Board of Zoning Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Since Advantage Capital, our state investor, I'm not sure if Tory Cook is here. Thank you. Mitch is here. Mitch is here. Oh, that's right, Mitch. Thank you, Mitch, for everything that you all do. The Community Foundation of Greater Atlanta, Zach Adler, Brandon Davies, and Jonathan Andrews, thank you. Sarah, being the predecessor there, thank you for all that they do and their investment in this project. And the Atlanta Urban Development Corporations, John Majors and his team. Thank you.

Three, two, one. We've made progressive progress, but progress alone isn't the goal. The goal Over the next four days, you'll examine the evidence, study the violence in Atlanta, learn from researchers and practitioners, and together you'll begin developing a coordinated violence reduction plan and strategy that will change and save lives. And I need you to think critically about what this data is telling us. Be honest about what is working be equally honest about what is not working and listen to the people in this room you see the city's challenges from a different position the folks living in our neighborhood reinvestment the NRI neighborhoods deserve action they deserve safer streets they deserve greater opportunity and they deserve to experience the best of Atlanta

Welcome back, everybody. Hi, everyone. Candace Stansel, your City of Atlanta Chief Impact Officer. I wish every Atlanta student joy, learning experiences that inspire, and growth beyond your wildest dreams this year.

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

This meeting has been held in compliance with the Georgia Open Meetings Act, 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 Appeal. 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 all with some of the rules, procedures of this meeting. Official records of the proceedings 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 may include applications with unanimous recommendation for approval with no condition attached from both planning staff and the NPU. If conditions are attached to approve a 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 an 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 deliberation 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 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 order. in which received by the secretary enlisted on the published agenda as amended. Unless the board acts to amend the agenda, the cases are generally heard in the following order, deferrals or withdrawal consent agenda cases, appeals remaining new cases or previously 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 order as listed on the agenda or in accordance with the amended agenda as adopted by the board. Everyone who wishes to speak must fill out signing sheet located on the podium prior to giving 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 for deferral immediately after the case is sounded and before making any statements on the merits of the case. 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 with the consent of the majority of the board. Cases that are deferred at the request of the applicant will be assessed 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 case. A testimony by members of the public in support of the case shall be included within a 10-minute application 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 of the testimony. The rebuttal time will be limited to addressing comments 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 be considerate of the number of parties that wish to speak in opposition of the application. All testimony will be taken as if under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury. All testimony should be relevant although we do not adhere to formal court rules of evidence. All material that you submit to this 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 of the board, we're promptly going to 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 will be 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. The only matters this board will address are zoning issues related to applicable variance, special exceptions, 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 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, or 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 the relevant facts and particular applications and comments and evidence from the parties that are before us in speaking in either support or denial. One other matter should be mentioned, and different viewpoints may be presented today, and it's possible and even probable not everyone will agree with or be pleased with the decisions of this board. However, this board intends to make fair decisions based on relevant facts of the case and in accordance with the relevant ordinances 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, vibrate all cell phone 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, since we don't have any cases to be deferred or withdrawn, I'll move on to a motion making a motion to move the following cases to the consent agenda. The cases are V-26-067, V-26-079, V-26-085, V-26-087. Phillip Perry, second. Motion's been made with respect to the consent agenda items. Before we...

these consent agenda items, anyone present wishes to remove any items from today's consent agenda to be heard on the regular hearing schedule. Seeing no one, the consent agenda items, motions have been made in second. And all those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay.

Philip Peary. Aye.

Ayesha J. Thomas. Aye. Kevin Bacon. Aye.

Michael Williams. Aye. Motion carries.

The following cases are on consent. Case number V26-067, application of Monica Woods for a special exception to increase the height of a privacy fence in a half-depth front yard from four feet to six feet for property located at 1485 Westview Drive Southwest. Fronting 44 feet on the north side of Westview Drive and beginning at the northeast intersection of Mathewson Place and Westview Drive. Zone R4, Segan Family Residential Beltline Overlay Landlot 141 of the 14th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Wilhelmina Winston, Council District 4, NPUK. Case number V26-079, application of Mark Arnold for variances to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 29.8 feet. The east side yard set back from 7 feet to 2.6 feet, and the west side yard set back from 7 feet to 3.9 feet for an addition to an existing single-family dwelling for property located at 916 Courtney Drive Northeast. 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 land lot 2 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owners Andrew and Meredith called Council District 6, NPUF. Case number V26-085, application of Wyshonia M. Shaw for variances to increase the maximum lot coverage from 50% to 55%, reduce the north side yard setback from 7 feet to 2 feet, and allow the driveway paved area to exceed one-third of the required south side yard for the construction of a new single-family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit for a property located at 1516 Pontiac Place Southeast, front at 49.25 feet on the east side of Pontiac Place and beginning at 121.5 feet from the northeast intersection of Wellswood Drive and Pontiac Place. Zone are four single-family residential landline, eight of the 14th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, Washonia M. Shaw, Council District 1, MPUW. Case number V26-087, application of non-degenerate for variances to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet 5 8 inches and reduce the width of a front porch from 12 feet or one-third of the front facade to 11 feet 10 inches for the construction of a second-story addition to an existing dwelling for property located at 61 Lannan Avenue Northeast, fronting 50.06 feet on the east side of Lannan Avenue and beginning approximately 297 feet from the southeast intersection of Far Road and Lannan Avenue. Zone R4, single-family residential land like 203 of the 15th District of DeKalb County, Georgia. Owner David R. Myers, Council District 5, NPUO.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Reading those consent agenda cases into the record, we will 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.

Phillip Perry. Second. Motion's been made and properly seconded with respect to the consent agenda cases read into the record. 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 passes. If your case was read into the record on a consent agenda, they have been approved and you are free to go.

Case number V26-070, appeal of Paul White of a decision of an administrative officer in the Office of Buildings for Property located at 177 Huntington Road Northeast, finding 50 feet on the east side of Huntington Road and beginning approximately 1,106... 1,156.69 feet from the northeast intersection of Wakefield Drive and Huntington Road. Zone R4, Singapore Residential, Brookwood Hills Overlay Landline, 103 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner, Kevin J. Kleinhalter, Council District 6, MPUE.

Is the applicant present? Okay. Before we begin, I'd like to read you all the guidelines for the appeal process, and then we'll get started. So each party will be allowed a total of 10 minutes to present his or her case. All testimony, including the applicant, opposing party, members of the public, is subject to the 10-minute limitation. City staff is subject to a 10-minute time limitation. Since the burden of proof is upon the applicant, the applicant can save part of his 10 minutes for rebuttal following all testimony. Rebuttal time should be for clarification purposes. A couple things that the board would be listening for. Did the city, in approving this, act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? Or was there an erroneous finding of material facts? So those are the guidelines we will be operating under for this appeal process. Please state your name and address for the record. It's the microphone.

Is this one? Yeah, I think that's it. There we go. All right. My name is Conrad Ziegler. I'm an attorney with Lee and Ziegler, LLP. And my office address is 150 North Street. Suite M is in Mike, Canton, Georgia, 30114. Okay, sir. Just care to get in the merits of you? Yes, please. Thank you. So we're here on permit number BB-202409053. So it was originally issued on August 4th, 2025, and it was reapplied for. It was withdrawn and then reapplied for on – April 15, 2026, and then subsequently approved. So the, I guess the most glaring issue here is that the permit was taken under zoning, zoning, I guess category R4. There may be some confusion about whether this lot has been zoned R4 or R4A, but certainly this permit that we're here for is being issued under R4 and thus is subject to the requirements of R4. So if we start off, and are we, just to be clear, are we working off the document that we just recently submitted, I guess, yesterday or this morning?

Yes. All documents that have been submitted, we have them in front of us.

Right. Okay. I just want to make sure. Just in absolute disclosure, the client had prepared all the paperwork for this hearing. There were some citations contained in some of the earlier ones. The statements of law in those citations, I think on their page 9 or 10 of the previous ones, those statements of law are correct. The citations are not. But I don't think that will matter at this point. I guess what we need to do is start at exhibit 4A. And this is a survey that was submitted by the builder in this case. And that was the basis for one of the foundational documents for the permit. So I think everybody knows at this point that the minimum lot size in R4 is 9,000 square feet. And so this was a larger lot that was the permit was to subdivide it into two smaller lots. The representation to the city was that the lot size was over 10,000 square feet. So each individual lot would be 2,000 square feet. I think there's a small variance of, I think one is like a couple of square feet larger than the other, but both of them were represented as over 10,000 square feet. So if you look at the survey, exhibit 4A to our amended appeal, If you look at the dimensions of the lot, and the reason I didn't go to medical school, because I'm not real good at math, but I can do the math on this. So if you give the height of this lot, or I guess the width of it from the street, it's marked off as 49.71 feet for one lot and 50 feet for the other. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's 100 feet for both lots. You've got a slight difference in the depth of the lots from the street. So one is 174.75 feet and the other measurement is 174.61 feet. So again, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and go with a longer number or larger number. So 174.75 feet. 174.75 times 100 is 17,475 feet. So that is 525 square feet smaller than is permitted under R4. So you subdivide that number by two and you get 8,737 So the minimum lot size in R4 is 9,000 square feet. And neither one of these lots are compliant with that R4 requirement. So then you also have an issue of the frontage. Frontage in an R4 is 70 feet. These are both less than 70 feet. You got one that's 50 feet, which would be okay in an R4A, but it's not R4A. The permit was not applied for under R4A. You got one that's a little bit less than 50 feet. So again, even under R4A, it's not a wide enough frontage. So as our appeal has, we've got lots and lots of other issues with it too. And I won't belabor this panel's time on every single issue, but In the R4A, we've got, I'm sorry, regardless of R4A, we've got a limitation on two-story houses. That's as tall as you can build them in the city of Atlanta. We've got a basement that is, you know, claim to be a basement and not a story. But if you look at our exhibits, the height of that basement under international building code is enough to make it a floor. So instead of a two-story house, what we really have is a three-story house, which is, again, against the code. Also, we have a square footage issue. I think that the permit was... amended to try to address that square footage issue. And honestly, it's not a whole lot. So we'd almost be willing to let that one go. But again, the main issues here are the lot sizes are, Too small. And the survey itself misrepresented to the city what the square footage was. And, you know, a guy who can't get into medical school, and that's why I went to law school, if I can do the math, surely the guy that did the survey can do the math and realize that those two numbers do not add up to over 10,000 square feet per lot. So unless the council has any questions, I'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.

Okay, you have three minutes, 30 seconds remaining.

Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

And now here from the city, you have 10 minutes to present your case. State your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon, Lauren Clayton, City of Atlanta Law Department. The property owner, the affected property owner, the applicant with the building permit, his attorney is here. You might actually remember him. This particular property and the adjacent property were heard before you in November. If you remember, there was a sort of a distinction without a difference with respect to whether a permit was rescinded versus revoked, and you all determined that the appeal was not in fact properly before you because the permit had been rescinded for revisions. This appeal you have before you is for 177 Huntington. That one was 175 and 177. You are going to be hearing another appeal for 175 next month. So I just want to sort of set the stage for you guys. So if you remember, I think you were all, I think you weren't on the board yet. And so I do want to defer most of my time to Mr. Rothman since his client is directly affected by this. But just to point out, the issue of the lot size. So the Brookwood Hills subdivision was created in 1922. There was legislation in 2023 by the Atlanta City Council to acknowledge these two lots as historic lots of record. and that legislation passed. They were acknowledged. There were certain provisions of the subdivision ordinance processes that were waived to do that. But I just want to point out that in R4, I mean, the city's not conceded in these lots. are 9,000 square feet or greater, but R4 under 16-06.073 states that if a lot has less area or width than herein required and was a lot of record on the effective date of this part, that lot shall be used only for a single family dwelling. So I just wanted to point that out to you guys because I want to make sure that it's clear that no one at the city is saying that these lots are 9,000 square feet or greater. So I'm going to leave the rest of my time to Mr. Rothman so he can speak on behalf of his client. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Ms. Clayton, you've got 8.01 remaining.

Good afternoon. My name is Steve Rothman, and I'm here on behalf of the landowner on this permit and the applicant of the permit. My address is 2849 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 700, Atlanta, Georgia, 30339. I'm gonna pick up where Lauren, Ms. Clayton left off, which is that after the appeal last year in November, we knew, I told you at the time we knew, that we were gonna be coming back here. So Mr. Thompson with the city and my client knew when they came back to revise the permit that they wanted to do their best because there's somebody looking for error. And so that's where we are now. You know, not a year, but getting on close to a year, that's a delay to them on getting their permit because the city has been so careful for the last seven, eight months. So I want to stress that. Mr. Ziegler stated, I'm going to go, there's the written appeal, and then he summarized some of the issues here. I'm going to go with his issues first, just because it makes sense. You've heard Ms. Clayton and Mr. Ziegler talk about the plat, the lot. What they've latched onto is that there was a typographical error in a drawing from 2024 that we knew about last year. We corrected it and submitted it to the city last year. That was, if it was a decision, it was a decision made two years ago. So they're past the 30 day window to file an appeal. That's not the decision that was made in 2026. And that's been corrected. And if you want more detail into that, Ms. Gentry, handled that for our client, and she can tell you that that correction has been made and recorded. And we knew about it last year, submitted it to the city last year. So they found something from a couple years ago, and they've brought it into this 2026 appeal. That's what we're dealing with. As to the lot dimensions, why are we even talking about lot sizes here? Well, the reason is Brookwood Hills is an old subdivision. The city council adopted an ordinance recognizing these two lots, the one you're hearing today and the one you'll hear next month, as historical lots of record. In common parlance, they're grandfathered in. And that's where we are. The permit has the accurate lot size on it. The drawings that were submitted in 2026 have the accurate lot size. They just found something. And that's what this whole appeal is about. In my opinion, I say as an advocate. Now I'll switch back a little more detailed. You heard before you as to height, that there's a two-story height limit on houses. I don't know, I'm sure all of you have noticed houses in Atlanta that are new, some townhouses. There's not a two-story height limit. In R4, there's a 35-foot height limit. And the zoning ordinance is very specific of how you measure height. You measure it from the finished grade to, and this gets complicated, the roof, the mean of the lowest and the highest, but it's finished grade of the building. A basement, you heard him talk about, there's a basement. In their written material, that was an error. No one considered it a basement. And the reason no one considered it a basement, we call it the lower level on the plans. There's one notation calling it a basement. It's irrelevant to height. Because height, as defined in the zoning ordinance, 16-29.001, paragraph 28, says you measure it from finished grade to the top. Whether you've got a basement or not is irrelevant. So that whole issue, again, is just looking for an error that maybe you'll latch onto. Again, if some of you want to get into detail on that, we're here to answer questions. The floor area ratio, they studied this when they were going through it. The architect prepared, and one of the architects is here, prepared it on AutoCAD. I don't know if you don't know what architects use. It's a design software, and they have the floor area baked into the software. Now, in the materials they've submitted to you, their floor plans that has calculations are not the AutoCAD. They are a copy. And it's an image. I believe, because I saw NPU materials, a PNG file. What does that mean? It's pixels. And the pixels are not as accurate because of the distortion as the AutoCAD. The architect will tell you, if you want to hear more detail, I will rely on the AutoCAD software every time. So the floor area, their calculations are incorrect. They follow the definition of floor area in the zoning ordinance. There's some stuff in there about easements. It wasn't addressed today verbally. There's stuff in there about easements. Said it before under the code 6-4029. You guys aren't. don't have jurisdiction over easements. If you're concerned about it, there's a department that deals with that, but that's not a department over which they're a party to the easement. And this board is not the super easement board. Same thing you said in your introduction, Mr. Chair, that the BZA does not have authority over the procedures of the office of buildings. And I put it in the written response, you do not. And so some of the written arguments that were submitted, which is that the city was not authorized to allow my client to make revisions to the submitted plan and then issue a permit, it's a procedural issue. It's not something over which this board has authority. Although I will suggest that if An applicant can't make revisions to plans, and they have to file a whole new permit. You've just gummed up the works at the Office of Buildings, because that's how it's done all the time. That's the whole point of plan review. I've looked at it. You need to make some changes. Here it is. Please make the changes. That's what happened here. It happens all day, but that's not a procedure over which this board is an appellate authority over. I think with that, I think I've addressed everything. If there's some things you've heard that you're concerned about that I didn't get, the architect is here, Ms. Gentry's here, we're here to respond to your questions. But we ask that you deny this appeal and as to this piece of property, allow the permit to go forward as approved by the city. And Mr. Thompson with the city is also here if there's questions, the plan reviewer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ruffman.

You have 109.

Should anyone from the city have any additional comments?

I just wanted to point out also that Director Greg Pace is here as well, so they can both answer any questions you have.

Thank you, Ms. Clayton. That in mind, Mr. Ziegler, you have 3.30 remaining. Should you want to use your 3.30? Okay. Thank you.

I don't think I'll be that long, but I'll make sure I'm not over it. So one of the issues here is that understood that these lots were platted out in, I think, 1922. So those would be grandfathered in before the city of Atlanta even had zoning. But that's not the situation we have here. We have those two lots that were subsequently made into one giant lot. Not giant, but a double lot. Two lots were combined into one. So that takes the whole grandfathering thing out. That it was a non-conforming lot that they got permission to do. But now that kicks us back into the R4 process. procedure or R4 limits. So it was zoned as R4 and the permit was pulled as R4 and so we're back in it. So I can entirely agree with Council that if this was an original 1922 lot, then the R4 would not be an issue. But it is because of subsequent combination of two historical lots. And so now the rules apply. So we've heard a lot about, oh, well, you know, there might be an error here, there might be an error there. They didn't say that we were wrong. And some of these may be technical errors, but the rules are the rules, and we just want them applied fairly across everybody who's involved. My client would hold himself to the same standard, and we just want this board to make sure that those rules are applied fairly and evenly for everyone. So unless the council has any more questions, that's going to be it for me.

Thank you, Mr. Ziegler.

Thank you.

So we've heard from the appellant and from the city on this appeal. So what we'll do now is we'll enter deliberations and we'll have, of course, some follow-up questions for either Mr. Ziegler or from the city of Atlanta and their representatives and arrive at a motion. So with that, we'll enter deliberations. Anybody have any questions, feel free to address the applicant, appellant, or the city.

If I may, I'd like to start the first question. This would be for the appellant, Mr. Ziegler. I want to be crystal clear on kind of the front end of this, kind of the subject matter jurisdiction we have. It seems like a lot of the arguments in here maybe tit-for-tat measurement for building permits, which really isn't the subject matter of this board. It's more about interpretation of zoning. It seems we're all in agreement that this is R4, whether it's a subdivided site or not. There doesn't seem to be any issue with the 23 ordinance that recognizes those. Could you explain a little bit further about why there's an argument for this board for us to consider.

Sure, right. And the granting of a permit is conditioned on the rules being followed. And so a permit that's issued that violates the rules, even if the line is crossed just a little bit, is an ultra-various act. And so, therefore, the legal justification for the permit is It doesn't exist because the granting authority never had the jurisdiction to do so. So if it is compliant with all the zoning rules, then sure, then that's what it is. But the body that grants the permits has no authority without a variance or without other things like that to grant a permit that is non-conforming. So to the extent that there is a permit that's been granted that obviously on the builder's own survey is non-compliant, then that permit was issued outside the jurisdiction of the granting authority.

But I think where I struggle in terms of this lot being deficient by R4, even though that it was acknowledged and settled in 23, where is the issue specifically with R4? I mean, if there was an issue, we would have seen a variance of some kind in terms of setbacks or something else come before us, and we haven't seen that. So as far as we know, even though it's deficient and legally recognized, everything kind of fits in its box.

Well, yeah, I mean, perhaps we'd have a different discussion if there was a variance application and a variance had been granted. But that's part of the process. And if something is non-conforming, then the person applying for the permit has an obligation to go through the proper channels and ask for a variance. And, you know, who knows what the council would have done at that point, but that's a thing that hasn't happened yet. So if the builder wants to apply for a variance, we can have that conversation. But the builder has been aware of these issues for quite some time. And the thing I would have told my client is just go apply for the variance. And we'll see if the variance is granted or not, but go do that first. But I think we'd be having a different conversation today if that had happened. But again, that's on the builder to make sure that an obvious variance needs to be addressed and taken care of.

Okay, thank you. And one question for the city of Atlanta buildings department just a clarifying question Maybe this is miss Clayton mr. Pace in the appellants Documentation we're referring to the International Building Code. Is that the correct governing code for for this? My understanding with this, this would fall under IRC.

Good afternoon, Gregory Pace, City of Atlanta, 55 Trinity Avenue. You're absolutely correct. This is a residential structure, less than four stories in height, and it requires the IRC, International Residential Code, not the IBC, is what we would be reviewing, which is what it was reviewed up under.

And as we've kind of, I still have some disbelief in the jurisdiction argument, but maybe we'll go down the rabbit hole just a little bit in terms of the measuring here. Is there anything in your opinion in the arguing of the methodology of things that would be altered if we were not considering in the context of IBC and instead of the correct code?

Repeat that again.

Yeah, so I think the appellant is arguing based on an understanding of the International Building Code, the IBC, as the document that is governing, which is not. If they're making the same argument correctly with the IRC being applied, do these arguments, what happens to those? Is there something in IRC that maybe gives them more credence, or are we...

It would be, we would have to look at specifically what that argument is and whether or not there is a difference in the code. Generally with the IBC, they're not going to speak in terms of things that are under four stories in height, because again, that's going to be referenced in the IRC. So it'll reference the IRC as opposed to the IBC. And so the IBC is going to be more stringent given the number of stories in the height and those things, parameters, sprinkling the building, foundation infrastructure and things of that nature.

So another way of saying it is IRC would be more restrictive in this case?

Yes, in this case for, it would be, the IRC would be the ruling governing code for it, and the IBC would probably, yeah, IBC wouldn't even mention it. It would be referred to in the IRC.

And in this case, the IRC was used as the basis for reviewing the drawings in the permit that was approved?

That's absolutely correct.

Thank you.

You have any questions? Any additional questions for the applicant or, I mean, the appellant or the city?

I have a question for the applicant. If you could please step forward, the applicant itself, not the attorney, but the actual applicant. Hey, how you doing, sir?

How are you?

Good. Could you state your name and your address, please?

Paul White, 171 Huntington Road, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia, 30309.

Okay, good to have you here today, Mr. White. I'm a person that was just brought up on a simple form of KISS, keep it simple. What I might say today, I want to go totally against the legality and everything else. My question to you would be, What would be the issue of you, with you having a gentleman build a house next door? Just plain and simple, what's the true issue?

The true issue here?

Yes, sir.

So the true issue here is that You know, I've built houses. I've renovated my house and I follow the rules. I follow the rules on house height. If I get a variance, I need to get a variance. And the neighbor who is building next or attempting to build next to me is an amazing builder. Him and I used to be friends. He builds really, really nice houses, right? But when greed gets in the way and you realize as a builder when you subdivide a lot and build two houses, you make more money. And that's what really happened here. They subdivided one beautiful lot that could have been one beautiful house. The lot's too small. It should have never been subdivided to begin with. Do I want to build a house next door? Absolutely not. I can't afford to pay that much for a lot to begin with, and I'm trying to make a couple bucks. And I think that's the problem is when you overpay for a lot, you have to figure out a way to make money, and you subdivide it. And it's unfortunate because it's been going on for so long. I mean, I'm a practicing medical doctor. I've got a 10-month-old son. My wife's an attorney. I'd prefer for this to be over. I'm tired of looking over my shoulder. And it really began... years before this when we have a shared driveway. And Kevin, the builder, decided that he could just tear up our shared driveway. So I already had to go to court for this. And the judge ruled against him and said, you can't tear up a neighbor's shared driveway that has an easement in it. So I spent $50,000, $70,000 on that case. And I've spent more money on this case. And I just want the builder to follow the rules. It needs to be, it's one lot. build one beautiful house. And what he does, he's a beautiful builder, but greed's getting in the way, and now I'm having to protect the rule of law and come up and see you guys more than I'd like. I'm sure y'all are really good people, but coming up here, it's unfortunate. And I wish that that the lot should have never been subdivided to begin with. And the ordinance specifically states that it allows only 50 foot lots. So he's allowed to subdivide the lot based on 50 feet, but the lots are too small. They're less than 9,000 square feet. The ordinance never said you can just subdivide and do whatever you want, but that's what he's trying to do. He's building a house that's too big on the far, It's not a basement. It's a three-story house, and I've become an expert in this stuff, but I'd rather just practice medicine and enjoy my son, and hopefully we can move on from this. We're going to have to hear the 175 house next month, but I'm hoping that y'all can realize that this lot should have never been subdivided, and it's unfortunate I've wasted so many hours of my time. It upsets my wife. She doesn't even want to be here. She's an attorney. She She wants to be with her 10-month-old son. So we're all praying that the right thing is done, that the ordinance doesn't state that you can do whatever you want, and let's put one house there, and he's a beautiful builder, and there's still money to be made, but let's not let greed get in the way. Thank you for your time.

Do you mind if I ask a follow-up question while Mr. White is at the podium? Sorry, you sat back down. Can I ask a follow-up question? Sure. obviously spent a lot of time with the drawings and the records, trying to measure and figure things out. You know, as somebody personally who's worked with R4 and had to do those measurements for filing permits, tend to agree with the city's argument and methodology because I've had to adhere to it many, many times. Do you have any response to their arguments in terms of where your methodologies differed? I didn't hear that in the counter, but wanted to give you a chance to address that.

So I have a friend, I'm not gonna say his name, but he's an architect and he's the one who used his AutoCAD technology. And so the documents I submitted, I'm not good at making the PDF look where it's very legible, but I have the documents, but he used his AutoCAD and the house is too big based on the far. And I think where Kevin went wrong is he didn't measure on the outside of the house. You have to start on the outside of the house and maybe he lost some feet on the inside of the house. And then the basement, If you look at the basement, I mean, there's a mechanical room that's as big as the garage, and he did that on purpose because he doesn't want that to count towards far, but clearly that'll be converted to a bedroom when he's finished.

Yeah, and it's dangerous bringing those back into CAD and trying to scale and trace. A seemingly small error in measurement can add up really, really quickly, so that's something to be careful about. I think the other one, though, is the one on the height. Like, that's very clear in terms of we don't count number of stories. We count maximum height from finished grade. Did you have any response to that?

Well, so the interesting thing is when he applied for the permit after we tore the house down, there was never a new topography survey. So we don't even really know the grade. So I got a topography survey, and that's when I realized that if you actually measure the house based on the grade, it's too tall. And so usually when you tear a house down, when I've torn one down, I have to get a new survey. So he never had to get a new survey, never got a topography survey. He installed another storm drain, never had to get a survey on that. So it's like, I have to follow these rules and get new surveys to prove what I'm doing is correct. And he's just, there's a lot of people who's kind of assuming or taking his word for it. But if you get a new topography survey, you'll see that what he's saying is incorrect.

Let me make sure I heard you correctly. You got a survey of the applicant's property?

Yes, I got a topography survey. Did you have permission to do that? I didn't know if I needed permission. I just called the survey company and said, hey, I'd like to get a topography survey. So if the surveyors do that, that's on them.

I don't know what rules they follow. That's usually problematic.

I wasn't the one who did the survey. But he should have gotten a survey on his own.

Well, even if there was an existing survey, it's from the finished grade, not with the existing grade.

Yeah, so the survey that they went off on the permit is an old survey that showed topography there. Because originally the house was closer to the street. And when they tore the house down, there's a big sewer line, a crazy 48-inch sewer line under the house. So they had to move it back 20 feet. When they moved it back, it's flat land. It's no longer that big grade or whatever.

Okay. Thank you for your time.

I'm not an expert in any of this, but I've read enough.

I appreciate it. I would submit for my fellow board members, I've got some... Concerns generally with methodologies used to come to some of the determinations of how we've measured things for that. That being said, I think it's not really our jurisdiction at the end of the day to kind of get into those. The core that could be part of our jurisdiction is about the proper subdivision of the site and the applicability of R4 and the deficient lot sizes. On that, I find the city's argument compelling. The code trace is pretty straightforward. I don't really have any further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Ms. Perry. Ms. Thomas, do you have anything additional to add before I have some questions?

No.

My question is for Mr. Ziegler. So you made something that stood out to me, if you could expound on it a little bit for my understanding. You said when the two lots that were grandfathered in, became one lot, they lose their historic designation? Did I capture that correctly?

That's right. So once, I mean, if you keep the lot the same, then obviously the grandfathering stays. But once that lot is changed into a different lot, I mean, it's combined, the... Two lots become one, and that's the change. And so when that lot is, the larger lot is created, that's the point in time that you start off with as far as, you know, you kind of lose that grandfathering once the lot has, you know, substantially changed from two separate lots into one separate lot. So that's kind of your time marker.

Okay, understood. I understand that. So as it relates to that dividing the two, the one to become two, that's when your assertion is a variance should have been a variance for what should have been a part of the application. Okay.

Right. At that point, the council should have considered whether or not to grant a variance on two lots that are below the 9,000 square foot minimum requirement.

Okay. Okay.

Okay.

Could you expound also, last question, on this ultra virus? I'm not an attorney, so could you expound a little bit on how that ultra virus?

Yeah. So all that means is a governmental body, whether it's a zoning panel or whoever else or, you know, City Council granting a contract or something like that they can only do what the law or the ordinance or whatever is applicable permits and so you couldn't You could the jurisdiction of that is that the line that a governmental body can't cross is to do something beyond what the underlying law is so if if the the But what it boils down to is the permitting, the body that granted the permit was not authorized. There was no authority to grant something that was below 9,000 square feet. So they would have been, perhaps, if there was a variance that was applied for. And then when you have a variance discussion and you have all your friends and neighbors in, everybody gives their opinion on that. But that's the proper step. So the permit-granting authority had the ability to consider a variance, and that's the only way they can go outside what the ordinance says. So a variance might be appropriate, it might not be, but we haven't had that conversation yet.

Thank you, Mrs. Ziegler, for explaining that to me that I really didn't understand, so thank you for that. I have a few questions for the city of Atlanta, and I'll be done. Ms. Clayton or Mr. Pace, maybe. Probably Mr. Pace or someone from the city also, because it's going to be city specific.

Is it about the historic lot of record by any chance?

Yes.

So if you don't mind, Mr. Rothman had mentioned Nina Gentry, who is a former city planner, and I think she might be able to help expound upon that, if you don't mind.

Okay, I just want to get some clarity here. State your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon. Nina Gentry, 992 Eden Avenue, Atlanta, 30316.

Okay, Ms. Gentry. Thank you. So it stood out to me where two lots, one lot became two and historic lots of record. Yes, sir. How does a historic lot of record, once it's subdivided, is it still a historic lot of record?

Yes, sir. In this case, the request was based on the historical plat for the Brookwood neighborhood. And these two lots were originally platted as two separate lots. And we worked with the council member, district council member, and the neighborhood to have an ordinance drafted and finally adopted and signed by the mayor to recognize the historical platting of these two lots, which was the original platting for the one lot, which was originally two. One of the significant issues for the Brookwood neighborhood was that the properties retained the R4 zoning.

Can I pause you a second, Ms. Gentry? Certainly. My apologies because I just want to understand. So originally there were two lots to begin with. Yes, sir.

When it was first platted.

Okay. Now you can continue.

Okay. They were platted in around 1922, and I'm sorry I don't have the file with me. No worries. But that historical plat was part of the legislation that was put forth by the district council member and approved by the city, which then recognized, and it went under an application number, LOR. which stands for Lot of Record in the Office of Zoning and Development. So they retained the original, it was originally addressed as 775 and 777, I'm sorry, 175 and 177, they retained the original addresses and went back to the original platting. So there was really no subdividing because number one, there's been some talk of variance as to the subdivision. The city does not allow you to request a variance for lot size or frontage, and these two lots each have 50 feet of frontage. The error on the plat that was originally approved for the LOR has since been corrected, and that plat, re-recorded by the City of Atlanta. So that error on that survey has been corrected, and it is now correct in the size of the lot and the lot area.

That's great clarity, Ms. Gentry. So originally, if I play it back, the lots originally was two lots to begin with, lots of record, two lots.

Yes, sir.

Somewhere along the way, they became one big lot. Now there are two lots again, and the survey, if I hear you correctly, they are both 50 feet in width, which appeals to the R4 zoning ordinance. Is that correct?

Well, it goes back to the original platting. R4 requires 70 feet of frontage. But in Brookwood Hills, I would dare say there's... I would question right offhand if there are any lots in Brookwood Hills that meet the 70-foot frontage, which most of our properties zoned to R4 in 1982. My lot in Wormwood Park is a non-conforming lot, R4. It's 50 by 150, so it doesn't have the line 9,000 either.

So what I'm trying to get at, when there was two lots, they were...

lots of record they were conformant in the designated um r4 designation no they weren't conforming because when when brookwood hills was uh was created and platted there was no the 1982 zoning code was not in place right so when the 1982 zoning code was adopted any lot that became R4 and did not meet 70 feet of frontage, 9,000 square feet of land area, became non-conforming lots or recognized. In this case, at some point, some owner along the line combined these two lots. And so... We found the need to have them to go back to the original platting, and that's when we went through the legislative process to have them recognized and granted the historical platting.

So the question, so it was the city that determined that we go back to the original platting of the two lots, not the owner? Correct.

We requested it. I requested it on behalf of the owner and worked with the council member and the neighborhood in getting that done. Okay.

So that justifies it under the historical.

Could you... So when the city and that legwork that you all did to make certain it was still under the historic designation, what I'm trying to get at is the need or... Not a need for a variance because of conformity is what I'm trying to get at.

As I stated, there is no way to request a variance. If you have a lot that's zoned, if my lot, if I wanted to build something on it and it was a lot of record, and I felt I needed a variance for the frontage or land area, you can't get a variance. There's no such variance in the city of Atlanta. There may be in other jurisdictions, but not in the city of Atlanta. Your frontage is what it is and your land area is what it is. And then your zoning is what it is. In this case, the zoning is R4. The developer is developing or attempting to develop these two lots under the R4 standards, 35-foot front yard setbacks, 7-foot side yard setbacks, and 15-foot rear yard setbacks, and an FAR of 0.50.

So to Mr. Ziegler's point, the lots not being 50 feet in width is inconsequential to the development?

Well, no, the lots are each 50 feet. They have 50 feet of frontage. Each lot has 50 feet of frontage.

Okay.

Which was the original platting.

Okay. Thank you for going down that rabbit hole, Ms. Gentry. I just wanted to understand how we got here from now on. None of the information I saw anyway said they were already two to begin with, but somewhere along the line they became one, and now they're two again. Yes, through legislation. And they still have the designation that they had originally in the 1922.

No, in 1982. Okay. The current zoning code was adopted. They became R4.

Gotcha. Okay. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. You did? I hope so. So I think we've heard a lot about this particular, how we got here, two lots. Now we know some of the history of this situation. Two lots became one somewhere along the line. Now there became two again, and they're still under the designation that they had, the historic designation that they had. When we talk about FAR and that kind of thing, that is... It's beyond our purview in terms of what we look at. So if no one has any additional questions, I think we'll give a shot at a motion. No, sir.

No, I'm ready to make a motion.

Go for it, Mr. Beckham.

After hearing the testimony given today and reviewing the provided evidence, I move to deny V-26-070. I find that the applications of the Administrative Officer of the Office of Buildings was not based on Neroni's finding of fact. Specifically, I find that the R4 zoning was correctly applied to the lot that is correctly recognized by 23-0-1660. Phillip Peary, second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded with respect to V-26-070. All those in favor, state your name and say aye or nay.

Philip Herry, aye.

Ayesha J. Thomas, aye.

Kevin Bacon, aye. Michael Williams, aye. Motion passed. Thanks, case.

Case number V26-042, application of Donald Coleman for a variance to reduce the south side yard setback from 7 feet to 0 feet for the construction of a new carport for an existing single-family dwelling for property located at 2045 Lenox Road Northeast, running 50 feet on the east side of Lenox Road and beginning at 215.5 feet from the southeast intersection of Ogilvy Drive, and Lenox Road. Zone R4, single family residential, landlocked 4 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Felix L. Murray, OBO, Piedmont Promotions Incorporated, Council District 6, NPUF. Staff recommendation is approval. NPU recommendation is approval conditional.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Yeah, I'm Donald Coleman. My address is 3645 Marketplace Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia, 30344. And greeting board members and chair. Okay, I'm here. We're requesting that request for that variance to reduce that setback requirement to allow the construction of the permanent open-air carport. And also, we took measures to fully mitigate the impact on our neighbor's property. Well, we were actually installing quality gutters there on the carport and also downspouts, which is designed to capture the water runoff and direct it away from the property line. Actually, the open-air carport design, it will not create any type of hazard whatsoever, and it will provide, you know, essentially safety parking for, you know, our vehicles to afford reasonable use of the land without altering the characteristics of the neighborhood, actually. The extraordinary exceptional conditions pertaining to this subject property or the subject property, it was built and it was on a 50 feet wide oblong rectangular lot. Homes in that Lynn Bridge, Martin Manor area there, they were all built prior to the 1982 zoning revision, which are narrower lots there. than the current 70 foot wide zoning, wide dimension specific via the current revised zoning and often require, you know, a variance, you know, in that area for construction projects. Regarding the hardship or unnecessary hardship, the open air attached carport, you know, are common additions for various homes located within that land bridge manner area there. As a matter of fact, the property right next door to the house has a sloped carport almost attached to that property as well. Particular aspects of the subject property, the current lot width being that it's only 50 feet wide, which is 20 feet narrower than the 70 feet width, of the 1982 revised zoning requirements and the construction of the open air carport, it does not increase the current lot coverage at all. You know, the addition to the open air slope carport built over the existing driveway and attached to the side of the house does not cause any determent. to the public good and it will not detract from the use of enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding properties or impair the purpose of the intent of the zoning ordinance of the NPUF and also the city of Atlanta. The structure is fully engineered using deep concrete footings and heavy duty hurricane ties as well to meet or exceed the local building codes for wind load. And, you know, so at this particular time, I'd like to just reserve the remainder of my time for a rebuttal.

Thank you, Mr. Coleman. Is there anyone in opposition of this case, V26042? Please state your name and address for the record.

Hi, my name's Jody Drake. Thanks for your time. We have been spending considerable time fighting this variance for some time.

Provide your address, too, as well.

Oh, thanks. Sorry. Next door, 2037 Lenox Road Northeast. You can see our house in the pictures. I do feel like we came to a verbal agreement with the applicant. My concerns... mostly come from the fact that we are having some watershed management issues, but it's a catch-22. They can't actually fix any of the issues without a permit. They can't get a permit without the variance. So we've been kind of back and forth for months, and it's quite tiring. But I still don't like it because of the issues, but we've kind of agreed to support his request with the conditions being met. And the conditions aren't unreasonable. It basically states that he will... Well, first of all, I should say, Mr. Coleman wasn't at the last NPU meeting that we showed up to. And so they told us that they were going to have him sign his approval of our conditions before we came here. I haven't heard back on whether or not that happened. So that's why I was asking him if he supported our conditions. There were things that we verbally agreed to, but I haven't seen anything physical. I don't know if you guys already have the conditions. I can read them if you'd like. Otherwise, I won't waste your time.

We have them, but you could read them on the record since the proceedings are being recorded.

I don't think they're too severe. It's just, first of all, that the applicant agrees to follow the watershed mitigation outlined in the report that he presented to us that's from his architect. Two, the applicant shall complete all stormwater and watershed mitigation measures required by the approval engineering plans and by the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management, and all such work shall receive final approval from the appropriate city department. So they won't, oh well, that's the next one. All required drainage improvements shall be completed before final inspection or issuance of a certificate of completion for the project or within another deadline established by the city. And then finally, the applicant shall not expand the footprint of the carport driveway or other impervious surface beyond its current state. And that primarily comes down to the fact that They haven't asked for like a small reduction in the side set back there, eliminating it completely. They want to take it to zero. At some point, the new project comes within 44 inches of our lot. And because of the topography change, the new driveway is actually pushing a lot of water into our backyard. I think over time that could create like a whole canyon potentially. But if they follow all the water mitigation issues, that's maybe potentially not an issue. I do have my concerns, but I'm willing to work with them if they'll accept those conditions.

Thank you, Ms. Drake. Does that conclude your comments?

Yes, thank you.

So you have 6.43 remaining, Mr. Coleman.

Based on the comment in regards to the watershed and the runoff, I don't think that's an issue here with the BZA, but the water runoff that Ms. Drake is concerned about is actually cost from their property, on-dial property, because of the topography of their property. And we shared reports with her, and I think I uploaded some exhibits also to the BZA showing where the water is actually running off of their property into our property and going across their property. You know, so there's really literally almost anything that we can actually do to prevent that because their property kind of encapsulate our property. It's very systemic. And the report that I did display to them and tried to go over it with them to explain like the water problem that's running on that lot is coming downhill. When you have the type of... Cheshire Bridge Road and Lenox Road at that point, it's a hill, and it runs down all the way to that railroad track. Their house sits at the bottom of the railroad track. So all the water that comes up from the top of that hill, it runs down through all the homes on that part of Lenox Road to the end of the yard, and it kind of floods out. But their yard, I think, consists of two lots, and one lot circles around the back of our lot. and it's a hill there, and that water comes down off their lot, it comes through the backyard, and it runs down the side. So what we were gonna do, and which I explained to her as well, just to try to mitigate some of the water that's coming off of their lot into our land is put some corrugated pipe into the ground to actually prevent that water from seeking into our yard and potentially stopping it from going to their yard, but it's almost impossible the way that tographic is there at that property.

That concludes your comments, Mr. Coleman?

Yes, sir, thank you.

So we heard from the applicant, we heard from the opposition. What we'll do is go into deliberation. We might have follow-up questions. I have a question for Mr. Coleman before we put this to a motion. Understand that this was completed, it's a completed carport? Yes, sir, it is. It is? That's I think the crux of where we are here, all these runoffs, where the water's coming from, all that would have been mitigated through the approval process, right, through permitting. But we're here, right? We're after the facts, and we're trying to get it to a state where it's amenable to both you as well as the neighboring properties, particularly with these impervious surfaces that was part of the – installation of this carport. So that's where we are with this. So give me an idea of where, this is my only question, of where we, how we got here in terms of this open air carport. And it wasn't initially permitted, which would have addressed a lot of these concerns that neighboring properties have.

Well, the initial issue wasn't really dealing with the carport. The carport was already built there. I think they complained about we was extending the driveway, widening it because of the hazard there. It's a ditch corridor there on each side, and the driveway was very narrow, so we was widening it 12 inches. And I think that was the issue.

That's what I was getting at, impervious surfaces, this concrete. Yeah, but that didn't cause some runoff issues possibly?

No, sir. Not at all. Okay. That 12 inches that we added there, that has anything to do with the water runoff. The water runoff is coming from the back of the house, from the rear of the house. their land, like I said, again, their land actually circles the back of the house. So it's a hill there. So all the water runs off that land into the backyard and across the backyard and it can flow right down into their yard. So there's really no way. So the carport itself has nothing to do with the water runoff on the property at all.

Understood. Understood. I just want to... Stated for the record, Mr. Coleman and Ms. Drake, this board does not have authority over watershed and water runoff, but they will be part of this process to get this mitigated. The watershed will be looking at this. So whatever steps that they deem necessary to take for water mitigation and runoff, they will weigh in on it. Just even after us. So I just want to make that point very clear. Because in terms of watershed management, we don't have authorities over those offices of the city of Atlanta. Zoning is all we look at. Understood?

Yes, sir.

We understand? Okay.

So with that, we can't impose those conditions. Yes.

Any questions for the applicant or Mr. Drake?

I should clarify, we can't impose those conditions, but this will have to go through Watershed's own approval and checks and balances system to make sure that these things are done. It's just not enforceable through zoning. Yeah, I'll...

I guess if the watershed management is going to enforce those, that's one thing. But one of my main conditions is that they don't continue to build because they are trying to keep building up on the front part of the driveway, which they've already, they're trying to take the side set back to zero, which I feel like is a problem. He also suggested that we didn't have a problem with the carport being built, but he had told us that he had a permit, so I hadn't thought it through. before it was built because I thought that he was working under code. So I guess, is there a way to remove the conditions? If we can't enforce that they won't continue to build on, can we ask that they tear the carport down and remove the structure? I'm trying to work with him, but at some point, if they won't agree with any of the conditions we're trying to cooperate with, I don't know how to move forward on that.

I think the conditions are the requirements by watershed. So we can't condition another agency's requirements, but they can't do that review until we pass it through zoning to them. That's where it starts.

But the fifth condition was that they will not build on any more to the current structure as it stands. Can we keep that condition?

That one I do want to offer some clarification on. As it's written, we can't, because generally that kind of puts us in a position where we're taking somebody's potential usable property for other variances that may be requested or by right they might be able to have. But I think we could clarify that, and Charlie, maybe you can confirm me on this one, is that while it is requesting the setback to go to zero, it is for the construction of a carport, not anything else at this point in time, correct?

You could condition it to a carport, but just for the neighbor's sake, the only thing that the BZA can decide on is within the purview of the variance. So the conditions of the structure that's being proposed that will utilize the variance is something that's within the response, or not necessarily the responsibility, but within the authority of the board to decide. But anything else, especially any other requirements outside the role of zoning is not something that the conditions can include, including those conditions that would potentially make them stop work on other portions of the property that aren't subject to the variance application before you today.

But the only variance in front of us today, sorry, I'm trying to talk to both sides, is to go to zero feet for the purposes of building the carport, nothing else. So if they wanted to come and do an addition that went also zero feet, we'd have to be back here again having that conversation and judge it on its own merit. So we're not giving like carte blanche zero feet for the entire property along the setback. It's just for this one carport.

Okay.

Does that make you feel better? Is that...

Yes and no, but yes. I know.

It's somewhere in the middle, equally, happy, equally. Yeah, not happy, but okay.

Thank you, Ms. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Coleman, for your patience with us. So we've heard from the applicant. We heard from those in opposition. What we'll do now is put forth a motion on this and see where we land.

Mr. Chair, based on the findings of fact and conclusion and recommendations found in the staff report, I move to approve case V-26-042.

Philip Perry, second. Motion has been made and properly seconded with respect to case V-26042. 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. With that, we are adjourned.

Bye. Thank you.