Board of Zoning Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Give another round of applause for 40 years of Midnight Basketball!

I'm a young man who started out in the community, you know, just looking for outlets, looking for family, looking for brotherhood, you know, just making it day by day. Midnight Basketball, like, it helped me see a community, a family, people who actually care.

Today, it's about celebrating midnight basketball both locally and nationally, highlighting the players, the mentors, the coaches, the donors, sponsors, and the partners who really make this work possible for Atlanta's young folks.

What often doesn't get talked about is the growing gap that we're seeing, not only in Atlanta, but a national trend of our young adults between 17 and 30 years old. We see every disparity that we know of from affordability to workforce to healthcare to opportunities impact that age group even more now than ever.

And so midnight basketball gives our young people across Atlanta a safe space to compete and to stay engaged in positive activities.

This has never just been about putting basketballs in people's hands. It's about putting hope in people's hearts. It's about creating opportunities. It's about giving young people somewhere to go, somebody to listen to, somebody to look up to, and reminding them that there are circumstances that don't have to determine their future.

So to anybody out there, this event and this organization and this just lead just gives us hope, you know, that we can make it and we can conquer anything no matter where you came from.

Atlanta seniors are vibrant, 0-6-8, sharp and unstoppable.

Once I get up in here with Coach Doug, it be on the gospel is off the chain.

Atlanta is more than a city. It's a canvas of stories painted by those who dedicate their lives to building something bigger than themselves. Faces of the City Atlanta celebrates the people who embody the heart of our neighborhoods. Their stories of resilience, creativity, and impact remind us of what it means to build a community together.

Want to know the best way to get rid of an old couch, broken fridge, or a dozen bags of yard trimmings? Just call ATL 311. We make it easy. We'll help you schedule a bulk collection. Go to ATL311.com, select the solid waste calendar, scroll down, and select bulk collection.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This meeting is being held in compliance with the Georgia Open Meetings Act, OCGA 50-14-1. This meeting is of 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, Ms. Aisha J. Thomas, and Vice Chair Mr. Kevin Bacon. Ms. Angela Blatch is Secretary of the Board. Mr. Francis Rozier is with the Office of Zoning Development. Also present is the Board's Attorney, Ms. Charlie Hewitt. Before we get started, we'd like to acquaint you with some of the rules and procedures of this meeting. The official records of the proceeding are being taped. When give testimony, please speak directly into the microphone and address all 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 include applications with unanimous recommendations for approval with no conditions attached from both the planning staff and MPU. If conditions are attached to an approval recommendation from the staff or the MPU, the application will not be included on the consent agenda unless the conditions are the same from the staff and MPU. 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, board will immediately go into deliberations to vote on the consent agenda. However, before this occurs, the chair will ask whether any board members wishes to remove any item from the proposed consent agenda. Chair will also ask whether any applicant or 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 it will 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 adopt I'm sorry, unless the board acts to amend the agenda, cases are generally heard in the following order. Deferrals, withdrawals, consent agenda cases, appeals, remaining new cases, and previously deferred cases. Our secretary will sign each case on the agenda and will give the planning staff and NPU recommendations. All cases will be heard in the order as listed on the agenda and in accordance with the amended agenda as adopted by the board. Everyone who wishes to speak must fill out the sign-in sheet located on the podium. Prior to presenting any 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 will defer or postpone on the motion of any Board member or on the request of the filing party only for good cause and with the consent of the majority of the Board. Cases that are deferred at the request of the applicant will be assessed as a 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 testimony. Testimony by members of the public in support of the case shall be included within a 10-minute application presentation time. The burden of proof is upon the applicant, so... 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 comments or questions that have been raised by the 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 considerate of the number of parties that wish to speak in opposition of an application. All testimony is taken as if under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury. All testimony should be relevant, although we do not adhere to former court rules of evidence. All material 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 presentations by all parties, any relevant materials presented as well as ask questions of each party as desired or necessary and then vote immediately following each case. No participation by the public will be permitted during deliberation unless requested by a board member. Written notification from the Office of Zoning and 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 variants, special exception, and or appeals as advertised and 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 that has strayed too far from the subject at hand and requests that a 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. This board does not have the authority over the policies, procedures, and operations of the Department of City of Atlanta. We will be addressing zoning matters pursuant to the City of Atlanta zoning ordinance as it relates to the relevant facts, particularly application, comments, evidence from the parties that are before us and are speaking in either support or denial. One other matter should be mentioned. Differing viewpoints may be presented today, and it's possible and even probable that not everyone will agree with or be pleased with the decision of the board. However, this board intends to make fair decisions based on relevant facts of the case and in accordance with 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 this hearing. Finally, no demonstration 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, vibrate all cell phone paging devices and flashes from cameras so that we may 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 deferral or withdrawal. Case numbers are V-26-091, V-26-097, and V-26-105. Philip Perry, second. Motion has been made and properly seconded. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Philip Perry, aye. Kevin Bacon.

Alicia J. Thomas, aye. Kevin Bacon, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Motion passes. I will 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 V-26-016, V-26-080, V-26-095, V-26-096, and V-26-099. Second. Phillip Peary. Second. Before we put the consent agenda to vote, anyone present wish to remove any items from the consent agenda? Seeing none.

It's not on the consent agenda. 103 is not on the consent agenda. No, it's not on the consent agenda.

No, it's not on the consent agenda.

Motion's been made.

Any board member wish to remove any consent agenda items to be heard on the regular? No, sir.

No.

Seeing no one. Motion's been made and properly seconded. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Phillip Perry. Aye.

Alicia J. Thomas. Aye. Kevin Bacon. Aye.

Michael Williams. Aye. Motion passes.

Case number B26-091, application of Gail Mooney for a variance to reduce the east side yard setback from 7 feet to 0.3 feet for the construction of a new single family dwelling for property located at 2213 Ridgedale Road Northeast, finding 52 feet on the south side of Ridgedale Road. And begin at approximately 323 feet from the southeast intersection of Rockford Road and Ridgedale Road. Zone R4, single-family residential, land lot 205 of the 15th District of DeKalb County, Georgia. Owner Stacey Lee, Council District 5, NPUO. The recommendation is for deferral.

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

Mr. Chair, on case number V-26-091, I recommend that we defer this case to a regularly scheduled meeting on October 8, 2026. Philip Perry, second.

Motion to be made in property, second, with respect to V-26-091. All those in favor, state your name, say aye or nay.

Philip Perry, aye.

Aisha J. Thomas, aye. Kevin Bacon, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Motion passed.

Case number B26-097, appeal of Paul White of a decision of administrative officer in the Office of Buildings for property located at 175 Huntington Road Northeast, front and 50 feet on the east side of Huntington Road, and beginning approximately 1,762.8 feet from the southeast intersection of Camden Road and Huntington Road. Zone R4, single family residential, Brookwood Hills overlay, land lot 103 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Kevin J. Kleinhelter, Council District 6, NPUE. The recommendation is for deferral.

Seeing no one, we'll go to deliberation and entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, on case number V-26-097, I recommend that we defer this case into a regularly scheduled meeting on October 8, 2026.

Philip Perry, second. Motion has been made and properly seconded with respect to V-26097. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Philip Perry, aye.

Aisha J. Thomas, aye. Kevin Bacon, aye. Michael Williams, aye. Motion passed.

Case number V26-105, application of Maya Abad for a special exception to increase the total floor area of an accessory structure from 30% of the main structure to 50.4% for the construction of a guest house for a property located 951 Wiley Street Southeast, front at 22.69 feet on the south side of Wiley Street, and beginning at 171 feet from the southeast intersection of Flat Shoals Avenue and Wiley Street. Zone R5, two-family residential, beltline overlay, landlocked, 13 of the 14 District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, Maya Back, Council District 5, NPUN. The recommendations for deferral.

Seeing no one, we'll go into deliberation and entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, on case number V-26-105, I recommend that we defer this case to a regularly scheduled meeting on October 1st, 2026.

Philip Peary, second. Motion's been made in property second with respect to V-26-105. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Philip Peary, aye.

Mr. J. Thomas, aye. Kevin Bacon, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Motion passed.

The following cases are on consent. Case number V26-016, application of a shell bill for variance to increase the lot coverage from 50% to 55%. Eliminate the front porch requirement on the facade of the principal structure and eliminate the requirement that front doors shall face and be visible from the adjacent street for the construction. of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling for property located at 1093 Amsterdam Avenue Northeast, running 53 feet on the south side of Amsterdam Avenue and beginning 52.49 feet from the southwest intersection of Rosewood Drive and Amsterdam Avenue. Zoned are four single-family residential land like one of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Hemsham ABUCADER, COUNCIL DISTRICT 6, MPUF. CASE NUMBER V26-080, APPLICATION OF MISHKA PARKER FOR VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM LOCK 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 LINEAR BOULEVARD NORTHEAST. FRONT AND 55 FEET ON EAST SIDE OF LINEAR BOULEVARD. And beginning approximately 110 feet from the southeast intersection of Amsterdam Avenue and Lanier Boulevard. Zone R4, single family residential land lot 1 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Lawrence R. Summerfield, Council District 6, NPUF. Case number B26-095, application of Oliver Burgess for a special exception to increase the height of a privacy fence more than 50% opacity from six feet to eight feet in the rear yard and side yards for a property located at 152 Holiday Avenue Northeast, front of 49.98 feet on the east side of Holiday Avenue and beginning at the southwest intersection of Seaboard Avenue and Holiday Avenue. Zone R5, two-family residential, beltline overlay, landlocked 14th of the 14th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, Oliver Burgess, Council District 5, NPUM. Case number V26-096, application of Jameela Brown for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 25.4 feet for a screen enclosure of an existing patio for property located at 3517 Dumbarton Road Northwest, from the 190 feet on the north side of Dumbarton Road and beginning 227 feet from the northwest intersection of Castlegate Drive and Dumbarton Road. Zone R2, single-family residential, Landlot 158 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owners Frank and Lily Reese, Council District 8, NPUA. Case number B26.099, application of Casey Palo for advance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 13 feet for the construction of a first floor and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling for property located at 1728 Marvin Street Northwest. From the 50 feet on the west side of Marvin Street and begin at 248 feet from the northwest intersection of DeFore Avenue and Marvin Street. Zone R4. Senior Family Residential, Upper West Side Overlay, Landlot 187 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner John Beckett, Council District 9, NPUD.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Reading those consent agenda cases into the record, we'll now 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.

Philip Peary. 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. Philip Peary. Aye.

Alicia J. Thomas. Aye. Kevin Bacon. Aye.

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

Case number V26-101, application of Diane Barfield for a variance to increase the width of a driveway in the front yard from 20 feet to 43 feet and a special exception to allow a parking pad in the required front yard for property located at 1055 Foxcroft Road NW, funding 206.01 feet on the west side of Foxcroft Road. and begin at approximately 170.12 feet from the southwest intersection of Dunbarton Court and Foxcroft Road. Zone R2, single-family residential land, lot 180 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, Dominique Morea. Council District 8, MPUA. Staff recommendation is denial. MPUA recommendation is approval.

Please state your address, Ms. Barfield.

You're good now. Is it this one right here? You're good now. No, the other one. You're good.

Yes, ma'am. Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Diane Barfield, representing the property owner at 1055 Foxcroft. We'd like to request a deferral of this application, please.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Barfield. We'll go on to deliberation and entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, on case V-26-101, I move that we defer the case until a meeting to be determined.

Philip Heary. Second. Motion's been made improperly. Second with respect to V26101. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Philip Heary. Aye.

Alicia J. Thomas. Aye.

Kevin Bacon. Aye. Michael Williams. Aye. Motion passes.

Case number V26-103, application of Haley Dover for a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 43.01% for the construction of a pool in a rear yard for property located at 995 Battle Creek Way Northwest. front of 119.84 feet on the east side of Battle Creek Way and beginning at the northeast intersection of Street Battle Avenue and Battle Creek Way. Zone R3, single-family residential, land lot 184 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. On our April Marable, Council District 8, MPUC. Staff recommendation is denial. MPU recommendation is approval.

African present.

Hi, yes.

My name is Haley Dover. Hi, yes, my name is Haley Dover.

Please state your address, Ms. Dover.

995 Battle Creek Way. Okay.

Care to get into the merits of the case?

Well, we would like to ask for approval for the increase in lot coverage for 3%. I know that the zoning had previously approved them for, I think it was 1.24% over in 2024. We're asking now to increase the pool size and the patio size for the homeowners. The MPU has given us approval. And we're also recommending an oversized rain garden to mitigate all the stormwater that we'll be proposing.

That concludes your comments? Yes, sir.

That concludes your comments?

Yes, sir. 925, should you need it? Should someone be in opposition for rebuttal purposes? Okay.

Okay. Anybody in opposition of V26103? Seeing no one. Seeing no one.

Would you like to add any additional comments before we go into deliberations? We might have some questions for you, so you may want to stay put.

No, sir, I do not.

Okay. With that, we'll enter deliberations, and we may have some additional follow-up questions about this application.

Okay.

Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.

I have one question, Ms. Dover. I have one question, Ms. Dover. I know you stated back in 2024 it was approved by the board for your design.

Yes, I believe it was a 10 by 22 at that point, the size of the pool. It had been a miscommunication from my understanding with the previous person that had permitted and did the zoning with y'all. They had done the site plan smaller than the homeowner said originally approved. And miscommunication got happened. And then y'all approved a pool that they weren't necessarily wanting. They were wanting a bigger pool at the time. So then things got delayed. They just put off the project.

Are you willing to speak with your clients in regards to going back to the original design of that pool?

They're willing to go back to the original design or to go under the 40%, but would really like to go with their new design. They're staying in that same scope that they were the last time within that existing block wall that they have on the property. But would be willing to do some other options. I know another option that the city proposed was maybe doing concrete or turf in between the driveway, breaking it up to get more impervious surface. They're really not looking to do that. But, you know, I guess we're open.

So do you think we should defer this and they go back to the client and see if they would go back with the original design of the...

Well, we've spoken to them, and they would really like to see if this would get approved before having to defer back to, you know, what would, you know, but they previously didn't approve, you know, but it's kind of a complicated situation. Yeah, it's kind of a complicated situation.

Okay, that's all the questions I have. Thank you so much, ma'am.

Yeah, no problem.

Any other questions for Ms. Doerr?

Any other questions for Ms. Doerr?

So I just have a clarifying question. Should this not get approved? They will proceed with the original approval or will they modify it?

Yes, we would like to at least be able to have that 41.24 that y'all had approved previously. Because that was over on the, it was 40 originally, but we have the approval from zoning that stays the 4.124, I think it is.

Okay. So that will be?

So just a point of clarification. The previously approved entitlement for the lot increase does not go away. You have that right. You have that that was approved by the board. So whether or not they approve your additional request, it would not mitigate or eliminate that previous request.

okay yeah see i was unsure about that because it wasn't specifically um applied for with zoning i don't think because the big thing was they applied for last time was to reduce the side setback from 20 to 10 but on the approved plans it shows over on lock coverage um by that 1.24 yeah okay so with that being said if they are

If the entitlement did not include an increase in lot coverage, then that would be something that this board would definitely have to either consider. If the entitlement that was approved by the previous board, and I don't have your previous application in front of me, if the previous application was only for setback and not for lot coverage, then, board, that would be...

But since it has the zoning approval on it with that overage, does that still apply to them?

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

The entitlement granted was for your communication, was just for setbacks.

That was from my understanding, yeah. But the plans that I saw that had the zoning approval stamp on it, did have an increased lot coverage of 1.24.

That was the point of my question, so that should this not go the way you anticipated what the go-forward plan could be for URO's project. And it sounds like, based on Madam Secretary, that those entitlements still exist should this board not favor the increased size in the pool.

Okay, so we'll be able to stick with everything that was previously approved.

I am going to really have to really take a look at that. Because if your previous application had a lot coverage increase, but it was not a request before this board, then that doesn't give you an outright entitlement to it. It may have been an oversight when it was reviewed. However, if this is now being brought to light based off of what you're now requesting, the only entitlement that I could say that would stand would be the entitlement in which you requested and which the board approved.

Okay.

So that was where I was trying to go. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for that guidance. Because should it not be approved because the hardships that we are tasked with looking at in approving requests that come before us, I don't speak for any other board member, but I don't see any. So should there not be a go-forward plan with the increased size that you are here asking for? I just wanted to be clear how you proceed with this project, even after today. That make sense?

If I may, it seems like we don't have all of the facts here. We necessarily need to make a decision here today. I think we... If there was a previous request that was approved for a lot coverage increase without putting it to a vote, it feels like the... kind of tone of the board here is we don't want to kind of keep inching this forward. But if one was not granted previously, that's a different conversation. But we don't know the full spectrum of those entitlements that were given.

I can find the approval letter from the previous signing if that would help.

Well, that's where I was going. Like, if we need a deferral to get to the bottom of the case, if we can't do that right now, then I'm open to that without just shutting it down here and needing to come back a third time for some other different request. Like, if something's out of order, can we get that correct and get it back in the next meeting?

Well said. Okay, so I am going to... My suggestion, and again, this would be up to the board, it would be to defer this application. We can defer it to the October 8 agenda. That would give us enough time to pull that previous record and then give feedback to yourself and or the owners on how it needs to move forward.

Okay. I think that would be great.

So with that, we'll enter deliberations and entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, on case number V-26-103, I move we defer this case until a regularly scheduled meeting on October 8, 2026. Phillip Perry, second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded with respect to case V-26-103. All those in favor, state your name and say aye and nay.

Phillip Perry, aye. Ayesha J. Thomas, aye. Kevin Bacon, aye.

Michael Williams, aye. Motion passed. Thank you.

Case number V26-104, application of Randy Rhino for a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 52% for the construction of a new single-family dwelling for property located at 400 Harrington Drive Northeast, finding 160.17 feet. on the north side of Harrington Drive and beginning approximately 210 feet from the northwest intersection of Waiuka Road and Harrington Drive. Zone R3, single-family residential land, lot 64 at the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, Pete Lau, Council District 7, MPUB. Staff recommendation is approval. MPU recommendation is approval conditional.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Yes, Mary Lau, 400 Harrington Drive Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia.

OK. Please get into Mayor's suitcase, Ms. Lau.

OK. Please get into Mayor's suitcase, Ms. Lau.

Yes, we presented. So our current lot coverage is actually 55%. And our initial proposal was to bring it down to 52%. But upon unanimous agreement from the NPU, we agreed to bring it down to 49.9%.

That concludes your comments? Okay.

That concludes your comments, Ms. Lau?

Does that conclude your comments about the matter?

Yes, sir, but I'm happy to take questions.

Okay.

All right. Is there anyone speaking opposition in this case? I'm sorry. Is there any others to speak in support of this case, V26104? Name and address for the record.

Kim Shorter, 3353 Grant Valley Road, Northwest. I'm the zoning chair for MPUB, and we support it with a 49.9% lot coverage, given the unique nature of this property.

Thank you, Ms.

Shorter.

That concludes your comments, Ms. Lau?

Yes, sir. Okay.

Anyone speaking in opposition of V26104? Seeing no one, what we'll do now, Ms. Louse, going to deliberations, there may be a question or two for you. Are not.

No questions for me. No questions, sir. Okay. We'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, on case number V-26-104, based on the findings of fact and conclusion recommended found in the staff report, I move to approve the case, conditioned that the lot coverage shall not exceed 49.9%. Bill, period. Second. Second one.

Motion's been made in property second with respect to V26104. All those in favor, state your name, say aye or nay. Philip Beery. Aye.

Ayesha J. Thomas. Aye.

Kevin Bacon. Aye. Michael Williams. Aye. Motion passed. Thank you.

Thank you, counsel.

Thank you.

Case number B26-107, application with Jonathan Richard Sturtz for variances to reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to 40 feet 2 inches, reduce the north side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet 2 inches. From 10 feet to 5 feet 6 inches, reduce the south side yard setback from 10 feet to 8 feet 8 inches, and a special exception to allow a parking pad in the front yard for a second-story addition to an existing single-family dwelling for property located at 1066 Northcliff Drive NW. finding 87.56 feet on the west side of Norcliffe Drive and beginning approximately 2,114.4 feet from the southwest intersection of Howell Mill Road and Norcliffe Drive. Zone R3A, single-family residential, landlocked 184 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Jonathan Richard Sturtz, Council District 8, MPUC. Staff recommendation is denial. MPU recommendation is approval.

Let's state your name and address for the record.

Hello, my name is Jonathan Sturtz, owner of 1066 Northcliffe Drive, Northwest.

Okay, please get into the mayor's case.

Okay, please get into the mayor's case. Yes, so our existing 1952 house that we purchased in 2013, the four walls are over the setbacks, and so we are requesting to primarily build vertically, to build a second story, allow One, to allow more space for our son who was diagnosed with stage four cancer in 2020, who's had bone cancer and was left with So we will not only build vertically, but we'll also be able to make some wider hallways and some different things for him. So we're requesting from the front yard, 50 feet is required, our existing... building goes to 40 feet 2 inches. On the north side, our building goes to 5 feet 6 inches. On the south side, our house goes to 8 feet 8 inches. And then the special exception for a front yard parking pad. is what we are forcing to stay in our community that we love and um uphold the integrity of the of the neighborhood that we received approval from and we have um nine letters of support of all our surrounding neighbors thank you mister does that conclude your comments yes it does okay is there anyone else speaking on position of this application v26107

Is there anyone speaking in opposition of V26107? I'm sorry, correction, support? I'm sorry, support of V26107.

Okay.

Seeing no one, what we'll do is we'll go into deliberations. We might have some questions, some comments.

I don't have any, sir.

I don't have any, sir. Or not.

I don't have any.

With that, we'll enter deliberations, entertainments. Mr. Chair.

Mr.

Chair, based on the findings of fact of the staff report, but not with the conclusion recommendation provided by staff, I move to approve case number V-26-107 on the grounds that, one, I don't think we want to tear down a house in order to try to do an addition. I actually... find with the application of the current zoning ordinance after the house was constructed in 1952 creates that hardship, and that is the basis of my recommendation.

Second.

Philip Peary. Second. Motion has been made and properly seconded with respect to V26107. All those in favor, state your name, say aye or nay. Philip Peary. Aye.

Ayesha J. Thomas, aye.

Kevin Bacon, aye. Michael Williams, aye. Motion passes. Good luck, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, sir.

Case number V26-108, application of Lacey Adams for a special exception to allow active recreation of pool and yards adjacent to a street in advance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet for additions to an existing single-family dwelling for property located at 33 Maddox Drive Northeast. Fronting 43.53 feet on the south side of Maddox Drive and beginning at the southwest intersection of Bartsdale Drive and Maddox Drive. Zone R4, single family residential, Beltline Overlay, Landlot 55 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Michael Rubel, Council District 6, MPUE. Staff recommendation is approval. MPU recommendation is approval conditional.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Carla Dresler, 1502 Pound Mountain Drive, Marietta.

Okay, Ms. Dresler.

Okay, Ms. Dresler. Please get into the mayor's civil case.

Absolutely. This is an existing property located at 33 Maddox Drive. The existing property encroaches into the front setback 14 feet and 2 inches. So all we're asking for is the ability to renovate the property as it stands. We're also asking for a special exception to add a swimming pool to the rear yard of this property that is a locked corner. We met with the neighbors and Ensley Park Civic Committee to answer any questions and just clarify what we were going to do with the property. There was, at the time, some confusion about the front porch because they were afraid that we were going to take the setback and just build up towards the new setback given. But really, the existing property's basement, the part that is buried under what the street front can see, is the part that encroaches into the 14-2. And we're only requesting to renovate within the existing footprint. We will not be adding any volume to the front or any condition space or porch on the street level of what's seen from Maddox Drive. And that's where the conditions came in place of them just wanting to make sure that we would hold true to the site plans that were submitted.

Thank you, Ms. Gessler. That concludes your comments.

Thank you, Ms. Gessler. That concludes your comments. Yes, sir. Okay. Anyone else speak in support of V26108? Anyone in opposition of V26108? Seeing none, we'll do is go into deliberations and have some clarifying questions and arrive at a motion.

No questions, sir.

No questions. Somebody has to ask a question today. Could you? Yeah, that's always my job, right? Just some clarification. I wasn't quite clear on what were the NPU conditions or were there not at the end of the day?

Yeah, no, the condition was that we stayed true to the site plan that was submitted for the variance process. It shows that at the front, even though we are extending, we are reducing the front setback, our intention is not to build up to that line. It's just to keep true to the footprint of the existing building.

Okay. Thank you very much for restating that. I appreciate it. I have no questions.

Mr.

Chair, based on the findings of fact and conclusion and recommendation as found in the staff report, I move to approve case B-26-108.

Philip Heary. Second. Motion has been made and properly seconded with respect to V-26-108. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay. Philip Heary. Aye.

Alicia J. Thomas. Aye. Kevin Bacon. Aye.

Michael Williams. Aye. Motion passed. Good luck, Ms. Dresler.

Thank you.

And with that, we are adjourned.