I designed the ADU to have its primary entrance towards the side street, Weatherby. OZD told me that that was not allowed. I sincerely thought they had made a mistake. When I asked about this, they quoted section 1607.12.3. Front doors shall face and be visible from the adjacent street. I was dumbfounded. Visible, adjacent, I had done that. So I asked again. Then they said accessory buildings must align with the primary building, but could not provide a code reference for that. If our code itself is the reason why you make me change the front door, then why do we need a condition? The condition is excessive and odd. Here are four reasons that I'll list for you that this condition should not remain. Please do keep in mind that I'm speaking on behalf of this parcel as well as the policy in general. I am passionate about ADUs, affordability, neighborhoods, and safety. Number one, our zoning code does not support it. The code actually says the opposite of what the staff is demanding. The code literally says visible and adjacent street. Nothing about accessory buildings or alignment or otherwise. Number two, consistency. I quickly came up with and shared 11 other projects within just a few blocks recently permitted and built where the duplex and the ADU do not face the primary structure or street. In fact, 40 feet away, just 40 feet away facing my parcel are 1020 Kirkwood and 1019 Manigault. Both face Weatherby, our side street. Each of them about two years old. They are wonderful. Number three, neighborhood, for the good of the neighborhood. Having doors and entrances embracing the public realm increases safety for all residents. Safety for first responders and builds community. Our zoning code and CDP know this and stipulate as such. Number four, and this is where I get a little esoteric, so hang with me, but I think you can follow. The ADU design should be flexible within reason. Where an owner or an architect wants to face the door on an accessory building should be their right. Flexibility in facing the door towards the alley, towards a tree, towards a courtyard, the side street, or the primary building should not be disallowed. If we want these tricky infill homes to be fit in smartly and contextually, thereby aiding in our affordability crisis, we need to allow their doors to be anywhere. The reason I say this is an affordability issue is that the more rules and regulations we place upon them, the more difficult they are to deliver. deliver from a design and permitting and even construction standpoint. They are not the lovable little creations. If they are not lovable little creations, the less they will be desired all around. So in summary, four reasons to allow the ADU doors to face wherever, or at the very minimum, the side street as in my case, One, our zoning code does not stipulate it. Two, consistency with dozens of recent projects. Three, for safety and community. Four, flexibility is crucial to good design and affordability. I'll close by reading the statement of intent for R5. to provide the development of medium-density residential areas in a manner which will encourage owner occupancy of individual buildings as well as provide variety in the rental housing stock. I have done this to a T on one parcel. There's a three-bedroom, three-bath primary owner-occupied building in the front, the mortgage is helped paid by the rental in the back, and the rental is watched over by the primary. I would hope that the city could get behind projects such as this. I'm happy to read into the record the 11 precedent projects if you desire. Please let me know what questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. You have 431 should you need it. Anyone in opposition of this case, V26-056? Seeing no one. You have any additional comments? Mr. Learstein? Okay. What we'll do now is go into deliberations, and we'll ask any follow-up questions you might have.

I don't have any questions left.

I have just one clarifying question, Mr. Yes, sir. Go ahead. So the condition the staff recommended was to face the accessory dwelling entry toward Kirkwood. Is that correct? Yes, in essence. And that's just the one requirement of the city, correct? Yes.

Uh, yes. Recommendation.

Correct.

Right. They said if I changed my drawings, they wouldn't do a condition. So I changed my drawings. I was like, all right, fine. And then they put the condition on there and I was like, okay, wow. I, I, I don't know. I don't know why they're picking on me.

Okay. That's just a question I had. So, um, in your past experience with the accessory dwellings, um,

Never, ever before. I've done almost a dozen in Reynolds Town. Okay. And I've got a whole bunch of other projects and duplexes. I mean, they're everywhere. I was sincerely flummoxed. I couldn't believe that this was a new interpretation.

All right. That helps me with my understanding. That's all the questions I had. It's Thomas and Mr. Perry. If you all have questions, if not, we can put forth a motion.

Mr.

Chair, just as a point of clarity, the interpretation came from the zoning administrator who has authority to interpret the code if there is a concern or issue that the applicant has with the interpretation that is in, there's a process for that which he can appeal that interpretation if he so chooses to. So this is not a situation where, as the applicant indicated, where he's being picked on. when something is brought before the zoning administrator as a question or a concern, that zoning administrator would then make a determination which is an interpretation of the code and that was what was done in this case. We cannot speak for all the other projects that have been built in the city that Mr. Larson indicated that he has built contrary to this. When something like this comes before the board, that gives us the eye to see and question whether or not This is permissible. Other projects Mr. Littleson may have built within the city may not need an entitlement, so therefore would not have come before the board, nor would it have possibly come before in the offices on in development. It may have just been reviewed by... reviewers and we'll just say office of buildings. So again, this is not a situation where the applicant per se has been picked on. We have enforced this interpretation with other applicants. However, again, this interpretation was made by the zoning administrator.

Did you exercise that right to appeal that zoning interpretation that Secretary Blatch was speaking of?

I wouldn't call it an appeal exactly. It wasn't technically an appeal, but I did speak with Kieta and said, why? What's the rationale behind this? The code says nothing about accessory buildings. The code literally says visible from the adjacent street. visible from the adjacent street. And that's what I've done. And I've provided for you four really solid urban reasons as to why that is a good idea for Atlanta. I traded some emails with Kieta and said, why? What's the point? And they said, consistency. And I said, well, there's so many projects nearby that are not consistent. And so I don't understand if the code is clear on this, why do we need a condition? A condition is for something that the code doesn't really speak to or specify. So we're going above and beyond. Mr. Chair, you said we're to read the code. In some ways, just call me a dumb developer. I bought this property, I read the code, and I'd like to build this. Why can't I build that? I mean, it's in black and white. It's Webster's English, visible from the adjacent street. And, you know, that, I mean, you can't see where I'm pointing, but there's two projects right there that both face the side street with their, one's a duplex and one is an ADU. And so, I mean, if I can be candid, I don't even know why we're wasting our time about this. What does an ADU store matter? Like the primary, sure, I can get that. The principal building, okay, the code talks about that. But it doesn't specify the accessory building. And further, if you were to read it just super clearly, it says face the adjacent street. Check, did that. So I hope you hear I'm being reasonable and I care for, not just to get my way, but that it's good for Atlanta.

To give the board a little bit more clarity as to what Mr. Learson is referring to regarding the code. So the orientation of all properties, I'm sorry, access, front door access should be to the primary street. So that is the, That is the caveat as to, one, why the zoning administrator made that determination for the ADU, for the entry. Again, if Mr. Liaison does not agree with that interpretation, there is an avenue in place for him to make that argument. He can appeal that decision. and make the argument that he doesn't agree with it or what have you. But that is the current interpretation from the zoning administrator. And I'm giving you all of the information so that you all can make the decision based off of how we got to this point with the condition.

Thank you for that clarity, because I don't remember that we've ever had a situation like this. So thank you. Thank you, Secretary Blatch, for that clarity.

Mr. Chair, may I speak?

Give us one second. We're combing over some information. Sounds good. I'll ask you a question in just a second.

Yes, sir.

Prepare to make a motion, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Give me one second. Was it when you got the news about the door and where it had to face, were there options to move this along so obviously you didn't have to come before the board and move your project along?

No, sir. I need – the lot is too narrow, and so I need side yard and a front yard variance. So that's what I'm here for, basically. But since they threw the condition on there and making me change my door to something that the code doesn't quite say – thought we could discuss that and this would be my appeal process, so to speak.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

As you heard earlier, when we make these decisions, it's a pretty lengthy time before the they can come back before us. That's why I was asking. So if I understand you, you want to reduce the half yard, half depth front yard setbacks from 15 to five, reduce the front yard setbacks along Kirkwood Avenue from 30 to 20.

Yes, sir.

And you want to allow 50% size ratio between ADU and the primary dwelling.

And the third one I understand I do not need. It's not germane.

Okay.

But, yes, the first two are correct. The lot is narrow. It's 40 feet wide. So the half-depth side yard is very easy. And I can explain the front yard. There's an alley in the back, there are trees, but the average of the block face is like 21 feet. So all I'm asking for is a mere 12 inches beyond what would be given administratively. So the setback asks of you guys and of the city and the neighbors are all very benign. They've been granted here today already. So those are not what anybody had consternation over. It was the door.

That's why I wanted to get us back to what's being asked. Sure. And not focus on the door and the conversation around it, the ask. So we're all on the same page is to reduce the half-depth front yard From 15 to 5, reduce the front yard setback from 30 to 20.

Yes, sir.

Correct. And those are your ask, variance ask on this application?

Since day one, yes.

Okay. Okay, with that, we're on the same page. We could prepare a motion.

Mr. Chair, based on the finding of fact, conclusion and recommendation as found in staff report, I move to approve case V-26-056 with the following condition. The primary entrance of the accessory dwelling unit shall be oriented towards Kirkwood Avenue.

Motion's been made and properly seconded with respect to case B-26-056. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Philip Perry. Aye.

Isha J. Thomas. Aye.

Michael Williams. Aye. Motion passes. Good luck to you, sir.

Case number V26-059, application of Charlie Blitz for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for the construction of a new garage for property located at 1240 Beach Valley Road NE. Front at 80.87 feet on the north side of Beach Valley Road and beginning at the northwest intersection of Highland Way and Beach Valley Road. Zone R4, single-family residential landlocked, 56 of the 18th District of DeKalb County, Georgia. Owner, Charlie Bliss, Council District 6, NPUF. Staff recommendation is denial. NPU recommendation is approval.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Charles, is it on? Yeah. Charles Bliss, and my address is 1240 Beach Valley Road, Atlanta, 30306. Okay.

Mr. Bliss, would you care to get into the merits of your case?

OK, well, hello again.

Hello, Mr. Blase.

I took your recommendation. I made an appointment to meet with Tatum Jordan Madden, who in the zoning office, and he was very helpful. We shared with him our plans for, oh, are you going to put the picture up?

Yes, they're going to rotate.

We shared with him the plans we have for the garage in the back of the property. and after looking at the five foot and then an alternative, he strongly felt that the five foot was the best plan for that property. He said that it had minimal land disturbance, that it felt well on the property, and that it went with the neighborhood. We are seeking a single zoning variance to allow our proposed detached garage be located five feet from the rear property line. We believe this design is best fit for the property with the least amount of land disturbance. Now this property is a corner lot. One front is on Beach Valley, and then the secondary front is on Halen Way. So I have two fronts, a primary and a secondary. With the secondary front, it has a setback of 17.5 feet. Not your normal seven foot setback, but 17.5. Despite having a larger lot, we actually have a smaller buildable footprint because of the 17.5 setback requirement for the side yard facing Highland Way. Although our property is approximately 11,415 square feet, which is larger than the average R4 lot, its corner lot configuration requires a significantly more setback area. And as a result, it kind of shrinks our building footprint. We only have a 44.5% buildable footprint compared to an approximate... 47.4% buildable footprint for a standard interior lot. Our buildable footprint is 2.9% less than smaller interior lots. I'm nervous, can you tell? The proposed garage location provides an appropriate and functional backyard. Positioning the garage five feet from the rear property line preserves the backyard green space and minimizes the size of a driveway. This best conforms to the look and style of the neighborhood and meets our family needs. The proposed placement closely aligns with the location of the existing garage and results in the least amount of new ground disturbance. As illustrated in the attached site plan, This, let's see, best conforms and looks at the solid neighborhood. Proposed placement closely aligns with location of the existing garage and results in the least amount of new ground disturbance. As illustrated on the site plan, this approach minimizes grading, excavation, and overall impact to the property. The proposal has very strong neighborhood support. We are also pleased to note that the proposed garage placement received unanimous approval from all neighborhood review committees, including the MLPA and MPU. We also received support with no voice objection from surrounding neighbors. We appreciate this consideration and believe this support reflects that the project is compatible with the community and surrounding neighborhood. In closing, we respectfully request approval of our proposed 5-foot rear setback variance. We believe it is the most reasonable solution, allowing us to make appropriate use of our uniquely constrained corner lot while minimizing site disturbance, preserving a functional backyard, complying with all other zoning requirements, and reflecting the support of our neighbors.

That's what used to be there. Okay. That concludes your comments, Mr. Bliss?

Yes.

Okay. Is there anyone in opposition of this case, V26059? Seeing no one, what we'll do, like we did before, go into deliberations. We might have some follow-up questions so we can arrive at a motion on this.

Just remember, like that guy said, being a dumb developer, I'm just a dumb homeowner, okay?

Understood. Understood.

My architect, he couldn't be here today.

Well, that's fine. We're familiar with this. I mean, I think it was last month we looked at this. So with that, we'll go into deliberations and ask any follow-up questions for Mr. Bliss. I don't have any, sir. And I just have you five feet. Thank you for I know hearing what we said last time may have been a punching the gut or whatever to your project. And that's not our intent at all. We just... Oh, you gave me a path. We had... That's what we try to do. We try to do. And thank you for taking that path to get us here today. So you got five feet from the... um side yard setback looks like on this garage and it looks like we uh seven and a half was it was discussed as well but you all arrived at five tatum told us that that was the best option and to move forward with that recommendation okay okay yep you all took our advice thank you for that So with that, we'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, based on the finding of fact of the staff report, but not with the conclusion and recommendation provided by staff, I move to approve case B-26-059. Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded with V26059. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay.

Phillip Perry, aye.

Fisher J. Thomas, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Motion passes. Good luck, Ms. Bliss. I can breathe.

Thank you so much.

Case number V26-064, application of Keylor Witt for a special exception to allow a six-foot privacy fence in the front yard for a property located at 825 Harold Avenue Southeast. Fronting 50.13 feet on the south side of Harold Avenue and beginning 300 feet from the southwest intersection of Chester Avenue and Harold Avenue. Zone R5, two-family residential, beltline overlay, landlocked 20 of the 14th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Dina Perrine and Ada Searson, Council District 5, NPU in. Staff recommendation is denial. NPU recommendation is approval.

Name and address for the record.

Thank you, Board. I'm Keeler Witt. My address is 1361 Davis Bay Road, Lopez Island, Washington, 98261. I'm here on behalf of my wife and mother-in-law, Ada and Dina. The property in question is 825 Harold Avenue. That is a vacant lot that's right next door to Dina's home at 819 Harold Avenue. She's lived there for quite a while. There was a six-foot privacy fence along the sidewalk in front of that lot for many years, 30 at least. I replaced the pickets on it for her, and we received a notice from the city that it The fence was in non-compliance, so I submitted a variance application hoping that we could get it into compliance. When I went before the neighborhood, they had some recommendations to make that we change our variance so they could approve, and that recommendation was to move the fence off of the sidewalk line 15 feet back so it's now in line with the houses along the street. The average setback on that block is 14 and change. I love that idea, and I appreciated the neighborhood offering a path forward, so we took that path. I amended my variance, deferred last month, and now I'm here today. A couple of notes that I want to say based on the... staff recommendation. The proposed fence would screen an undeveloped plot from public view, which is true. I think a lot of these recommendations might have been made on the original variance and not the amendment that we proposed. But pushing the fence back 15 feet leaves the same frontage and yard space that all the other houses on the block have. So I feel like that's in the spirit of the code and the zoning. requirements. The fence was constructed without required permits was another note that the staff made, which is true, but I'm not trying to maintain that fence. We're taking it down and moving or hoping to build another fence that the neighborhood approves of. Staff did not observe similar fences along the block face. That's true. There aren't any other fences along the sidewalk, and I agree that there shouldn't be. It doesn't feel conducive to a walkable neighborhood. But pushing the fence back to in line with the homes adjacent to it serves to kind of block the sides. of the adjacent houses, our neighbors and my mother-in-law's home, to kind of provide the standard privacy that having a home on that lot will provide when we eventually do build on there. And I believe that's my, that's what I have to say. So if you have any questions, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Witt. Is there anyone in opposition of this case, V26064? Seeing no one, that concludes your comments, Mr. Witt? Yes, sir. So what we'll do is go into deliberation. We might have additional questions to arrive at a motion on this. I have a question. This is in the front yard?

Yes, sir. Yes. The lot is a full depth, full width, vacant lot.

And this fence prior to you replacing the pickets, it was opaque, which means you could see through. Did it have opacity then?

It was completely opaque. You could not see through it. It was all six-inch pickets right up next to each other, so you could not see through the fence that was there.

Okay, but you just replaced the pickets on it.

Yeah, I didn't know that it wasn't permitted.

Understood. Let me just give you what our guidelines are. Fencing in the front yard should not exceed four feet.

Correct.

And there should be 50% opacity. Understood. And this is six feet with... With no opacity, basically. Correct. So that's the conundrum we're in on this one.

Yeah. And so when I was originally in the variance process, I assumed the variance would be to adjust the setback because fully opaque and six-foot fences are allowed in the backyard and side yards. Correct. And so I was assuming that I would be able to apply for the variance. Talking to the planners, I figured out that what I need instead is a special exception.

Right, because you're in the front yard. That's why I wanted to make that point clear. Some people come here and they're not aware of that. The six foot is on the side and the back is a different set of standards versus the front yard.

Yes, sir. I understand that. Can you help me clarify when it's a vacant lot and there's no home, where does the front yard end?

If it's, this is based on that picture I'm seeing, it's clearly in the front. Oh, certainly. If the sidewalk is right in front of it.

Yeah, yeah. So how far back would I need to go for it to be considered the back or side yard?

You have to go to the rear yard setback to see that.

Okay. So the minimum yard requirements. So the front yard, there is, this is R5? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Front yard is 30 feet. Okay. So 30 feet is, um, so from the property line, 30 feet back. Sure. Um, that's where your buildable area will begin. Okay. So anything within that 30 feet from the property line and that That buildable area will be considered the required yard, so you cannot build in it.

Thank you for that clarification.

Now, fence can be in that required yard. That's what I want to let you know. Yes, your fence can be within that required yard, but it cannot be any higher than four feet without, of course, an approved special exception.

Understood. Thank you. And that is true for a home as well, correct? So if eventually we do want to build on this lot, in order to get the home in line with the adjacent homes on the lot, I will have to come in for a variance for that as well, yes?

If it's less than 30 feet.

If it's less than 30. It is. They're all 15 feet from the sidewalk.

Right. Yeah, thank you. Yes. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Always providing clarity on these. So you see the conundrum we're in on this particular fencing with no opacity is over the four feet that's required. It will have to move back substantially to meet the guideline, meet the ordinance. Yes, sir. So...

I understand the spirit of not wanting a six-foot fence right on the sidewalk. I'm in complete agreement with that. And I feel like we, in working with the neighborhood, I went to the multiple meetings and talked to the zoning committee, and we worked out this plan that they thought would work and might be approved for zoning to put the fence in line with the front of the adjacent homes.

Understood. I see on the picture here, see one fencing that's really close to your fence. You may not see it on your pictures. I see it on mine. It's 50%. It's six feet. It's in line with the ordinance. And that may... Although you were doing such a.

It's a wrought iron fence that's against. Oh, sure.

Yeah. That's the fence that's currently in front of her house, which is in compliance. Exactly. Yes, sir.

And that may have been what they saw when they came out to cite it. They said, well, this is what is right. This is what isn't right. Right. But what we like to do is see what the path forward is. Are you open to making this opaque, this fencing opaque along the front yard?

If that's what the board requires, sure, yeah. Yeah, we're happy to make exceptions. I would prefer the opacity to maintain the kind of privacy, but... The opacity and... Yeah, no, opaque. I'd prefer to keep it completely opaque, but I understand that if that's not something the board would approve, we can find another path forward, yeah.

Yeah. Oftentimes, what we try to do is just give suggestions on what can happen to move these up forward if... this fencing were in line with the opacity standards and the height, I'm sorry, I've been talking all day, and the height, then that seems to be a simple path forward if you're amenable to that.

I would probably not build a four-foot fence. a 50% opacity fence at that 15 foot mark. It wouldn't serve the purpose of the privacy provided to the side of the home that's there and to the yard that we use as like a garden.

Got you. So that I mentioned because a denial would mean to remove the fencing altogether and then come up with some other probably more expensive design than this.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, either way, we're removing the fence. We have to. It's not in compliance. This fence is not staying. It's already in the process of being removed right now. Oh, okay. So this, as it stands, will not be here by the time I go back home to Washington State on Monday.

Oh, okay.

But the hope was that I could at least line out some workers to build the new fence 15 foot back before I head back to my home.

Gotcha. Understood.

So, for my clarity, you are in line with building a fence 15 feet. Well, actually, 30 feet.

Or getting a special exception for 15 feet. Okay.

Okay, so essentially what his request is he's going to Place the fence 15 feet back from the property line, correct? But he wants it at six feet. He was still wants a six-foot privacy fence. He's building it 15 feet back from the property line As it stands right now fence can be on the property line, he's looking to recess it back 15 feet, but he's still requesting the six feet.

Okay, correct.

Thank you for clarifying. I'm ready to make a motion, Mr.

Chair. Go for it, Mr. Peer.

All right.

Mr. Chair, based on the finding of fact, conclusion, and recommendation as found in staff report, I move to deny case B-26-064.

Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded with respect to V-26064. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay.

Phillip Perry, aye.

Asha J. Thomas, nay.

Michael Williams, nay.

Thank you for your time today, Board.

I really appreciate it. Thank you. Hopefully that provided some clarity.

It very much does, yeah. I can go request a permit to build this fence now. Is that correct?

Yes. It's the Office of Buildings, and it's right on the second floor.

All right. Thank you so much.

Thank you, sir. You have a great day. You too. With that, we are adjourned. Very long.