Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BoZA - 12/22/2020AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS December 15, 2020 6:00pm CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/97435734789 1.Call to order 2.Roll call 3.Pledge of Allegiance 4.Approval/Amendment of Agenda 5.Approval of November meeting minutes 6.Consideration of Primary Variances a.V20-24, 795 Colonial Lane Request(s): •To allow an addition on a single-family dwelling to encroach into the rear yard setback. (Sec 64-416(d)) The following Items will not be heard before 6:15 PM b.V20-25, 14102 Seabiscuit Request(s): •To allow a pool, pool deck, and pool equipment to encroach into the fifty-foot undisturbed buffer and seventy-five-foot impervious setback without two conditions set by the BZA in V20-13. (Sec. 20- 426 (1)(2)) c.V20-26, 660 Glendalough Court Request(s): •To allow an accessory structure to encroach into the side yard setback. (Sec 64-416,(i)) The following Items will not be heard before 6:45 PM d.V20-27, 770 Cooper Sandy Cove Request(s): •To allow the lot coverage for an AG-1 zoned property that fronts a public street to go from 20 percent to 25 percent. (Sec. 64-1141, (d) (1)(b)) e.V20-28, 13230 Providence Road Request(s): •To allow the lot coverage for an AG-1 zoned property that fronts a public street to go from 20 percent to 25 percent. (Sec. 64-1141, (d) (1)(b)) 15-minute break The following Items will not be heard before 7:15 PM f.V20-31, 15590 Birmingham Highway Request(s): •To allow an existing guest house to be located in the front yard. (Sec. 64-1598 (b)(5)) g.V20-32, 214 Fossil Trace Request(s): •To allow a pool, pool deck, and pool equipment to be located in the front yard. (Sec. 64-1609 (b)(1)) The following Items will not be heard before 7:30 PM 7.Consideration of Appeals/Secondary Variances a.V20-33, 15255 Birmingham Highway Request(s): •To appeal the rejection of the Community Development Director’s decision denying the acceptance of a building permit. (Sec. 64-2426 (3) a.) 8. Old business 9. New business a. 2021 Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting Schedule 10. Adjournment AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 17, 2020 6:00pm CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Call to order 2. Roll call Members Present: Kim Keller, Todd Chernik, Jason Cole, Brenda Hamstead, Hodge Patel, Jake Ward, Don Curt 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Approval/Amendment of Agenda Motion to Approve: Todd Chernik 2nd: Hodge Patel Vote: 7-0, Motion Approved 5. Approval of October meeting minutes Motion to Approve: Todd Chernik 2nd: Brenda Hamstead Vote: 7-0, Motion Approved 6. Consideration of Primary Variances a. V20-24, 795 Colonial Lane- Deferred due to incomplete advertising Request(s): • To allow an addition on a single-family dwelling to encroach into the rear yard setback. (Sec 64-416(d)) Amended Motion to approve with conditions: Todd Chernik 2nd: Hodge Patel Vote: 7-0, Motion Approved Conditions: 1. Based on the site plan dated 11/14/2020 2. As per the elevation shown dated 9/9/2020 b. V20-25, 14102 Seabiscuit—Deferred to allow engineering a solution Request(s): • To allow a pool, pool deck and pool equipment to encroach into the side yard setback. (Sec 20-426,(1)(2)) Motion to defer V20-25: Brenda Hamstead 2nd: Todd Chernik Vote: 4-3, Motion Approved c. V20-26, 660 Glendalough Court—Deferred due to incomplete advertising Request(s): • To allow an accessory structure to encroach into the side yard setback. (Sec 64-416,(i)) Motion to defer V20-26: Todd Chernik 2nd: Hodge Patel Vote: 7-0, Motion Approved d. V20-27, 770 Cooper Sandy Cove-- Deferred due to incomplete advertising Request(s): • To allow the lot coverage for an AG-1 zoned property that fronts a public street to go from 20 percent to 25 percent. (Sec. 64-1141, (d) (1)(b)) Motion to defer V20-27: Todd Chernik 2nd: Hodge Patel Vote: 7-0, Motion Approved e. V20-28, 13230 Providence Road – Deferred due to incomplete advertising Request(s): • To allow the lot coverage for an AG-1 zoned property that fronts a public street to go from 20 percent to 25 percent. (Sec. 64-1141, (d) (1)(b)) Motion to defer V20-28: Todd Chernik 2nd: Jason Cole Vote: 7-0, Motion Approved f. V20-29, 15880 Burdette Court Request(s): • To allow a 2.73-foot encroachment of a house into 60-foot front yard setback. (Sec. 64-416,(b)) (Applicant is requesting to Withdraw the request.) Motion to accept the withdrawal without prejudice: Todd Chernik 2nd: Kim Keller Vote: 7-0, Motion Approved g. V20-30, 15830 Burdette Court Request(s): • To reduce the 25-foot side setback to 18.33 feet. (Sec. 64-416, (c)(1)) (Applicant is requesting to Withdraw the request.) Motion to accept the withdrawal without prejudice: Todd Chernik 2nd: Kim Keller Vote: 7-0, Motion Approved 7. Consideration of Appeals/Secondary Variances 8. Old business 9. New business a. 2021 Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting Schedule 10. Adjournment Motion to adjourn: Todd Chernik 2nd: Jason Cole Vote: 7-0, Motion Approved Page 1 of 8 V20-24 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 PETITION NUMBER: V20-24 PROPERTY INFORMATION 795 Colonial Lane DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2 / 486 OVERLAY DISTRICT RURAL MILTON EXISTING ZONING AG-1 ACRES 1.06 Acres EXISTING USE Single Family Residential FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN, ESTATE RESIDENTIAL REQUESTED VARIANCES: • To allow addition on a single family dwelling to encroach into the rear yard setback. (Sec. 64-416 (d)) PETITIONER/OWNER Ray and Susan Shu ADDRESS 795 Colonial Lane Milton GA 30004 REPRESENTATIVE Ray and Susan Shu ADDRESS 795 Colonial Lane Milton GA 30004 Page 2 of 8 V20-24 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 8 V20-24 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF CONTACT: Shubha Jangam 678.242.2539 Background: The site is a 1.06-acre lot located on the west side of Colonial Lane. This property is zoned AG-1 and is located in the Rural Milton Overlay District. The final plat for this property was approved in 2001. As per Sec. 64-416 (b)(a), sixty-foot front setback is approved for this lot (Exhibit A). The property has a 50-foot rear setback along the northwest property line and 25-foot set back on southwest property line. The lot is like a triangular shape, which by definition of the Zoning Ordinance only has a front and sides. So, the property effectively has only 2 setbacks; front setback of 60’ along Colonial lane and two side setbacks 25 feet along the interior property lines. The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing house that would encroach the rear setback (Exhibit B). The house is sitting on the highest level on the lot. Moreover, the property is sloped and wooded on both sides. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach into the rear yard setback. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB) COURTESY REVIEW: On November 3, 2020, the DRB met and had the following comment: • Recommended to approve the variance. Page 4 of 8 V20-24 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Standards for Consideration: The approval of a variance is based on the following consideration(s): • Relief, if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the Ordinance. • There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. • Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. • That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done. The applicant response: • Please see the letter of appeal. The staff response: • Part one: The relief would not offend the spirit of the Ordinance because the shape of this property has caused unusual setbacks. The rear setback could be equal to side setback since it is technically on the side of the house and front is curved. • Part two: Because of the topography, the trees, and the previously approved setbacks this property owner is facing this challenge. The strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship therefore, it is staff’s opinion that relief shall be granted. • Part three: Relief, if granted would not cause substantial detriment to the public good because there is sufficient buffer between the neighboring houses. • Part four: No harm to public safety, health and safety is likely because of the encroachment into the rear setback. Staff recommendation: • Staff recommends approval of the variance request as shown on the site plan Page 5 of 8 V20-24 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 6 of 8 V20-24 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit A Page 7 of 8 V20-24 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit B Page 8 of 8 V20-24 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 1 of 8 V20-25 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 PETITION NUMBER: V20-25 PROPERTY INFORMATION 14102 Seabiscuit – Triple Crown S/D DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2 / 773, 774 OVERLAY DISTRICT Rural Milton EXISTING ZONING CUP (Community Unit Plan) RZ01-60 ACRES 1.29 Acres EXISTING USE Single Family Residence FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION Low Density Residential REQUESTED VARIANCES: • To remove two conditions for a flow well and pervious paver from Variance case V20- 13 that allowed pool, deck and pool equipment within the 75-foot impervious setback with conditions (Sec. 20-426 (1)(2)) PETITIONER/OWNER Brian Wobrock ADDRESS 14102 Seabiscuit Milton GA 30004 REPRESENTATIVE Brian Wobrock ADDRESS 14102 Seabiscuit Milton GA 30004 Page 2 of 8 V20-25 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 8 V20-25 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF CONTACT: Shubha Jangam 678.242.2539 Background: The site is a 1.29-acre lot located along the north side of Seabiscuit in the Triple Crown Subdivision. It is zoned Community Unit Plan (CUP) and is located in the Rural Milton Overlay. The final plat for that phase in Triple Crown was recorded in 2005 which only had the twenty- five-foot State buffer. In September 2020, pursuant to V20-13 the applicant proposed to build a pool in 75-foot impervious setback (Exhibit A). Section 20-426, (1), (2) states that an undisturbed natural vegetative buffer shall be maintained for fifty feet, measured horizontally, on both banks (as applicable) of the stream as measured from the point of wrested vegetation and an additional twenty five foot impervious setback is required adjacent to a stream. Pursuant to V20-13 the pool was allowed by the BZA within 75-foot impervious setback with the following conditions. Conditions: • Per site plan by Neptune Pools dated July 12, 2020. • Place temporary construction fence barrier along construction area. No further than ten feet into the fifty-foot undisturbed buffer. This area shall be re-planted. • No pool, structure, wall, foundation encroachment permitted into the fifty-foot undisturbed buffer. • Drainage plan required to include Flo-Well to mitigate run-off. • Pool deck surface to utilize pervious pavers. The applicant now wants to remove two of the conditions; 1) Flow Well and 2) pervious pavers for the pool deck surface. On November 17, the applicant presented the plan shown in Exhibit A. The case was deferred, and owner was told to present the details of proposed alternative. The applicant has submitted a revised plan shown in Exhibit B and it has an alternative to the flow-well and pervious pavers. The City’s Plan Review Engineer is in support of the proposed French drain. The Staff notes that this revision does not encroach past the proposed pool in the 50 foot city buffer. has approved it as an alternative to flow well. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB) COURTESY REVIEW: On November 3, 2020, the DRB met and had the following comment: • The DRB supports the BZA’s original conditions of approval pursuant to V20-30 and does not support the applicant’s request to remove two of the conditions. Page 4 of 8 V20-25 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Standards for Consideration: The approval of a variance is based on the following consideration(s): • Relief, if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the Ordinance. • There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. • Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. • That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done. The applicant response: • Please see the letter of appeal. The staff response: • Part one: Relief, if granted would not offend the intent of the Ordinance since the applicant has worked with his engineer to produce a plan to minimize the impact. This solution is an acceptable substitute to the two conditions imposed by the BZA earlier to mitigate the impact of impervious coverage. The applicant’s alternative has been reviewed and recommended by the City’s Plan Review Engineer. The intend of the Ordinance is to limit the development in the buffer. Therefore, the variance could be granted. • Part two: Since the considerable portion of the property is taken by the required undisturbed buffers there is some hardship that is not caused by the applicant. Not removing the conditions means further hardship since the applicant has gone above and beyond to meet the regulations and provided a viable engineering solution. Therefore, the requested relief can be granted. • Part three: Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. The modified French drain would mitigate the runoff from the pool deck and new impervious surfaces. • Part four: The public safety, health and welfare would be secured and substantial justice is done by removing the two conditions previously required for the construction of the pool and to allow the proposed alternative. Page 5 of 8 V20-25 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Staff recommendation: • Staff recommends approval of the variance request to remove the following conditions pursuant to V20-13. 1. Drainage plan required to include Flo-Well to mitigate run-off. 2. Pool deck surface to utilize pervious pavers. Page 6 of 8 V20-25 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Letter of Appeal Page 7 of 8 V20-25 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit A Page 8 of 8 V20-25 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit B Page 1 of 8 V20-26 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 PETITION NUMBER: V20-26 PROPERTY INFORMATION 660 Glendalough Ct. – Enniskerry Subdivision DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2 / 664, 705 OVERLAY DISTRICT Rural Milton EXISTING ZONING AG-1 ACRES 1.745 Acres EXISTING USE Single Family Residence FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION Agricultural, Equestrian, Estate Residential REQUESTED VARIANCE: • To allow addition of an accessory structure to encroach into the side yard setback (Sec. 64-416 (i)). PETITIONER/OWNER Jennifer Barker ADDRESS 660 Glendalough Ct. Milton GA 30004 REPRESENTATIVE Jennifer Barker ADDRESS 660 Glendalough Ct Milton GA 30004 Page 2 of 8 V20-26 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 8 V20-26 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF CONTACT: Shubha Jangam 678.242.2539 Background: The site is a 1.745-acre lot located on the west side of Glendalough Court in the Enniskerry Subdivision. This property is zoned AG-1 and is located in the Rural Milton Overlay District. The final plat for the property was approved in 1992. As per Sec. 64-416 (c)(1), a 25-foot side setback is shown for the lot. On the north side of the subject is a piece of land that serves as the “road frontage” for a house that is located across the lake which is not being utilized by the owner. The applicant wants to build an accessory structure on the property that would be used as a garage (Exhibit A). The existing driveway would be used to access the new two-car garage. However, the structure is encroaching into north side setback by ten feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB) COURTESY REVIEW: On November 3, 2020, the DRB met and had the following comment: • Recommends approving the variance. • Requesting that the applicant provide a support letter from property owner at 655 Glendalough Ct. • Provide a floor plan and elevations of the proposed structure. Page 4 of 8 V20-26 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Standards for Consideration: The approval of a variance is based on the following consideration(s): • Relief, if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the Ordinance. • There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. • Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. • That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done. The applicant response: • Please see the letter of appeal. The staff response: • Part one: Since there is an additional 20 feet wide strip of land available between the two neighbors, the side yard encroachment, if allowed would not offend the spirit of the Ordinance. • Part two: Because of the location of the existing driveway, the shape of this property, and the lake to the rear creates an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations and would support the proposed location of the accessory structure into the side yard setback. • Part three: Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good because there would be 35 feet between the structure and the adjacent house located on the cul-de-sac. • Part four: Public safety, health and safety is secured because the new structure would be at a safe distance from the existing house. Staff recommendation: • Staff recommends approval of the variance request for a single-story accessory structure. Page 5 of 8 V20-26 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Letter of Appeal Page 6 of 8 V20-26 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit A Page 7 of 8 V20-26 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 8 of 8 V20-26 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Shea E. Roberts Direct: (404) 924-2853 sroberts@gsrdlaw.com 945 E. Paces Ferry Road, Suite 2750  Atlanta, GA 30326  404.924.2850  www.grdlegal.com November 17, 2020 VIA: Electronic Mail : Members of the Milton Zoning Board of Appeals and Relevant Staff jake.ward@cityofmiltonga.us jason.cole@cityofmiltonga.us hodge.patel@cityofmiltonga.us todd.chernik@cityofmiltonga.us brenda.hamstead@cityofmiltonga.us kim.keller@cityofmiltonga.us don.curt@cityofmiltonga.us shubhangi.jangam@cityofmiltonga.us Robyn.Macdonald@cityofmiltonga.us; RE: Variance Application Filed by Estes and Jennifer Barker for Property Located at 660 Glendalough Court, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 (the “subject property”) Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Members: My Firm has been retained to represent Anne Kuljian and Joseph Conenna who reside at 645 Glendalough Court, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004, which is the property that will be most directly impacted by the proposed 2-car (3 car shown with lift/could be 4 car if another lift added), two-story with basement auto workshop/garage within the requisite 25-foot interior side setback. Although not immediately adjacent, there is only a 35-foot strip of land belonging to Eric Reale at 655 Glendalough Court, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004. This strip was intended to provide the requisite road frontage for this property where the home is actually constructed across the lake. There are no structures on this strip of land between the Barkers and the Kuljian/Conennas. Thus, my clients will have direct view and impact of the proposed large, two- car, 2-story with basement auto workshop/garage structure. Please find a picture of the current view from my client’s property attached as Exhibit “A”. Procedural Issues First and foremost, we are not sure if the City posted the notice 20 days prior to this hearing as required by the City’s Ordinance. My client’s recollection is that the sign was posted on October 30, 2020, and as such would not meet the requisite 20-day notice period. Please verify and provide proof of the date the sign was posted so that we can determine if it complied with Sec. 64-1942. If notice was insufficient, this variance application must immediately be removed from tonight’s agenda until such notice requirements have been cured. GIACOMA ROBERTS & DAUGHDRILL, LLC Milton Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 Second, according to an email sent yesterday to my client from Robyn Macdonald, the proposed structure’s closest corner to the interior boundary line is actually 13 feet – thus, the advertised variance of 10 feet is in error. The Applicants are in fact requesting a variance of 12 feet from the requisite 25 foot side yard setback requirement. Thus, this variance appears to have been incorrectly described in the advertisement and needs to be re-advertised with the accurate variance request. Facts and Substantive Arguments Ms. Kuljian and Mr. Conenna have lived in their home for 22 years. They purchased in this neighborhood because of its idyllic and peaceful lake and the surrounding horse farms. The proposed very large, 2-car (3 car shown with lift/could be 4 car if another lift added), two-story with basement auto workshop/garage structure will have an intended use as described by the Applicants as a workshop with car lifts shown. The Applicants did not share their plans with my clients prior to filing their application or prior to City’s architectural review. The first time my clients heard anything from the Applicants was late last week wherein they requested that Mr. Conenna and Ms. Kuljian sign a letter stating that they approved of the variance application, which included only one elevation of their plans. Additionally, the City’s notice letter was very non- descript and when Mr. Conenna questioned the City about its lack of information, he was told because the Zoning Department was short-staffed because of COVID. My clients do not want to be unreasonable, but upon learning the details of the proposed structure, they are very concerned about the two story with a basement, large size and close proximity to their property. It will impact significantly their current natural view as they will be looking at this large structure now much closer to their property than the existing house which already has a two-car garage. The cedar trees described by the Applicant as screening do not actually provide any screening as they have been limbed up, as shown in Exhibit A. Additionally, it appears that some of those trees will not survive the impact of construction so close to them. But perhaps more significant, the intended use as an auto workshop inherently will include increased noise from the lift and tools. Ms Kuljian and Mr. Conenna understand that Applicants would be permitted to build a similar structure within the requisite setbacks without the City’s permission, but they do not believe the Applicants should be granted a variance from the City’s setback requirements for an unnecessary very large, two-story with a basement auto workshop/garage that will move the inherent noise 12 feet closer to their property, which will negatively impact the quiet enjoyment of their home and property. GIACOMA ROBERTS & DAUGHDRILL, LLC Milton Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 Despite the Staff’s recommendation for approval, we believe the Applicant’s justification for the variance application fails because: 1. My clients bought their property 22 years ago with notice of the 35-foot strip of land attached to the home across the lake. Thus, it was an enticement because they knew it would provide an additional buffer between them and the home now owned by the Barkers. Such strip should not be permitted to justify the Applicants’ variance because it does not belong to them and Ms. Kuljian and Mr. Conenna bought their home with the express knowledge that that land would remain undisturbed. It should have no relevance whatsoever to whether the Applicants should be permitted to move their unnecessary, very large, two-story with a basement auto workshop 12 feet closer to their boundary line. Such consideration is not the intent of the Ordinance nor is it even contemplated in the Ordinance. 2. Just because the Applicants want an additional double bay, three-car with the lift as shown (could add another lift making it 4-car), two-story plus a basement auto garage/workshop, in addition to their existing 2 car garage, does not in and of itself create a hardship that justifies its construction in violation of the setback requirements. Because they already have a two-car garage, this additional large accessory structure with a basement with car lifts that is intended as a workshop is a desire not a need. It appears but is not abundantly clear that they allege they will take in part of their existing 2 car garage for space for their parents to move in, leaving a single car bay on the existing house. Thus, they could design a smaller accessory structure with only 1 bay that would be within the requisite setbacks (which with the 1 existing bay and the new bay with left would expand their garage space from 2 cars to 3) or potentially move the two bay structure more interior to their property. Their plan has not proposed the most minimum intrusion necessary. 3. Such construction of such a very large, two-bay wide (up to 4 cars possible), two-story with a basement auto workshop/accessory structure within the requisite setback will cause substantial detriment to my client’s quiet enjoyment of their property. As mentioned, my clients purchased their home 22 years ago in this neighborhood because of the idyllic surrounding horse farms and lake. The peaceful tranquility they have enjoyed for 22 years will be negatively impacted by the construction of this unnecessary, very large, two-bay wide, two-story with a basement auto workshop both in the visual impact and the significant noise that will be inherent. Thus, granting a variance is not justified for an unnecessary use as it will bring the noise 12 feet closer to Ms. Kuljian and Mr. Conenna’s home. 4. Finally, substantial justice will not be done by granting this variance. To the contrary, it will grant Applicant’ an unjustified encroachment that will interfere with my client’s quiet GIACOMA ROBERTS & DAUGHDRILL, LLC Milton Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 enjoyment of their property which they have enjoyed for 22 years (5 years longer than the Barkers have lived at their property). In addition to the foregoing reasons, my clients will be directly and adversely affected and harmed by the proposed variance. Accordingly, such approval of the requested variance is unconstitutional as a taking of private property, a denial of equal protection, an arbitrary and capricious act, and an unlawful delegation of authority under the specific constitutional provisions later set forth herein. A vote of approval constitutes an arbitrary and unreasonable use of the zoning and police powers of the City of Milton because they bear no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morality or general welfare of the public and substantially harm my clients. An approval of the variance would constitute a taking of their private property without just compensation and without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and Article I, Section I, Paragraph I and Article I, Section III, Paragraph I of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And if the posting of the sign was insufficient pursuant to the requirements of Milton’s Zoning Ordinance, that is a procedure defect which must be cured immediately. Ms. Kuljian and Mr. Conenna object to this variance for the foregoing reasons and reserve their legal rights to appeal any approval of the request. Assuming arguendo, should this Board choose to approve the variance, it should at least consider requiring the installation of large, evergreen, waxy-leaved bushes (holly or Ligustrum) to provide visual screening below the cedar trees and to help absorb some of the inherent noise from the workshop. My clients respectfully request that you deny this variance, and appreciate your consideration of their opposition. Sincerely, GIACOMA ROBERTS & DAUGHDRILL, LLC /s/ Shea E. Roberts 14 AAA If 441. rea 4 —Alp TV 10 \Ft !► ,>� l �1� 4 1• a 0 Ilk {' a `� 'i- G4-\ ,� iii '�rii X r �. ,�. �RIq Ile 4p 4 e AL o -s 7Are AW Pik e 4 Ike r01 .t a +F ` It as IIAL Ile Ike k Ne IMr- lL , a „� is X 4Ir 7" ` 1 de . LV $y ror IP IN4 Wee r r t '.� ' Taw lu. .�SIII— el ylf` > . i ' N ell r Nee, 114 r3 r _ Na ff It u a _ r Page 1 of 9 V20-27 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 PETITION NUMBER: V20-27 PROPERTY INFORMATION 770 Cooper Sandy Cove DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2 / 891, 910 OVERLAY DISTRICT RURAL MILTON EXISTING ZONING AG-1 ACRES 1.02 Acres EXISTING USE Single Family Residence FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN, ESTATE RESIDENTIAL REQUESTED VARIANCES: • To allow the lot coverage for an AG-1 zoned property that fronts a public street to go from 20 percent to 25 percent. (Sec. 64-1141 (d) (1)(b)) PETITIONER/OWNER Jon P. and Heather A Duvall ADDRESS 770 Cooper Sandy Cove Milton GA 30004 REPRESENTATIVE Jon P. and Heather A Duvall ADDRESS 770 Cooper Sandy Cove Milton GA 30004 Page 2 of 9 V20-27 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 9 V20-27 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF CONTACT: Shubha Jangam 678.242.2539 Background: The site is a 1.02-acre lot located on the north side of Cooper Sandy Cove. This property is zoned AG-1 and is located in the Rural Milton Overlay District. The final plat for the property was approved in 1997. As per Sec. (Sec. 64-1141 (d) (1)(b)) lot coverage for each individual lot zoned AG-1 shall not exceed 20 percent for lots that front on public streets. The current impervious coverage on the lot is 21 percent (Exhibit A). The applicant is requesting to build a pool and deck in the rear yard that would increase the lot coverage from 21 percent to 24.72 percent (Exhibit A). The applicant worked with the City staff to reduce the proposed footprint as requested by the DRB. This revision, shown in Exhibit B, has reduced lot coverage from 24.72 to 23.47 by utilizing grass pavers around portion of the pool. Lot coverage is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as the following: Lot coverage means the percentage of impervious surfaces located on a lot in comparison to the total lot area, calculated by dividing impervious surface area by total lot area. For purposes of calculating lot coverage, impervious surfaces shall include the following: (1) The footprint of the main building regardless of size; (2) The total footprints of any accessory buildings larger than 150 square feet; (3) Swimming pools, hot tubs, and associated decks and; (4) Parking pads and driveways. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB) COURTESY REVIEW: On November 3, 2020, the DRB met and had the following comment: • Work with city staff to reduce the impervious lot coverage. Page 4 of 9 V20-27 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Standards for Consideration: The approval of a variance is based on the following consideration(s): • Relief, if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the Ordinance. • There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. • Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. • That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done. The applicant response: • Please see the letter of appeal. The staff response: • Part one: The homes built in this subdivision have larger footprints and spacious driveways. The intent of the Ordinance that came into effect in 2014 was to limit the impervious coverage or lot coverage. Since the existing lot coverage is already beyond the limit (21%) the owner cannot add a pool without a variance. It is not the intent of the Ordinance to allow 23.47 percent lot coverage, but applicant has made an effort to only add 2.47 percent of lot coverage. • Part two: Although the property owner worked with the City staff to reduce the footprint of the proposed addition after the DRB’s comments. Staff does not see any unnecessary hardship arising due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. • Part three: The increase of lot coverage could cause a detriment to the surrounding properties. This ordinance is intended for the public good, although honest efforts have been made to reduce the overall impervious coverage, the adding to the existing 21 percent lot coverage may cause a detriment to the surrounding properties. • Part four: Public safety, health and welfare are not secured, and substantial justice is not done based on the amount of lot coverage that is proposed with the addition of pool and associated surfaces. Page 5 of 9 V20-27 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Staff recommendation: • Staff recommends denial of the variance. If the BZA approves the variance, staff recommends the following conditions: • Use of pervious surfaces on pool deck and / or driveway • Reduce the amount of pool deck and / or driveway Page 6 of 9 V20-27 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Letter of Appeal Page 7 of 9 V20-27 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit A Page 8 of 9 V20-27 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 n Exhibit B Page 9 of 9 V20-27 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 n RECEIVED 11/06/2020 05:32PM 7703963896 Douglas R. Thompson NOU-6-2020 02:40P FRDM: TO:7703963896 P.3 gppitcation for Modification The Lake at Cooper Sandy Homeowners Association, Inc The Lake at Cooper Sandy Homeowners Association, Inc. APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION Note: This form must be completed and submitted. ACC approval must be received 91141 to Commencing any work. Documentation submitted for review becomes the property of The Lake at Cooper Sandy Homeowners Association, Inc. Incomplete Forms will be returned without review, including but not limited to applications without homeowner signature or with missing information. 5P cU l Heber' c Ali _ Deck _ Gazebo/Arbor _ Screened Porch _ Fence Retaining Wall _ Exterior Addition ,}Swimming Pool _ Landscaping Storm Door _ Paint Color Change _ Roof Change _ House Addition _Other. Please provide the ACC with all the information necessary to evaluate your request morougmy and quickly. Please refer to the governing documents for required information to be included with this form. Requests must include, without limitation, the following Information: site plan (including all dimensions), color chips (If applicable), detailed description of the request, list of materials, pictures, brochures (if applicable), and any other information as specifically required below or as required by the governing documents for The Lake at Cooper Sandy Homeowners Association, Inc. .: Sol I_ r tr/iL�trZi. i r w r a .. :.r. •. . ,,., ... •..EnIlIM'ie T�:,� ...�•.. Y !lee attrtched pages showjvi_c� Poo l Pia s k s j>ecs 1A IN. -rl Sf iii 44111 r"JISCpOJ hA. If-tq U LI..R WtitC.J!` hznefi�s r1Q(o�in.hurhl Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED 11/06/2020 05:32PM 7703963896 Douglas R. Thompson NOV-6-2020 02:40P FROM: TO:7703963B96 P.4 The Lake at Cooper Sandy Homeowners Association, Inc. Application for Modification l Adjacent Homeowners (all homeowners sharing a common boundary line) must be made aware of your application: Awareness of the neighboring homeowners will be considered by the ACC, but will not be binding. No application will be considered unless this section is complete including signatures. Name Neighbor's Signature Address Aware of Proposed Modification ScL o#o-r, {tnJ( 2. w,(` 5 2 ❑ 13 I understand and agree that no work on this request shall commence until written approval of The Lake at Cooper Sandy Homeowners Association, Inc. ACC has been received by the homeowner. I represent and warrant that the requested improvements andlor modifications strictly conform to the governing documents and that these changes shall be made in strict conformance to those Covenants. I understand that I am responsible with all city, county and state regulations. Permission is hereby granted for members of the ACC and appropriate The Lake at Cooper Sandy Homeowners Association, Inc. representatives to enter the property to make reasonable observation and inspection of the requested modification and completed project. Neither The Lake at Cooper Sandy Homeowners Association, Inc., the Association Board of Directors, the ACC nor their respective members, officers, successors, assigns, agents, representatives or employees shall be liable for damages or otherwise to anyone requesting approval of an architectural alteration by reason of mistake in judgment, negligence or misfeasance, arising out of any action with respect to any submission, The architectural review is directed toward review and approval of site planning, appearance and aesthetics. None of the foregoing assumes any responsibility regarding design or construction, including, without limitation, the structural integrity, mechanical or electrical design, methods of construction, or technical suitability of materials. I hereby release and covenant not to sue all of the foregoing from/for any claims or damages regarding this request or the approval or denial thereof. As in accordance with the Covenants, please allow a maximum of 45 days from the date or Mal submission of all Information requested by the ACC for a modification review. The volunteer members of the ACC will make an effort to approve requests in a reasonable time though some requests make take as long as 45 days as allowed for in the Covenants. The 45 -day timeframe will commence upon receipt of all additional information requestedfrequired to consider the application complete. If modification is started prior to approval, fines may be assessed. It Is the homeowner's responsibility to monitor construction and enforce the Items of this approval. Alterations In the approval plan are not allowed unless a revised plan has been submitted and received ACC approval. Failure to fallow the items of this approval will result in an unapproved exterior modification. The homeowner then accepts full responsibility for, at their expense, removing the unapproved structure or allering the structure in order to bring it Into compliance wlth the approval plan. Homeowner's Signature' aw Date 10' 23' 9020 Homeowner's Signature g Date 1i- (All owners must sign) Upon completion of this form, please return to your Association Administrator at HMS, Kathy Riccobono, by scan and email to Kathy,Riccobono otms-inc.net, by fax to 770-667-6315, or by mall to: The Lake at Cooper Sandy HOA, Inc. c/o HMS Inc. P.O. Box 2458 Alpharetta, GA 30023-2458 u..re.,sc,.,,m�m.u.emcvr«c„w.. roramva..ct,,.rm,�.„e+r:,.,:ircv..Nvucun 10 tm,�u I-„wwm xr+ao+ca+. Paget oft RECEIVED 11/06/2020 05:32PM 7703963896 Douglas R. Thompson NOV-6-2020 02:41P FROM: 70:7703963896 P.5 The Duvall Family .7G Cnopef �)aMt.� Cv, MIIton, Gi,. i0i'� + Septwmber 23, 2020 Hello neighbor, We need your help! Cur family has applied with the City of Milton for a permit to install a swimming pool. Unfortunately, we've run into a snag that requires us to apply fora variance with the city. We would like to ask for vour signatures indicating, you are okay with us putting in a pool to further support our request. The reason the city requires a valiance rtlater town ordinance that was put in place in 2011. This Or.lmance was intended to curb the development of home, that are too hip for the land on which they sit, Specifically a home iinciudingthe driveway and hardscaper can cover up to 2041; of your land. Because of the age of our neighborhood. many or our homes ai a already at that limit or higher iespecially those that have swimmmgpoolsl If the city approves the variance, our home and pool would take up appm 4imately 2>" r of out available Lind. In doing so, we will still have ample (andscapingaiid property setbacks such that our pool will in no way have a negative Impact on our neii;hboa For farther cldrlhCatkin,l5',covojileisautomaviall; perm ittedbythe City ofiiIlton vothin Rated' private neighborhoods If you have no objections, we ask for your support by providing your signature along with your address and phone number below. Thank you, JP & Heather Duvall Ij Name: riga e)u e C bbcn `J Ccv'� Aodress. SSC Cc -YJ -)L�(''Ckr%c"I A1p1,C1fC41cl CTA Phone:-, qZ Name: SIe u-cv) Address: jowl i411 XQ�fU Phone: 4k 312 ��� RECEIVED 11/06/2020 05:32PM 7703963896 NOU-6-2020 02:42P FROM: Signatures Continued (Page 2 of 2) Name: CSEOfg2. - Loo Address: 202-5 Zw-i Vhae% W &-I NG ton GR 3vob�{ 1 Phone: w4+ / Name: J. Address: 76c) n iL -���� l.00�pj , G\ CV Phone: kA �%n 1 J1� %pGo`A 3vo-999-591/I3 Douglas R. Thompson TO:7703963896 P.6 Name: �YClf- e0viY ett-e—, Address: 780 coo SOdICi� C v Phone: 'K Sharon 12ob O eM-e s Fated sl, A\ & n &� h ou e G 1�rob\,e,vr-� uS c�ddinoJ a- pco\ ; h�oweve, -, 3'ox-)L wcula nod sign. +fie Said he �No�cF re�ie� and cons\c\e� �u� WO -3 cc)0cZfr-A pbt�v F noise r2�eYe�c��r� V,�s n2���n�o� on -1V1%-P- o4\kr S\,d(?- o-vtid V\ow low kv -to A4)i�r pool. L 12.c -t- � dopy o�-i'��e side pox, and r�oo�le e�x.c-11� photo RECEIVED 11/06/2020 05:32PM 7703963896 NOV-6-2020 02:42P FROM: wleNue. tocnnox. ad4 IN 0 BINE FON OVER 43 YEARS.... ------ I IL978 ,rJLrmro Jet wYw DUMI Tle Coap.e B.neYCan WNen.Oa]Ne. I1tlJbllfO JedrL.Lm9nwYW, Douglas R. Thompson TO:7703963896 P.7 IFml io 0%%aa d0parukd fta 19761 PFRIIITMBOtTJVL! e.InrbMphrWMLti GYtl XHbn MMYwLwrw. Yw ♦ YY MII wrrorm YMUO pr.iWp MN. mo}Y vvwMkq W o pgbrm.e IM Wn. W WMrweYCYwMwQ .wMrJ YYeaa.CfuYIILwIw1. aX..^MM.Irs.M1'l..°eY.r We pMe. u. w! wry rwLW pvenlY MY...urwn. wYc Igwl.lYae4k.Mal.Ypgmnlw IllwpbYY.A MYrrYq..lvb IYMMbrM.A.nNYM rRUM qw owY.lurILFYe.. ♦ NllfepwYlm. WII1d W In vA M.YtlgeutMMe tl.11 ! IM. Y.pTi wu. W nuyw. W .W.1.uw YrpIIIV Y.pi1M.mYM. COXBTXUCTIOM IWBPNAM! ♦ TMwWeYwnip'tlYb W WPb Qd'vYYq eM^ 1M.WIEY.Y IMNLmMytl erMJWen rN 4.mmdMb.dYNwMn IM pof1Y NIIpwXA wY, 'wuLdedwx Xe.OgNrapn erkq.Nwbrie dm. NnYm..b ImUL.w w ucwm. OEAIDIIINN/BITE PFEPERATIOX/FJfGVAiIOX m mYr m W M vwwrlmmYq PW..w WII wW wus.b N. whnmMq ImI Wmndm un Iw WlLLlu1�Y werabv w.�bwgL Nw ♦ gwXNrriNneYr1.IL.NW W16iq IM pwA Vh Ce WI MWu Iep.In mIMLW W. w drylnp..w. w tlm.yW 111 nY1 x enYnow WYIM wW Y mnrWL.1M mi0rpgn pa..wYlb IYwIWLm W mwriq eIL6w11bn. ♦ Nlw.uurab.I. grwnn...rW.aual,wF.rU+uwu..m.ru.rrb.n.n wY utllMr�ln ymvevJ.Wwnpllvw WNL mYrm W^wYl.s 11�� L Ywww LyY.11W M! rw1Yb Wr AILMnW Fb N.YLm.w WII rMnLL,M.MM W ILKL rgNiwl Iw NL.ynl{nwr1.M LYpeWlb/bp LYwlp ♦ rs4Wll u.I.w�M WOL11.Mmr.YWllW ben YrOeNpLwM mYu.mM.TMwM. nLYY JI MY YW IIYIWY1w YY®.. r.rY. .pwlNagaYILC eal In NLL¢p W wMrenlYnLE Mbv. ��� ♦ lXFmbLu4lbn IIpiNM1UDPY ♦ lX fYeL N.mwLl 146UD1D ♦ BYWW WLprynMbrY lWYbe. IIILWOlD ♦ em.w er.e..WW YIMrnW w..OmLenNPWm: cw.wr it Lr �ElAed ♦ a.wr. w.w wn.www^r.dl.m.w.IM oml r.u.ane..YnW �0 mnYwq neneoewb malty., IM, u.bp c^wimnbph.MYa ewe.n r.wY.m Wn. Ixeuam wreb.u.a,r®WnLwwln L Nis mvL,LY dnlW W Ir WM e..m. Id &uP II..YKY worye.n lwyL Ye Mwn..Y YoW Ilr NW4 ,N 41n.r Pw. yeY M1.N ] b e DupMTypn flp.w YCLYO® ♦ InWYl yaurMWSW m.WxbN YwW.rYmdW. WRIpD • w.WU MWW.MWe'b.mtlCw Wum..nr.uWM. Por t 6e Owaid to�u�rfi i�r� RECEIVED 11/06/2020 05:32PM 770396$896 Douglas R. Thompson NOU-6-2020 02:42P FROM: TO:7703963896 P.8 J'11* �?OP Poops Pyv1YL SOL M •P.00I. is UPPra Com. ]MENTOR MISHANDRWL FlFYWG DETANA ♦ M1W. is BlnOutl Cmn P.hM. 9M�1ynl.n Lgon WCLUpIO WvrMry:ILYw. WvnMp IL Y.m Cwlptun BWY DOM mN 9LKYBYCI: Wnlw d.mm�i VrTY Pnrl /q:u Blu. •P.00I. is UPPra Com. PFBM. BA..n DpprW Cabo hOW Ffiu llryrN. tPkn WMtY.1L YMn Wvney:IL Ve.n Wu..nry' i Y..n Nom' YOb. /q:u Blu. /JGIp 01pL P.N YNaWW. WI.Bb Bow (Noon 04L 0.f. CM. M. C�dv B. Y.Kl4 Nu0..NL PMv. V.q. u^^nPPnpnY B:a.M bbb BaB tw.4 BnM.u. BYtl OrO IMp Blu Fu:b BnY TNI: MIM NBXPp BMe GRADING AND YARD GNAINAGE • I]eua OrM. cwuNwaw�Mr.r:w. w.Yn MP.:.Ns.YawnMWwwva Uu.M' 1 DAMMED PoOL FwIANDENTRY • Itl..0 PW WCLLIOtD • NVYlufeuMW Bu.aUtl: 1 Bp..Uw ♦ YTb.II. BIw'w py.Pdy; 1 ♦ PAI BYp. BM,..E UOEO .D A.Pad YnoBY VCY!!➢ MIIY9NG DEIA¢6 ♦ B.bw. B..uYM i P.—TMY1PdW.Y01PYCH} IML' D ♦ YM a.- G—W i Pn..unl...blW.b M PIA U wl0 ♦ N.na:. Q. x . . Ww::n r.m aen.BM. By vve PlA lnwlG Po DECATNG DETAILS ♦ NMy YY:Y F. Pp .iAxNlu PMn QuuWry: ILIL IOUY.M IMCLwIB •L'PWY[0.9:CNnplp BUWNY: Ib M::rf.M INCLBOIO ♦ Pn. W.Y Bob puntlM 1 NLLUBIP $PA DETA49 • 0.81 1 0 MURO • lW!]v.n FP Yl BOa.n i.tl mum •BA MYFJMIB MMIIanyECW ObM (IY:Wnn.pdelxl.N Tnullnlw M:n1 eW 10 E ♦BALMW PWMp p Y:�FwI RAMMED ♦ Iw BBXerIJf Now, 0..n0Y ♦ V @:.ndY: f I MZ . • ep.BaxW.Y .p. aN. w• w1B Bitt w /" e�" pm r4 0&10 Nwxt t0 7ILct OK Gs�¢ �i1i67CCl• RECEIVED 11/06/2020 05:32PM 7703963896 Douglas R. Thompson NOU-6-2020 02:42P FROM: TO:7703963896 P.9 1' �rOP Poops FRAOE CHANOEOETAlLS _ ♦ IxW.rY.pp.e erm Illun W nMnMlgpeelMP p..tllnlntlen. n puw buq..IMmpbw. TM:.mp 4...IM lrp Wl.m Ippellwnalp rpm pm xmL L YplumMpd191on.n.va9.u.lu1 w01wq.q Tnwllpbxm Berq Bmm wNl aumW/: fm &I.w it n iA IMCLIbID ♦ Ingtll.MnRYNYN.pw.11.lr�lle ClWe.lpn.m puw.Iml.l..Il.Im plow. wmumammm.Hxxmre.:mlm xlmgw umnlpwi•D wtll wwmrT. m xpu.miW • x u woLweo HARaSL STEPS tl P:romiWM au.rwry; fW un.n P.Y MUM AHf = SW9ODNa pat CLE"aFf s ♦ PpaY Pmwq: vH Aepga Pml u...r cumwr. , INf1WpD ItlOIE FNTOETARS �P.pWE.ry TdgpOFumpnPuxwl.Ib•Syl.m xIX11GO LlByN.m yWpy. f WLYDm ♦ PWNrlgrmrx WOYp.Nml.ry:lm. DYWYY: WC'LYpm • wu.lr ml.xeev.nm.lwmaxPPUW a,IwYy: 1 IMwM • rw,®r.ma xmm. xrl. mxcwxq.nlW aWw f wtwDm paLWATFROR NS ♦IwMIMEMp4TmnP WMn lb.pq lTY OUWtly. 1 N Ilw •Otl L4WMWWYv yP Tu'. 1m WwhY pl1L•® PO WA LIOHTD NLS •P.NafrInYIMaW WNYLE11 PeN L1yl1 OypYly; f WfAl1@p ♦ P.WIrabBrll•CearE•mlNl llD LqM• DuxIX'(. t Y10.Yafa FLFL AL ♦ b.411. ro•!I^! Wq P, FVINLI•MYm•YWkYOp•.OaMIMPPo4 W N N Wr.Ir P'plpulp..oLwl •vsvxN WmYOtp A T'umW'9 p iwl 'Mx vw •l.nOlPal.1®.aq.lmml pu.num p WTWCLWtp • xtlx Pu�WWrlro Du.My. t WCLYIHD • Pm..r:euxmmmx ol.wr: f WcwDEo aENEML MAN ♦ PmW. rwJum p[N, rYuum MN. WI Ab. WI np WI xm... rWum xmL Ir W.rmmMm. I.,M,VD ♦ W. MII I::orlp glnmplWruMm., yXLymp WAR2IHTIE9 ♦ Paa1lIMI pmtlbn M.wwMIPar Yrr.lnllw • YM.gwum PWWlq )Y•.n • na )n.. ♦ PollPwa )Y.w ♦ IwNa PMW pLlntl.wouq ♦CglwuYm 1Y.w 7" r a O t else aAdmaputy eo "au tlaCa ;baa feet. Meade Cee tad &am 4 you lsaae a # gueafe"4. 0i'd 968£96£02):01 uosamoul 'd sLIl6nop :WOdd d£b:20 020E-9-nON 968896£OLL AdZ£:50 OZOZ/90/66 03A1333b Zs* 00 .a lit jr , 968£96£02):01 uosamoul 'd sLIl6nop :WOdd d£b:20 020E-9-nON 968896£OLL AdZ£:50 OZOZ/90/66 03A1333b 00 .a , 968£96£02):01 uosamoul 'd sLIl6nop :WOdd d£b:20 020E-9-nON 968896£OLL AdZ£:50 OZOZ/90/66 03A1333b +10M LUfin - !]" v k i 9F rrV44 T: " RECEIVED 11/06/2020 05:32PM 7703963896 Douglas R. Thompson NOV-6-2020 02:44P FROM: TO:7703963896 SLUM Li 0I0003O 00 NO17Nd 000P "La Occur VO ONOB53NOf N011IWd0 * J3N'1SVOW00®77VAf10'df 1S NIVW'S ate AONVS H3d0001V 3MV7 lL v a U01 Swr VONO171W p M I teBs(SUOl ONV7 Isla 3400 71SMOVVS 000011 t iPrmP10i StBRvB�'WVd le ji 1 8 I 0 6��,© lye j 1 w �y ¢ 11,tiP :!Q 198.91, S 00'19'40` E _ to ag gtQ 620 lr �i!QI 1110 t i . -zeta Qp�9 I 4 �t1 wl r A 1 LLF r $ U coo O 9iE11 `',, l z, '�\ lit 11 per. 0 i z4'9 fit", 4,9L40 N \ w� oil 9.; t7f � ani �.— � � gq ,t't �i��•jtj7iq, Fill Be Fll t 1 � °° ;�; iie r s t! ltlt t it f�ii �ii 11!d �pEti��i iiE I° �tl pi �iQl� i° li 'Fsa $:3i P.12 RECEIVED 11/06/2020 05:32PM 7703963896 NOV-6-2020 02:46P FROM: MI LTON'k ESTABLISHED 2006 NOVEMBER 2, 2020 ROBINETTE JAMES J & BETTY S OR CURRENT RESIDENT 780 COOPER SANDY COVE ALPHARETTA GA 30004 TO: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS Douglas R. Thompson TO:7703963996 P.13 MAYOR CITYCOUNCIL Joe Lockwood Peyton Jamison Paul Moore Laura Bentley Carol Cookerly Joe Longoria Rick Mohrig THIS PETITION WILL BE -HEARD BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020 AT 6:00 PM AT THE CITY OF MILTON CITY HALL LOCATION, 2006 HERITAGE WALK, MILTON, GEORGIA 30004. a. CASE#: V20-27, 770 Cooper Sandy Cove Request (s): To allow the lot coverage for an AG -1 zoned property that fronts a public street to go from 20% to 25% (Sec. 64-1141, d, 1, b ) PROPERTY HAVING FRONTAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 197.67 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON COOPER SANDY COV, IN LAND LOT(S) 891 & 910 OF THE SECOND DISTRICT, FULTON COUNTY, CITY OF MILTON, GA. THE CITY OF MILTON BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ADVISES YOU, IN THE EVENT YOU DESIRE TO BE HEARD, TO APPEAR AT THE ABOVE-NAMED TIME AND PLACE. NOTICE BOTH APPLICANTS AND OPPONENTS MUST DISCLOSE ANY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS OF $250 OR MORE TO A LOCAL OFFICIAL WHO WILL CONSIDER A REZONING, USE PERMIT OR VARIANCE APPLICATION. IF YOU HAVE MADE SUCH CONTRIBUTION AND WISH TO VOICE YOUR OPINION REGARDING THIS OR ANY PETITION, A DISCLOSURE FORM MUST BE FILED WITH THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY CLERK, 5 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING. CALL (678) 242-2500 FOR A FORM OR ACCESS W W W.CITYOFMILTONGA.US 2006 Heritage Walk Milton, GA 30004 0000 P: 678.242.25001 F: 678.242.2499 info®cityofmiltonga.us I www.clfyofmiltonga.us 1872-C. INDEPENDENCE SQUARE DUNWOODY, GEORGIA 30338 Douglas R. Thompson, Esq. Katie L. Walters, Esq. City of Milton Attn: Sudie Gordon, Clerk 2006 Heritage Walk Milton, Georgia 30004 DOUGLAS R. THOMPSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 12, 2020 Via: Email: Sudie.gordonln.cityofrniltonga.us PHONE (770) 396-3661 FAX (770) 396-3896 Website: DougThompsonLaw.com Email: Doug@DougThompsonLaw.com Katie@DougThompsonlaw.com Ms. Gordon, Please date stamp a copy of this letter and return it to me via email at the following address: doug@dougthompsonlaw.com Also To: Board of Zoning Appeals Members: Todd Chemik, Chair: Todd.chernickgcitvofmiltonga.us Jake Ward: Jake.ward&cityofmiltonga.us Jason Cole: Jason.cole!kcitvofiniltonea.us Hodge Patel: Hod e.uateIggityofmilton a.us Brenda Hamstead: Brenda.hamsteadgeitvofiniltonga.us Kim Keller: Kim.keller@citvofiniltonga.us Don Curt: Don. curtna cityofrniltonga.us RE: Case #: V20-27, 770 Cooper Sandy Cove Applicants: JP and Heather Duvall Hearing Date: November 17, 2020 Dear Board of Zoning Appeals Members: I am an attorney who has been retained by James J. Robinette to assist him with presenting his objection to the above -noted variance request by JP and Heather Duvall regarding their proposed construction of a pool, spa, and deck at 770 Cooper Sandy Cove. My client, Mr. Robinette, and his wife reside at 780 Cooper Sandy Cove, which is next door to the east side of the Duvall's property. Mr. Robinette received the attached Application For Modification, which was provided to him by The Lake at Cooper Sandy Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "ACC"). The Application information consisted of the following: ■ Two-page Application For Modification Form, as submitted to the ACC; ■ "Hello neighbor" appeal letter from JP and Heather Duvall, requesting signatures from nearby neighbors in support of their variance request; ■ Written proposal from Hilltop Pools for the proposed pool, spa, and deck; ■ A dimensioned plan of the proposed pool, spa, and deck; ■ An aerial photo of the cul-de-sac, showing the location of the Duvall property; ■ A site plan of the Duvall's property prepared by Hilltop Pools, showing the placement of the pool, spa, and deck, along with what appear to be fences and retaining walls; and ■ Notice from the City of Milton of the appeals hearing before the Board Of Zoning Appeals (`BZA") on November 17, 2020. Per the attached notice from the City of Milton, the Duvalls are requesting a variance of the Zoning Code for AG -1 properties (the "Code") "to allow the lot coverage for an AG -1 zoned property that fronts a public street to go from 20% to 25% (Sec.64-1141, d, 1, b)". My client strongly objects to the City of Milton BZA granting the Duvalls' variance request for the following reasons: 1. Proposed Site Coverage violates the letter and intent of the Code — The intent of the Code for AG -1 residential subdivisions is to provide open landscapes, as unobstructed as possible by buildings and hardscape features. The D"'s lot is one of the smaller lots in the Cooper Sandy Cove cul-de-sac. The lot is 7,500 square feet smaller than the average lot size of the adjacent properties on the same side of the street (750, 760, 780 and 790) and is almost 2 %2 acres smaller than the average lot size of the three lots immediately across the street (815, 825 and 835). In addition, the contiguous portion of the Duvall's lot is even smaller, due to the lot area contained within the triangular appendage* in the northwest corner, which comprises almost 6% of the lot. Allowing an additional 5% of site coverage on this particular lot will crowd the site, in violation of the letter and intent of the Code. * Note that in 2007, the area of the triangular shaped appendage, together with a narrow strip of land along one property line, had to be purchased by a previous owner of the Duvalls' lot, in order to increase the lot size. Without this additional area, the lot would not have met the Code's minimum standards of a one -acre of lot size for this zoning designation. The triangular area is low- lying, and unusable for building or a septic drain field. 2. Minimum rear yard is too small for the proposed pool, spa, and deck — The rear yard of the Duvall's lot appears to be close to the 50 -foot minimum required by the Code. Constructing a 19 -foot -wide pool (at its widest), with an additional 20 -foot -wide deck area (10 feet on each side), and locating this approximately 20 feet from the existing house, appears to put the new construction within less than 10 feet from the property line. Crowding this configuration, which contains additional 1,850 square feet of hardscape features into a minimum -sized rear yard is in violation of the letter and intent of the Code. In addition, the location of the proposed pool, spa, deck, piping, and equipment will require coordination with the existing septic tank, piping, and drain field. 3. The proposed Code -required fencing will degrade the view and open space — The attached site plan indicates the installation of a four -foot -height equestrian fence around the pool, spa, deck, walkways, etc. The area enclosed by the fence makes up over 10% of the Duvall's lot area, without even considering that a portion of the lot is not contiguous. This goes against the letter and intent of the Code. 2 4. The proposed pool will provide an attractive nuisance — My client has serious concerns that the Duvalls' installation of the proposed pool, spa and deck will attract even more visitors to the Duvalls' property. According to my client, the Duvalls weekly entertain groups of people, large and small, which result in up to several dozen cars parked in their drive and along the cul-de-sac. The cars parked on the cul-de-sac often block my client's mailbox and partially block his access to his own driveway. In addition, my client is concerned that music and noise from the Duvalls' property will exceed that which is already at what he considers a bothersome level. 5. Lack of clarity of information provided — While the attached information was provided to my client, the small scale, lack of quality and missing information has made it difficult for him to ascertain certain details. The missing and obscured information only increases my client's concern that the proposed installation will have a long-term negative impact. The missing information includes: ■ It is difficult to discern from the three-inch square site plan where the pool equipment (pumps, heaters, if any, back -wash area, etc.) are to be located and whether this equipment will be inside or outside the pool enclosure fence. • It is not clear from the site plan's small scale and generic cross-section drawing how high the retaining walls are to be. These appear to be planned for the west side of the pool, nearest to the spa. ■ The larger, more legible pool, spa, and deck plan does not show equipment, retaining walls, and the relative location of fencing. ■ It does not appear that any of the plans show site lighting. ■ The three-page written proposal from Hilltop Pools is illegible, and therefore difficult to evaluate. Finally, while it is not a zoning issue, my client objects to the Duvalls' including third party information, otherwise known as hearsay, in their Application For Modification to the ACC. It appears that one of the Duvalls wrote that my client's wife did not have a problem with the pool, but that my client did and goes on to mention my client's alleged comments regarding his neighbor on the other side of his property. It is up to my client and his wife to speak for themselves and not for the Duvalls to make public what my client or his wife allegedly said. My client objects to this kind of tactic and will not be intimidated by this level of pressure. My client has the aforementioned specific concerns regarding the Duvalls' proposed installation of a pool, spa, and deck. Mr. Robinette legitimately fears that this project will degrade the value of surrounding properties, including his, and negatively affect his quiet enjoyment of his home. CONCLUSION My client therefore asks the City of Milton BZA to deny the Duvalls' request for a zoning variance. Due to health concerns, my client is unable to attend the November 17, 2020 City of Milton Board Of Zoning Appeals meeting. me. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Thank you for your attention to this matter. ery s, Douglas R. Thompson DRT:s Attachments Cc: Robert Buscemi, City Architect: Robert.Buscemikcitvofiniltonga.us Robyn MacDonald, City Zoning Manager: Robyn.Macdonaldkcityofiniltonga.us James J. Robinette 0 Page 1 of 9 V20-28 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 PETITION NUMBER: V20-28 PROPERTY INFORMATION 13230 Providence Road DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2 / 983 OVERLAY DISTRICT RURAL MILTON EXISTING ZONING AG-1 ACRES 1.016 Acres EXISTING USE Residential FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN, ESTATE RESIDENTIAL REQUESTED VARIANCE: • To allow the lot coverage for an AG-1 zoned property that fronts a public street to increase from 20 percent to 25 percent. (Sec. 64-1141(d)(1)(b)) PETITIONER/OWNER Mathew and Victoria Titus ADDRESS 13230 Providence Road Milton, GA 30004 REPRESENTATIVE Mathew and Victoria Titus ADDRESS 13230 Providence Road Milton, GA 30004 Page 2 of 9 V20-28 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 9 V20-28 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF CONTACT: Shubha Jangam 678.242.2539 Background: The site is a 1.016-acre lot located on the west side of Providence Road. This property is zoned AG-1 and is located in the Rural Milton Overlay District. The minor plat for the property was approved in 2008. As per Sec. (Sec. 64-1141(d)(1)(b)) lot coverage for each individual lot zoned AG-1 shall not exceed 20 percent for lots that front on public streets. The current impervious coverage on the lot is at 19.26 percent. The applicant wants to build a pool and deck in the rear yard that would increase the impervious coverage well beyond 20 percent. The applicant worked with City staff to reduce the proposed footprint. It is still above the permissible limit and so the applicant is requesting a variance. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB) COURTESY REVIEW: On November 3, 2020, the DRB met and had the following comment: • Work with City staff to reduce the impervious lot coverage. Page 4 of 9 V20-28 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Standards for Consideration: The approval of a variance is based on the following consideration(s): • Relief, if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the Ordinance. • There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. • Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. • That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done. The applicant response: • Please see the letter of appeal. The staff response: • Part one: The home and driveway is already covering 19 percent of the lot. The proposed design of a pool and deck is elaborate and not considering the limits of this lot. It would offend the spirit and intent of the Ordinance if honest efforts are not made to limit the additional lot coverage. • Part two: After the DRB’s comments the property owner worked with the City staff to reduce the footprint of proposed addition. It is staff’s opinion that further reduction in the proposed pool and deck expansion is possible. There are no extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to this property. • Part three: Relief, if granted could cause detriment to the surrounding properties because of increased run-off. For the public good the ordinance limited lot coverage to 20 percent for properties facing a public road. • Part four: Public safety, health and safety is maybe harmed because it could increase runoff towards Providence Road. Page 5 of 9 V20-28 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Staff recommendation: • Staff recommends denial of the variance. If the BZA approves the variance, staff recommends the following conditions: • Use of pervious surfaces on pool deck and / or driveway. • Reduce the amount of pool deck and / or driveway. Page 6 of 9 V20-28 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Letter of Appeal Page 7 of 9 V20-28 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 8 of 9 V20-28 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 9 of 9 V20-28 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit A Page 1 of 7 V20-31 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 PETITION NUMBER: V20-31 PROPERTY INFORMATION 15590 Birmingham Hwy DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2 / 988, 1029 OVERLAY DISTRICT RURAL MILTON EXISTING ZONING AG-1 ACRES 10.50 Acres EXISTING USE Residential FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN, ESTATE RESIDENTIAL REQUESTED VARIANCE: • To allow an existing guest house to be located in the front yard. (Sec. 64-1598 (b)(5)) PETITIONER/OWNER Scott Reece (Brumbelow-Reese & Associates, Inc.) ADDRESS 13685 Highway 9, Milton, GA 30004 REPRESENTATIVE Scott Reece (Brumbelow-Reese & Associates, Inc.) ADDRESS 13685 Highway 9, Milton, GA 30004 Page 2 of 7 V20-31 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 7 V20-31 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF CONTACT: Shubha Jangam 678.242.2539 Background: The site is a 10.50-acre lot located on the west of Birmingham Hwy. This property is zoned AG-1 and is located in the Rural Milton Overlay District. Exhibit A and B shows the subject property and the location of structures. Exhibit C shows the subject property with respect to the location of other properties owned by the same applicant. Per Sec. 64-1598 (b)(5) the guest house can be located in the rear yard only. A single-family house of 1495 square feet existed on this property that was built in 1952. In addition, there are other accessory structures related to agriculture including barns. The existing house is not in the front yard setback. According to the applicant the property cannot be subdivided because it is under a Conservative Use Valuation Assessment (CUVA) by the Fulton County Tax Assessor. The applicant has a primary residence under construction on this property. To receive a new permit the property owner is required to bring the existing structures into compliance. The applicant wants to use the existing house as a guesthouse, and it is out of compliance to use as a guesthouse. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to a allow the existing house to stay in the front yard to use as a guest house. Staff notes that the existing house in in compliance with the requirement that a guest house can not exceed 1500 square feet of heated floor area. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB) COURTESY REVIEW: On December 1, 2020, the DRB met and had the following comment: • Recommends approval Page 4 of 7 V20-31 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Standards for Consideration: The approval of a variance is based on the following consideration(s): • Relief, if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the Ordinance. • There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. • Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. • That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done. The applicant response: • Please see the letter of appeal. The staff response: • Part one: The house was built in 1952 and is part of Milton’s viewshed and rural character. Therefore, it would not offend the spirit or intend of the Ordinance to allow it to remain. • Part two: According to the applicant, the property is under CUVA and not eligible for subdividing immediately. Because of the pandemic there is a need for the family members to reside on the property and because of these extraordinary situations not caused by the applicant the literal application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship. • Part three: Relief, if granted would not cause a detriment to the surrounding properties. • Part four: Public safety, health and welfare are secure by making use of the existing house that has been part of the community since 1952. Staff recommendation: • Staff recommends approval of the variance. Page 5 of 7 V20-31 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Letter of Appeal Page 6 of 7 V20-31 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit A Page 7 of 7 V20-31 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit B Exhibit C Page 1 of 6 V20-32 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 PETITION NUMBER: V20-32 PROPERTY INFORMATION 214 Fossil Trace DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2 / 243 OVERLAY DISTRICT RURAL MILTON EXISTING ZONING AG-1 ACRES 1.18 Acres EXISTING USE Residential FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN, ESTATE RESIDENTIAL REQUESTED VARIANCE: • To allow a pool, pool deck, and pool equipment to be located in the front yard. (Sec. 64-1609 (b)(1)) PETITIONER/OWNER Michael and Sharon Jones ADDRESS 214 Fossil Trace Milton, GA 30004 REPRESENTATIVE Michael and Sharon Jones ADDRESS 214 Fossil Trace Milton, GA 30004 Page 2 of 6 V20-32 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 6 V20-32 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF CONTACT: Shubha Jangam 678.242.2539 Background: The site is a 1.18 -acre lot located on the north of Fossil Trace a private access easement. This property is zoned AG-1 and is located in the Rural Milton Overlay District. The property is a flag lot that was created by a minor plat (Silverstone Estate) in 2005. Per Sec. 64-1609 (b)(1) a pool can only be located in a side or a rear yard. This property is accessed from the private drive easement via Hopewell Road. When it was plated, the front yard setback for the property was determined based on Sec. 64-77 (3). It states that when determining the front building setback, measurement for front yard shall begin at the point of intersection of the stem and the flag portion of a flag lot running along the property line that is the most perpendicular to the stem. The applicant is proposing a pool in the back of the house based on the orientation of the house (Exhibit A). However, because this is the front yard of the flag lot, the variance is requested. Staff notes that pool, pool deck and equipment require a minimum 10 feet setback from the property line. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB) COURTESY REVIEW: On December 1, 2020, the DRB met and had the following comment: • Recommends approval • Recommends getting support letters from neighbors Page 4 of 6 V20-32 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Standards for Consideration: The approval of a variance is based on the following consideration(s): • Relief, if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the Ordinance. • There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. • Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. • That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done. The applicant response: • Please see the letter of appeal. The staff response: • Part one: Relief, if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the Ordinance since the house does not front Hopewell Road and pool would be physically in the rear of the house which is the intent of the Ordinance. • Part two: Because of the existing orientation of the house the location of the driveway and garage is in the rear yard. And the rear yard is the property owner’s side yard. The proposed location of the pool although technically the front yard, in practical terms it is the rear yard of this property. The pool will not be directly fronting Hopewell Road. Therefore, the strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship. Therefore, the variance could be granted. • Part three: Relief, if granted would not cause a detriment to the surrounding properties because the pool would be in the back of the house which is consistent with other developments in the Milton. The pool is located at the same distance from the property lines as if it is located in the rear as defined by the zoning regulations. • Part four: Public safety, health and welfare are secure since the pool would be built on the suitable and logical location on the site. Staff recommendation: • Staff recommends approval of the variance. Page 5 of 6 V20-32 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Letter of Appeal Page 6 of 6 V20-32 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit A Page 1 of 8 V20-33 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 PETITION NUMBER: V20-33 PROPERTY INFORMATION 15255 Birmingham Hwy DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2 / 522 OVERLAY DISTRICT RURAL MILTON EXISTING ZONING AG-1 ACRES 2.81 Acres EXISTING USE Residential FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN, ESTATE RESIDENTIAL REQUESTED VARIANCE: • To appeal the rejection of the Community Development Director’s decision denying the acceptance of a building permit. (Sec. 64-2426 (3) a.) PETITIONER/OWNER Austin Lineberry (New River Building Co.) ADDRESS 1355 Free Home Road Canton, GA 30115 REPRESENTATIVE Austin Lineberry (New River Building Co.) ADDRESS 1355 Free Home Road Canton, GA 30115 Page 2 of 8 V20-33 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 8 V20-33 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF CONTACT: Shubha Jangam 678.242.2539 Background: The site is a 2.81 -acre lot located on the east side of Birmingham Highway. This property is zoned AG-1 and is located in the Rural Milton Overlay District. A barn currently exists on the property. The applicant removed the existing house without obtaining a demolition permit nor reviewed by the Design Review Board. By not obtaining the proper permission, the applicant cannot perform any type of development on the property for five years per 64- 2426 (3) (a). The applicant submitted a building permit for a new single-family house, but the Community Development Director rejected the building permit application. Section 64-2426 (3) (a) states “If a property is demolished or relocated without a certificate of appropriateness from the DRB (Design Review Board), or in the event the plans are changed for the property from which the resource was removed without approval of the changed plans by the DRB, then the following restrictions, in addition to any other penalties or remedies set forth in this article, shall be applicable to the site where the structure or property was formerly located: No building or other permits will be issued for construction on the site, with the exception of a permit to restore such structure or property after obtaining a certificate of appropriateness, for a period of five years after the date of such demolition or removal.” The owner attempted to submit the DRB application in March but was unable due to COVID-19. They removed the house before the DRB could hear their case. The owner was required to remove the house from the property by their insurance company citing the hazardous conditions. The applicant followed the correct procedure for removing the other structure on this property. The DRB approved the demolition of the barn in December 2020 meeting. The applicant is requesting to appeal the rejection of the Community Development Director’s decision denying the acceptance of a building permit, thus allowing the property owner the ability to develop their property without waiting the five-year period. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB) COURTESY REVIEW: On December 1, 2020, the DRB met and had the following comment: • Recommends approval Page 4 of 8 V20-33 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 5 of 8 V20-33 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Standards for Consideration: The approval of a variance is based on the following consideration(s): • Relief, if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the Ordinance. • There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. • Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. • That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done. The applicant response: • Please see the letter of appeal. Page 6 of 8 V20-33 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Letter of Appeal Page 7 of 8 V20-33 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Page 8 of 8 V20-33 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on December 15, 2020 Exhibit A 2021 City of Milton Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Schedule Application Filing Deadline DRB Meeting (1st Tuesday of the Month) BZA Meeting (3rd Tuesday of the Month) 12/1/2020 1/5/2021 1/19/2021 1/5/2021 2/2/2021 2/16/2021 2/2/2021 3/2/2021 3/16/2021 3/2/2021 4/13/2021* 4/20/2021 4/6/2021 5/4/2021 5/18/2021 5/4/2021 6/1/2021 6/15/2021 6/1/2021 7/6/2021 7/20/2021 7/6/2021 8/3/2021 8/17/2021 8/3/2021 9/7/2021 9/21/2021 9/7/2021 10/5/2021 10/19/2021 10/5/2021 11/2/2021 11/16/2021 11/2/2021 12/7/2021 12/21/2021 *Moved due to Holiday/School Calendar