AGENDA

City of Brookhaven Zoning Board of Appeals
Wednesday, April 17, 2013 – 7:00 PM
Brookhaven Municipal Court – 2 Corporate Square, Suite 125, Atlanta, Georgia 30329
A. Call to Order / Roll Call
B. Approval of minutes
1. Special Called Meeting – March 4, 2013
2. Regular March Meeting – March 20, 2013
C. Organizational and Procedural Items
D. Unfinished Business - None
E. New Business
1. ZBA 13-041: Ted Sandler, of the Ted Sandler Law Group, located at 6400 Powers Ferry
Rd., Atlanta, Georgia 30339, is representing Wilkinson Continental, LLC, the owner of
the subject property, 1322 and 1355 Briarwood Rd., Atlanta, Georgia 30319, for the
following: A variance to §27-356(b)(1)(b), to reduce a side yard setback from 50 feet to
27 feet and a variance to §27-358 to reduce a transitional buffer between dissimilar
districts from 50 feet to 27 feet.
2. ZBA 13-042, Sean Cash, of 4510 Wieuca Rd., Atlanta, Georgia 30342, seeks the following:
A variance to §27-788(a), to reduce an averaged front yard setback from 71.8 feet to 45
feet, at a property located at 4142 Shawnee Lane.
3. ZBA 13-043, Frank Gaddy, of Gaddy Surveying and Design, located at 1215 Pleasant Hill
Road, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30044, representing Baisu and Anita Patel, owners, seek
the following: A variance to §27-189, to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage
of an R-75 lot from 35% to 47%, at a property located at 1103 Mendell Circle.
4. ZBA 13-044, Kirk and Danielle Sonnefeld, owners, seek the following: A variance to §27-
206(e), to decrease the minimum required rear yard of an R-60 lot from 40 feet to 30.75
feet at their property located at 2279 Coosawattee Drive.
5. ZBA 13-045, Robert Barbieri, representing the Strode Group, LLC, owners, seek the
following: A variance to §27-146(d), to decrease the minimum required side yard of an
R-100 lot from 10 feet to 2.3 feet at a property located at 2688 Osborne Road.
6. ZBA 13-046, Reiner Rietig, representing HSC Intown, LLC, owners, located at 6650
Sugarloaf Parkway, Suite 200, Duluth, Georgia, seeks the following: A variance to §27-
788(a), to allow for an averaged required front yard reduction of 8.06 feet, from 45.56
feet to 37.5 feet, at a property located at 2684 North Thompson Rd.
7. ZBA 13-047, Reiner Rietig, representing HSC Intown, LLC, owners, located at 6650
Sugarloaf Parkway, Suite 200, Duluth, Georgia, seeks the following: A variance to §27-
186(e), to allow for a required rear yard reduction of five feet, from 40 feet to 35 feet,
at a property located at 2684 North Thompson Rd.
8. ZBA 13-048, Michael Phelps, representing Epps Heritage Investments, LLC, owners,
located at 637 Woods Drive, NW, Atlanta, Georgia, 30318, seeks the following: A
variance to §27-186, to allow for a reduction in required lot area, a reduction of required
lot width, a reduction of a required front yard adjacent to a street, a reduction of a
required side yard adjacent to a street, a reduction of a required rear yard, a reduction
of a required interior side yard, and an exemption from the provision for additional lot
width for a corner lot, found in §14-257, at 1258 Windsor Parkway.
9. ZBA 13-049, Michael Phelps, representing Epps Heritage Investments, LLC, owners,
located at 637 Woods Drive, NW, Atlanta, Georgia, 30318, seeks the following: A
variance to §27-186, to allow for a reduction in required lot area, a reduction of required
lot width, a reduction of a required front yard adjacent to a street, a reduction of a
required rear yard, and a reduction of a required interior side yard, at 1254 Windsor
Parkway.
10. ZBA 13-04A, Michael Phelps, representing Epps Heritage Investments, LLC, owners,
located at 637 Woods Drive, NW, Atlanta, Georgia, 30318, seeks the following: A
variance to §27-186, to allow for a reduction in required lot area, a reduction of required
lot width, a reduction of a required front yard adjacent to a street, a reduction of a
required side yard adjacent to a street, a reduction of a required rear yard, a reduction
of a required interior side yard, and an exemption from the provision for additional lot
width for a corner lot, found in §14-257, at 1250 Windsor Parkway.
11. ZBA 13-04B, Michael Phelps, representing Epps Heritage Investments, LLC, owners,
located at 637 Woods Drive, NW, Atlanta, Georgia, 30318, seeks the following: A
variance to §27-186, to allow for a reduction in required lot area, a reduction of required
lot width, a reduction of a required front yard adjacent to a street, and a reduction of
a required interior side yard, at 3178 Cates Avenue.
F. Adjourn
MINUTES
City of Brookhaven Zoning Board of Appeals
Special Called Meeting
Monday, March 4, 2013 – 7:00 PM
The Brookhaven Bank – 2221 Johnson Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30319
A. Call to Order – Chairman Tim Nama called the first ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals)
meeting to order.
B. Roll Call - Chairman Nama reported all ZBA Board members were present and on time.
C. Discussion of Proposed Rules of Procedure-
Chairman Nama read the Zoning Board of Appeals preamble to clarify guidelines.
Howard Koontz provided the Rules of Procedure for review.
D. Old Business – None
E. New Business - Chairman Nama suggested switching items 2 and 3 on the agenda
because so much of the audience was related to the second item on the agenda so they
could complete the homeowner’s case before deliberating on a commercial item.
Chairman Nama entertained a motion.
Motion and Vote: Board member Corey Self motioned to switch items 2 and 3 and
Board member Hope Bawcom seconded the motion and the motion carried
unanimously.
1. ZBA 13-021: Rob Anagnostis, of Atlanta Signature Homes, which is located at 5130
Crescent Cove Lane, Mableton, Georgia 30126, is representing David E. Slovensky,
the owner of the subject property, 3020 Oglethorpe Way, Atlanta, Georgia 30319,
for the following: An appeal of an administrative decision to deny approval of a
retaining wall that exceeds the district height requirement and is located in a
required yard. The tax parcel number of the subject property is 18 276 08 057.
Howard Koontz, City Planner, gave a summary of the appeal. He explained staff was
recommending reversal of the decision with recommended conditions.
Robert Anagnostis, Builder spoke explaining the unintentional violations.
David Slovensky, Applicant /Homeowner, expressed appreciation for Brookhaven
reviewing his appeal application so quickly. He expressed his agreement and
satisfaction with the three conditions explained for moving forward with variance
application. He reported on steps already taken to meet those conditions. He noted
the Brownings would sign the cross easement.
Mr and Mrs. Brownings, neighbors, were in attendance and expressed their support.
No one else spoke in favor or opposed the application.
Chairman Nama closed the public hearing related to the item, ZBA 13-021 and
welcomed aboard any comments or motion.
Motion and Vote: Board member Glenn Viers made a motion to adopt the variance for
the retaining wall located at 3020 Oglethorpe Way, Atl. GA. with staff’s recommended
conditions:
1. The applicant obtain a City of Brookhaven building permit for the wall, which will
include a certification by a professional engineer for the existing structure that
addresses current and future stability.
2. A revised plat of the two properties shall be filed with the DeKalb County Clerk’s office
that accurately locates the subject retaining wall and the common property line. A note
on the plat shall state, “The City of Brookhaven shall be held harmless for the location
and design of the retaining wall located between 3012 and 3020 Oglethorpe Way”.
3. The revised plat noted above shall illustrate a cross easement agreement for access and
maintenance of the retaining wall. A fully signed easement agreement signed by both
property owners shall accompany the plat.
Board Member Jed Beardsley second the motion. The motion to approve the variance
passed unanimously.
2. ZBA 13-023: Ray Bongers, of 637 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, is
representing George & MJ Schaeffer, the owner of the subject property, 1206
Dunwoody Lane, Atlanta, Georgia 30319, for the following: A variance to §27-
788(a), to allow for a front yard setback reduction of 10.22 feet. The tax parcel
number of the subject property is 18 330 16 001.
Howard Koontz gave brief summary of variance request.
Mr. Barnes, homeowner, spoke while referring to a letter documenting agreement from
his neighbor next door.
No one else spoke in favor.
Chairman Nama closed the public discussion and opened it up to the board for
discussion.
Board member Jed Beardsley asked Howard Koontz to explain again the difference
between the average front set back and the 35 foot standard set back. Discussion
followed.
Motion and Vote: Board member Hope Bawcom motioned to approve the variance
application (ZBA 13-023 to allow for a front yard setback reduction of 10.22 feet). Board
member Corey Self seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
3. ZBA 13-022: Scott Serpas, of 1323 Sylvan Circle, Atlanta, Georgia 30319, requests
the following as it relates to 2536 Caldwell Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319: A
variance to the terms of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District text, §27-
728.15.12(f)(3), to allow for construction of less than two stories and 28 feet in
height. The tax parcel number of the subject property is 18 238 01 020.
Board member Jed Beardsley chose to abstain from voting on this item because he
wanted to avoid the appearance of possible conflict based on his previous role as a
Brookhaven Commissioner. Mr. Beasley worked with the applicant/owner, Michael
Thomas to lease the said property to the City of Brookhaven and felt there could be an
appearance impropriety. He also wanted to report an ex-parte call from Michael
Thomas to himself before he ever saw this package and knew anything about the
application. They knew each other from previous dealings. Board member Beardsley
chose to recuse himself from the vote. He chose to step away from the table so there
wouldn’t appear to have any influence.
Chairman Nama opened the public hearing for the first 10 minutes for comments in
favor of the request.
Applicant Mike DeCarlo noted he was the architect for Scott Serpas, chef and owner of
the restaurant. He reported Michael Thomas was the property owner located in the
Brookhaven Peachtree Overlay district. He reported he was requesting a reduction in
the minimal height for new construction on their property located at 2536 Caldwell
Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. He provided additional details about the application:
The request pertains to the text of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District. The
applicant, Mr. Serpas, plans to expand an existing structure by adding a building
addition. Under the terms of the city zoning ordinance, all new building construction in
the Overlay District must be two stories, and must be no less than 28 feet in height, as
measured at the eave. Mr. Serpas requests a variance to instead allow a building
addition of approximately 11 feet, consistent with the height of the existing structure.
The site is located on the south side of Caldwell Road, at its intersection with Green
Meadows Lane. The property is zoned R-75 (Single-Family Residential
District)/Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District, and is adjacent to R-75 on the west,
northwest, north and northeast; to Neighborhood Shopping to the east, south east and
south, to C-1 on the southwest side. All property that is west, south and east is also in
the Overlay District; the residential properties to the north (across Caldwell Road) are
not within the overlay boundaries. The applicant requests Zoning Board of Appeals relief
to the requirement that all construction in the Overlay District conform with §27-
728.15.12(f)(3).
Public Comment in favor were: Keri Koval, Jered Levitt, Chris Pappadakis, Jan Hickel, Jim
Weilbaecher, Andren Lorimer, Jeff Mueller, Kelly Morris, Erin Buzzard, Ron Heller, Jamie
Wortman, Erik Weiss, Brad Trussell, Mike Thomas, Stacey Elgan, Dawn Serpas, Kelly
Norris, and Bruce Casterline.
Chairman Nama asked Howard Koontz to give a brief staff summary of the application
for variance.
Chairman Nama asked to hear from those in opposition and the following spoke:
 Thomas Porter, living 2.5 blocks from the site and was a member of the BFCA
(Brookhaven Fields Civic Association) and BPCA (Brookhaven Peachtree
Community Alliance), spoke on behalf of his group and the required 5 criteria
which would need to be met, including parking and sidewalks.
 Kevin Gotsch, (12 yr. resident) spoke up in opposition requesting the motion to
extend time to speak.
Chairman, Nama entertained the motion to extend the speaking time by 20
additional minutes on each side.
Motion and Vote: Hope Bawcom seconded. The motion passed.
Public Comment in opposition followed:
 Kathy Forbes-BPCA (Brookhaven Peachtree Community Alliance) member
 Chuck Daunch, nearby resident, against valet.
 Anil Vaswani, lives on Caldwell two doors down. Parking and construction
problem.
 Bill Draper, Dekalb ZBA see 27-9-15.
 Jennifer Reynolds, Green Meadows resident expected re-development, because
of parking and dumpster issues.
 Dan Woodley, Developer Village Park owns neighboring property partner with
Michael Thomas.
 Phillip Wilheit, because of parking and traffic concerns
 Bill Roberts, BPCA member.
 Ty Reynolds, Green Meadows traffic concerns.
Others opposed: Sandy Althomsons, Selvi Palaniappan, Michel/Sue Osborn, Rick Martin,
Johnny McCall, James Baugnon, Jennifer Pighini and Mark Pighini.
In view of the present concerns, time ran out for the opposition and it was recognized
by Chairman Nama for everyone to submit their names on paper to be passed around in
opposition and to submit their names for public record.
Chairman Nama announced, to even out the time they also had 20 minutes to speak in
favor of the application as well.
Architect, Mike DeCarlo addressed the variances in the Overlay and specified they plan
on full filling all of the requirements of the Overlay including sidewalks. They prefer not
to build a two story restaurant. Instead they want a smaller building and are asking for
the height to be lowered from 28 foot minimum feet to 8-10 feet.
Chairman Nama asked for those in favor to speak of the application. There was none. He
closed the public comment section and opened it up to the board for discussion.
Mr. Koontz was presented with questions covering several topics of concern.
He noted the relevant portion of the zoning ordinance reads as follows:
Ҥ27-728.15.12 РDevelopment Standards.
“(f) Building heights
“(3) All buildings within the Peachtree-Brookhaven Overlay District shall be a
minimum of two (2) stories tall and twenty-eight (28) feet in height.”
Chairman Tim Nama entertained a motion.
Motion: Board member Corey Self moved to deny the request (for a variance to the
terms of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District text, §27-728.15.12(f)(3), to allow
for construction of less than two stories and 28 feet in height, ZBA 13-022: Scott Serpas,
of 1323 Sylvan Circle, Atlanta, Georgia 30319).
Board member Hope Bawcom seconded the motion for denial.
Board members Self and Bawcom made comments relating to Sec.27-916 pertaining to
lot restrictions. Board member Hope Bawcom expressed her opinion that the variance
was not a hardship and if granted this could appear to be considered special privilege.
Don Woodly explained why he was in favor. It was a straight forward request, they just
want a shorter building.
Chairman Nama noted he would liked to have seen more community involvement but it
appears it’s past that point because there’s not much level of interest. Chairman asked
if there were any more discussion
Chairman Nama called the question for vote.
Vote: The motion to deny passed unanimously.
Chairman Nama asked for the last item additional public comment.
4. Items for discussion not otherwise addressed by this agenda
 Chuck Daunch requested that there be no valet parking at the restaurant due
to traffic hazard at Dresden and Caldwell.
 Bruce Casterline expressed concerns with the Overlay district density.
 Kathy Forbes thanked everyone for the Overlay.
Adjourn: Board member Jed Beardsley moved to adjourn, there was a second, and the
motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES
City of Brookhaven Zoning Board of Appeals
Wednesday, March 20, 2013 – 7:00 PM
Brookhaven Municipal Court Chambers
2 Corporate Square, Suite 125, Atlanta, GA 30329
A. Call to Order - Chairman Tim Nama called the Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting to order.
B. Roll Call - All board members were present.
C. Approval of Minutes – None
D. Organizational & Procedural Items
Chairman Nama opened the floor to the ZBA for discussion of the Proposed
Procedure Rules.
• Board member Glenn Viers had a question regarding section 15 involving
voting. He understood that in the event of a tie, the motion would fail.
• Attorney Lenny Felgin explained they were also adopting as part of the
rules and procedures the Roberts Rules of Order and according to that if
there is a tie, the motion fails automatically.
Board Member Jed Beardsley made a comment regarding Section 14.
Mr. Beardsley made a motion to add a sentence of clarification after
the fourth sentence ending in; “a board member should not speak in
a meeting until he or she has been recognized by the chairman”, to
add “notwithstanding the foregoing it should be understood the
individual board members may ask questions of the applicants,
parties, council and other speakers.”
Chairman Nama entertained the motion.
Motion and Vote: Board member Jed Beardsley made the motion to add the
amended sentence to the proposed rules. Board member Corey Self
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Nama entertained the motion to adopt the amended rules.
Motion to Vote: Jed Beardsley moved to adopt the rules as amended. Board
member Hope Bawcom, seconded. Motioned carried unanimously.
Chairman Nama entertained the motion to elect a Vice Chairman of the ZBA
pursuant to section 5 of the approved rules and procedures.
Motion to Vote: Board member Don Bolia made the motion to nominate Jed
Beardsley as Vice Chairman.
Board member Hope Bawcom seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Nama read the Zoning Board of Appeals preamble to clarify
guidelines.
E. Old Business - None
F. New Business - Chairman Nama read the details.
1. AA 13-031 (formerly DeKalb County case # A-13-18379): Kathryn M. Zickert and
Dennis J. Webb, Jr., of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, located at 1230 Peachtree
Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, are representing Teresa Tomlinson/3770
Peachtree Road, LLC, et al., the applicants, for the following: An appeal of an
administrative decision to deny approval of an Overlay Certificate of Compliance and
a pending application for a land disturbance permit. The addresses of the subject
properties are 3770 and 3804 Peachtree Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. The tax
parcel numbers of the subject properties are 18 239 02 001 and 18 239 02 002.
• Vice Chairman Jed Beardsley issued a Point of Order.
• Mr. Beardsley revealed the Court Reporter and expressed she be identified
for the record so any transcripts of the meeting would be presented to the
Board and to the City.
• Attorney Kathy Zickert clarified the court reporter was hired by her and Miss
DunLavy and they were happy to share the take-down with the City if they
want a copy of the transcript.
• Second point of order, Mr. Beardsley suggested they discuss the time to be
given to each applicant at the podium to present.
• Attorney Zickert emphasized there was no way they would be able to present
what they have to say in 10 minutes and suggested they be allowed the
luxury to exceed the standard 10 minute time limit.
• Chairman Nama entertained a motion.
Motion to Vote: Board member Hope Bawcom moved to extend the time 20
minutes, totaling 30 minutes for each side. Board member Corey Self seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Planner, Howard Koontz, presented from the December 2012 DeKalb County
Staff denial of a request for a certificate of appropriateness and subsequently a land
disturbance permit.
Attorney Kathy Zickert represented the Thomlinson family and she presented a
computerized presentation representing the aerial photography of the area case
related various documents and other case related documents.
She stated she is not appealing the failure to issue either a certificate of
appropriateness or a land disturbance permit. Instead, she is appealing the failure of
DeKalb County to process AA 13-031.
Attorney Linda DunLavy passed around additional documents for the record in
addition to Attorney Zickert’s documents previously sent to the board.
Attorney Linda DunLavy presented her case.
Ms. DunLavy explained she represented Walt Moeling, property owners at 1227
Belair Drive adjacent to the subject of the appeal and the (BPCA) Brookhaven
Peachtree Community Alliance, (HBNA) Historic Brookhaven Neighbor Association.
E. Items for discussion not otherwise addressed by this agenda
Will Shearer, resident on Belair Drive read the code and thought it was clear with no
conflicts between the Overlay and the underlining zoning and no density was
mentioned. Time expired while undergoing his discussion.
Attorney Zickert spoke her remaining 58 seconds.
Chairman Nama closed the public comments section in the meeting and opened it
up to the Board for discussion.
Chairman Nama entertained a motion.
Motion to Vote: Board member Glenn Viers moved to defer item AA13-031 to May
15
th
meeting.
Board member Corey Self seconded and the motion passed 4-2.
Nays: Board member Hope Bawcom and Vice Chairman Jed Beardsley.
Yeas: Board members, Corey Self, Glenn Viers, Don Bolia and Kent Gipson.
Motion and Vote: The motion passed to have item AA13-031 deffered to the next
regular scheduled meeting on May 15, 2013.
The new Community Development Director, Susan Canon was introduced.
Public comment was offered and no one accepted.
Adjourn:
Chairman Nama closed the meeting.
Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm
Case: ZBA13-041
Location: 1322 and 1355 Briarwood Rd, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel #18-201-01-023
Property Owner: Wilkinson Continental, LLC
Applicant: Ted Sandler Law Group
Request: To reduce a side yard setback from 50 feet to 27 feet and a variance
to reduce a transitional buffer between dissimilar districts from 50
feet to 27 feet.
DESCRI PTI ON
The subject property is a 10.79-acre apartment complex located at 1322 Briarwood Road, on the
north side of Briarwood, west of its intersection with Briarwood Hills Drive. The property is zoned
RM-85 (Multi-family residence district) and borders properties zoned both R-75 (Single-family
Residential; to the west, north and east) and RM-85 to the south. The applicant’s request is to
reduce the required yard for an interior side yard from 50 feet to 27 feet, and the required
transitional buffer between dissimilar districts from 50 feet to 27 feet to convey a 23-foot wide
strip of land to an adjoining property owner.
SI TE PLAN AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The apartment complex situated on 10.79 acres. A site visit indicates that the apartment
development exists in an area primarily comprised of single family detached homes. The property
directly borders 32 adjacent properties, of which all but two properties appear to be one family
detached home lots (not inclusive of the multi-family development across Briarwood Road to the
south). The lots are wooded with a mature canopy of shade trees, primarily around the edge of the
properties.
Pursuant to the requirements in the Brookhaven Zoning Ordinance, there are two coincident 50-
foot required yards along the side property lines. One of the required yards is a building setback
line, and the other is a required bufferyard of 50-feet between the two dissimilar zoning districts
of single-family home development, zoned mostly R-75, and the multi-family property in question.
If the applicant wishes to sell the portion of the lot from the apartment complex to the private party
to the east, both the side yard building setback and required bufferyard between the two zoning
districts must be reduced.

RELEVANT TEXT FROM THE CI TY ZONI NG ORDI NANCE
“Sec. 27-356. - Lot width; lot area; setbacks.
“The following requirements shall apply to all lots and structures in the RM-85 (Multifamily
Residential) District:
“(b) Minimum setback requirements:
(1) Multifamily dwellings:
a. Front yard: Thirty-five (35) feet.
b. Side yard: Twenty (20) feet, except that where an RM-85 lot adjoins any R
lot along a side lot line, the required yard shall be fifty (50) feet…”
“Sec. 27-358. - Transitional buffer zone requirement.
Where a lot in the RM-85 (Multi-family Residential) District is used for attached single-
family dwellings and adjoins the boundary of any property which is zoned R (Single-family
Residential) District, except single-family attached developments, a transitional buffer zone not
less than fifty (50) feet in width shall be provided and maintained in a natural state. Said transitional
buffer zone shall not be paved and shall not be used for parking, loading, storage or any other use,
except where necessary to grade or modify a portion of the transitional buffer zone for the
installation of utilities necessitated by the development. Water detention ponds shall not be located
within transitional buffer zones. No trees, other than dead or diseased trees, shall be removed from
said transitional buffer zone, but additional trees and plant material may be added to the transitional
buffer zone. In addition, a screening fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be erected and
maintained either along the property line or within the transitional buffer zone separating the use
from the adjoining single-family residential.”
ANALYSI S
Building setback lines are implemented to establish a development scale for properties in the
zoning district, including limiting the lot coverage of impervious surfaces, and play a large part in
establishing development density for the district as well. Less restrictive setbacks allow for a
higher development density, as a higher percentage of the lot can be used for buildable space.
Bufferyards between dissimilar districts aid in allowing disparate land uses to exist in close
proximity, by creating a separate sense of place for each use, and through concealment of the two
land uses from one another. With a neutral visual and auditory barrier between an intense land use
and a less intensive land use, each can exist in close proximity without exerting interference on
the other, or receiving unwanted disturbance.
2


From conversations with parties associated with the application, staff has learned that at one point
in the past, the owner of the property located at 1332 Telford Drive had been made aware by the
neighboring property owner that additional property currently existing on the apartment complex
property would be conveyed to the 1332 Telford Drive property. Consistent with this premise, the
western side yard between the existing home and the apartment complex property has been fenced
in, and used as if already owned by that property. The applicant, Mr. Sandler, has informed staff
that in fact his client, the owner of the apartment complex, does seek to amicably convey this
property to the neighbor, but is hindered in that effort by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
Each party to this transaction agrees to this land purchase and has no objection to the reduced
restrictions of both setbacks and bufferyards.
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the city Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The zoning board of appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict
application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
Staff Comment:
The strict application of the ordinance would preclude this land transfer, but not for the reasons
listed here. However, granting the requested variance would not cause substantial detriment to
the public good or impairment of the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
3


The requested variance does not exceed the minimumnecessary to complete this transaction.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
It is not expected that the reduction in bufferyard nor building setback line would have any
deleterious effect in the neighboring zoning district.
(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The hardship by the strict application of the bufferyard and setback provisions would result in the
inability to the performthe land transaction, a civil matter between the parties. The conveyance
would formalize and define the use of the land by both parties.
(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
This application does not relate to nor effect the spirit and purpose of the DeKalb County
Comprehensive Plan text.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board view the application favorably, and if approved, further suggests the
following conditions:
1. Approval of the setback/bufferyard variance as requested and solely adjacent to Lot 1
within Briarwood Hills subdivision, Block C as shown on the survey entitle Wilkinson
Real Estate, LLC & Chicago Title Insurance Company dated 1/27/12.
2. A subdivision plat should be submitted to the City for recording in Dekalb County
records so that the new parcel boundaries are correctly identified and associated with
respective tax parcel identification numbers.

4



Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm


Case: ZBA13-042
Location: 4142 Shawnee Lane, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel #18-201-01-023
Property Owner/
Applicant: Sean Cash
Request: To reduce an averaged front yard setback from 71.8 feet to 45’.


DESCRI PTI ON
The subject property contains a single family home lot located at 4142 Shawnee Lane, on the west
side of Shawnee just south of its intersection with Navajo Trail. The property is zoned R-100
(Single family residential district) and borders properties similarly zoned on all sides. The
applicant’s request is to reduce the required “average” front yard building setback from 71.8 feet
to 45 feet.
SI TE PLAN AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The lot on which the home sits totals 0.45 acres (19,633 square feet). The area is zoned R-100, and
the lot in question has 110 feet of street frontage on Dunwoody Lane. The lot generally slopes
downhill from north to south, with concentrated tree cover in the front and rear yards. A one story
home currently exists in the middle of the lot. The existing home is an older, one-story low-pitched
roof structure in a neighborhood that is being incrementally redeveloped with newer, larger, multi-
story infill homes. The property in question abuts single-family home development, zoned R-100,
along all of its property lines.
The proposed new home, intended to replace the existing home, is proposed approximately 62 feet
from the edge of pavement, and 45.2 feet from the right of way. This is a reduction of 37.3% to
the city’s “average” required front yard setback on a block with 60% or more developed lots.
The applicant seeks to move the front building setback line forward toward the street, to create a
larger footprint on which to build a new home, away from the greatest slopes on the lot while still
respecting the rear building setback line. The home proposed for the lot is over 40 feet deep, which
is nearly 17 feet more than the existing buildable area at its most narrow point.




RELEVANT TEXT FORM THE ZONI NG ORDI NANCE:
“Sec. 27-788. - Yard requirements.
“The following regulations shall apply relating to yard requirements:
“(a) Average setback. When a lot (or lots) is (are) located within a block where sixty
(60) percent or more of the lots within said block have been developed, and where there
are existing buildings fronting on the same street and within the same zoning district within
seventy-five (75) feet of the side lot lines of such vacant lot (or lots), then set back
averaging shall be required. The minimum required building set back line for said vacant
lot (or lots) shall be determined by averaging the existing building setbacks of buildings
within seventy-five (75) feet of the side lot lines of such vacant lot (or lots). The minimum
setback for additions to existing structures may be the average of the existing setbacks.”
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The Zoning Board of Appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict
application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
Staff Comment:
The utility of the lot is greatly diminished with the existing buildable area. The awkward
topography on the lot, in concert with the prevalent trend of newer, larger homes being built on
the site, makes moving the proposed home to the east more agreeable with the character of the
neighborhood and would allow for the rights and privileges being enjoyed by other property
owners in the district.
2


(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
The requested variance is to reduce the front yard setback to 45 feet; the submitted drawings
indicate the new home will be located 45.2 feet fromthe right of way line, a difference of 2.4”, a
suitable margin of error for the construction of a new home.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties; the request is made
to better match the emerging neighborhood character.
(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the average setback provision is not a hardship,
and yet the code requirement is more than an inconvenience to the applicant, who would have to
redesign the architecture and site layout of the lot. There would be no assurances that the product
produced would be marketable among the other homes being built on the same street.
(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
Staff Comment:
The requested variance has very little to no impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board view the application favorably, and if approved, further suggests the
following conditions:
1. Development of the lot shall occur in substantial accordance with the site plan submitted
to the Community Development department, attached to this application. (Prepared by
Gaddy Surveying & Design, Inc. dated 2/19/13).
3


2. The granting of this variance is to accomplish the completion of the proposed new home
depicted in the attached development plans, and is not to be considered a “blanket
variance” to any/all future construction on the property.

4

City I f Brookhaven
200 Ashfor Center North, Suite 150
DUll' cody, GA 30338
(404) 637-P 00 Fax (404) 637-0501
n-..sh. Con-.
o Variance (Administrative
,., -I DO
ide
Minimum Setback Proposed
Re uirements I Re uirements
.-#
7/. IFront 'fS'
Other
Rear
. rookhavenga.gov
Required:
See Chart.to the Riqht
uest:
lication

To the best of my knowledge, this variance application is correct and complete. If additional materials are determined to be
ecessary, I understand that I am responsible for filing dditional materials as specified by the City of Brookhaven Zoning
Ordinance. I understand that failure to supply all requi d information (per the relevant Applicant Checklists and Requirements
f the Brookhaven Zoning Ordinance) will result in the ifection of this application. I have read the provisions of the Georgia
!Code Section 36-67A-3 as required regarding Disclosures. My Signed Campaign Disclosure Statement is included with
he Aoolication.
o Aooroved 0 Aooroved with Conditions 110 Denied IDate:
Variance A

* one sign required per street frontage ar1d/or every SOO feet of street frontage
Variance Application Page 4 of 7
Brookhaven
Center North, Suite 150
oody, GA 30338 \
00 Fax (404) 637·0501
•. prookhavenga. gOY
y Owner(s)
Certification
The owner and petitioner acknowledge variance application form is correct and
complete. By completing this form, all of the subject property certify authorization of
the filing of the application for variance(s), r, d authorization of an applicant or agent to act on
their behalf in the filing of the application ding all subsequent application amendments.

Date:
ZiD:
Date:
Zio:

City. State:
..-­ .
I , day of tetr LAbtfL1
·"Swom to and subscribed before me this I day of , 20
·-Sworn to and subscribed before me this II __ day of , 20 :
I •
Variance Application Page 5 of 7
City rBrookhaven
200 Ashfo( Center North, Suite 150
Dun oody, GA 30338
(404) 637- 00 Fax (404) 637-0501
www brookhavenga.gov
campaibn Disclosure

Have you, within the two years immediately the filing of this
application, made campaign contributions aggreg ting $250.00 or 0 YES
more to a member of the City of Brookhaven City Councilor a member
of the City of Brookhaven Planning Commission?
If the answer above is yes, complete the followin9 section:
..
Date Government Official icial Position 0 Description Amount
I
I
I
I
I
I
Variance Application Page 7 of 7
I
Sean Cash
4510 Wieuca Road, Atlanta, GA 30342
Phone: (678)662-6462
City of Brookhaven
Bureau of Planning
200 Ashford Center North
Suite 150
Dunwoody, GA 30338
Phone: (404) 637-0500
Dear Sir or Madam,
We are requesting a variance from the City of BrOO!aVen Zoning Ordinance to allow for a 26.8' encroachment
into the front yard required average setback reducin the setback to 45 feet. The "subject property" is located at
4142 Shawnee Lane. Brookhaven. GA 30319, taxlpar el I.D. number 18 330 08 009. The property is zoned R-I 00.
The subject property is owned by Aycock Properties! Kevin Aycock. President.
There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions ertaining to the subject property which cause an
unnessecessary hardship. Sec. 27-788 (a) of the Zoni g Ordinance requires an average front yard setback in
relation to other homes within 75 feet from side lot I nes. This will reduce the normal R-I 00 front yard setback
per Sec. 27-146 (c) (4) from 35 feet to 71.8 feet. The reduction would create a buildable area of +/- 28 feet at its
shortest point and +/- 84 feet at its longest point. An proposed new home conforming to the ordinance would be
very long and have an unusual look.
The existing lot is also on an inward curve on Shawnte Lane therefore pushing the front yard setback inward. The
rear yard comes to a point inward therefore pushingfhat buildable area inward also. This creates a very "thin"
area for a new home. We are not proposing to encr ach into the rear yard. The required side and rear setbacks
remaining intact will provide a buffer between existin homes.
The current topography of the lot slopes downward Foward the southwest corner making the optimal location of
the new home more northerly. Unfortunately, this is ~ I s o the most narrow section of the buildable area.
Please also note that the proposed location of the nejN home will still be 10 feet further setback in the front yard
from the standard 35 foot R-I 00 zoned property guidelines.
The proposed home will be similar to other existing ~ o m e s in the immediate area. We are not going beyond the
minimum necessary to afford relief and the granting df this variance will not constitute a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations of other properties +this zoning district in our opinion. We also believe that this
request is consistent with the intent and purpose of e City of Brookhaven Comprehensive Plan and will protect
Microsoft
against blight and depreciation within the neighborhdod.
Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter
Sincerely.
Sean Cash
Applicant
2/17/2013
Page 2
.. 'VJJMJ.Y
CMlIlI U\lIHAl. Ita
'0'" 1 SlllllOft
IAI01WtSH,
---------­
,,".
"" ... .-<.-,., tllA ... P" pulIll 8,AOlUd ...
'.--•.-..d II IWIIIIIIIII "'" "'"
'\WI lAOqIII8 .. pual\lllllta plMfIll.-allj put QIYI. iK1 ONY I......
,-' " , , 'l1dftJI l1li "-.at ptII'lll jII
"" ' .. ,_....,. At- ... at
,. -.- '1111811 till ""Ill. Pile II _ 'pt/II ,. II8ftIII • lftII ". IlIi a-10M o.a. aNY IA'IM Ol
, '3OtmELIaI All NmQI4 Gill,WOol1tIO:IM • .ww HOI+Wo A.IHnOO I'MIllO
- iiDW" .LYV HI J.V'1oIIHJ. Q.\ ONl<IWOOOV NOU01I

.•..;.-r.
;- UHIIliH )iBlI) AOfftIN '.0. went " J.01 IlNUlll 'YleIIoie •
:;,:, lUll iIM.L 10 0If jO'1 0HV1 HI DNmlI llN¥ 1IN1A1 CINW'1 10
........ "".. - ...... 'UIp 'lUUI
.a
ptIlt PIIIll " ....
'.oOl.,oct ow·NlU ' ...t .. IIOfIMPl- III ,...
. - : L.
_', 1qlulI_ ...
....... JIIlI ....................... ...,. JlIIIIO
, ',,", '. Y"Iilnvtl put 'V CllAW pili'
,:" ae ........ AaaII'tII!' .........q '.mt1Cl " IIll,. '1'11WD1 or
"'.. III·,teqw'-",. IPOI
,," •. .>it: ,", ," ...- . 'T, ....; •••._... . ., ..
c- f
0::130
fMIiQ 110 .1011WlIO
lIC) .iOWi. J.VM.L "..
.... .....
......................
,.... ...............
IJoNJ.LI 'OMJ,"'IIIN
IpWI "'ft&U"J'Ul lII'U.

,
. --:---......
.

·'1f- PJ!V
J.:1 <J""'oH 1.'.11',<0(3
·'"'s a , J .I adO .I d
J f : J o 3 A ~
~ ~ -

Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm


Case: ZBA13-043
Location: 1103 Mendell Circle, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel #18-201-01-063
Property Owner: Baisu and Anita Patel
Applicant: Frank Gaddy, of Gaddy Surveying and Design
Request: To increase the maximum allowable lot coverage of an R-75 lot from
35% to 47%.


DESCRI PTI ON
This request is being made in conjunction with a new home being built on the subject property,
located at 1103 Mendell Circle. The site is a one-family home lot zoned R-75 (Single-family
Residential District). In the R-75 district, a lot may only be developed with impervious surface up
to 35% of its total area. Impervious surfaces are those which do not permit water to pass through
them, and instead cause storm water to run-off instead of percolate through the ground. Some
examples of impervious surfaces include structures like homes and sheds, driveways, walkways,
decks and patios, walls, and similar site improvements. The subject property, a non-conforming
lot based on its insufficient lot width and area, comprises 8,042 square feet. Per the terms of §27-
189, the lot may only comprise 2,814.7 square feet of impervious surfaces. The applicants seek to
build a home and associated improvements that will total 3,780 square feet, an increase of 12%
over the district standard.
SI TE PLAN AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The subject property is under-sized for the district and irregularly shaped, but generally 50 feet
wide at the right of way and 160 feet deep, totaling 8,042 square feet. The driveway for the lot
enters the property in the northwest corner and travels south west to the home’s side-loading
garage, at the front of the structure which itself is situated in the middle of the lot. The front of the
home sits 27.4 feet back from the street right of way, and is 49.3 feet away from the rear property
line. The maximum allowable impervious surface coverage for this lot by today’s code is 2,814.7
square feet. The total of the proposed structure and driveway is listed at 3,780 square feet. Of the
21 lots along this particular section of Mendell Circle, all but 2 are non-conforming for either lot
width, lot area or both, and 14 of them are non-conforming for being over their allowable lot
coverage. It should be noted that 3 of the lots are vacant.

1


ANALYSI S
Lot coverage maximums are placed into effect for a variety of reasons, primarily to limit the
development density allowed on any lot, and as a storm water management regulation, which
works toward environmental protection.
Limiting the area of improvements that are developed on a lot limits the intensity of use on the lot,
preserving the character of the neighborhood and framing the background for the individual’s
sense of place. A single family home lot that has 80% of its lot area covered with building or
driveway would present itself much differently than that same lot with only 12% lot coverage.
Similarly, the amount of impervious surface present, both on individual lots and regionally in a
block or neighborhood setting has a direct effect on the amount of storm water that needs to be
contained by the municipal storm water management facilities, be they storm drains or storm water
ponds. The more natural areas present on a given lot or series of lots, the greater amount of that
storm water that can be directly returned to the local eco system.
In this case, the applicant indicates that Flow Wells (subterranean storm water management vaults)
will be installed to capture the rain water that comes off the house during a storm, later to be
released into the ground over a slow period of time.
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the city Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The zoning board of appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason
of exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the
strict application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights
and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
Staff Comment:
There are no such exceptional conditions associated with the development site. The lot is
primarily rectangular in shape, and is not particularly narrow nor does it contain any steep
2


slopes. As stated in the above report, there are 14 additional lots on this street which exceed
the district maximumfor lot coverage.
(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and
does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
Were the applicant to utilize a pervious paving material for the driveway, the expected lot
coverage total could be reduced; however, that material is exceptionally expensive and poses
a financial hardship for most persons on its own. As drawn, the requested variance is the
minimumrequired to complete the project. Exceeding the district standard for lot coverage is
not uncommon for many similarly non-conforming lots in the R-75 zoning district.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
The grant of this variance, together with the stormwater protection measures indicated on the
provided site plan, should not be detrimental or injurious to public welfare, property or
infrastructure.
(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements
of this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The strict application of this provision of the code would cause a hardship, primarily because
the home has already been permitted by DeKalb County and is built. If no variance is issued
to allow for the proposed lot coverage, the home will not be able to be occupied.
(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and
the DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
The requested variance has very little to no impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board view the application favorably, and if approved, further suggests
the conditions:
3


1. The project will be completed in substantial compliance with the submitted site plan
documents, dated 02/26/2013. (Prepared by Gaddy Surveying & Design, Inc.
2/26/13).
2. Appropriate storm water mitigation measures will be installed, consistent with the
improvements indicated on the supplied site plan.

4

LEGAL DESCRI PTI ON
1103 MENDELL CI RCLE


All that tract or parcel of land lying in Land Lot 275 of 18th District of DeKalb County, Georgia,
being inside the limits of the City of Brookhaven, being particularly described as follows:

Beginning at a point located 160.60’ Westerly from the intersection of the Southern Rights-of-
Way of Mendell Circle (Variable R/W) and the Western Rights-of-Way of Osborne Road; thence
leaving the Southern Rights-of-Way of Mendell Circle (Variable R/W) S 31
o
35’30" W along the
property line common with Lot 1 of the Property of Lawrence P. Cobb (Plat Book 17, Page 122) a
distance of 172.00’ to an open top pipe; thence N 58
o
24’14" W along the property line common
with Teal Development, LLC (Deed Book 22636, Page 371) a distance of 50.00’ to a rebar;
thence N 31
o
37’04" E along the property line common with Lot 3 of the Property of Lawrence P.
Cobb (Plat Book 17, Page 122) a distance of 149.91’ to a 1” rod on the Southern Rights-of-Way
of Mendell Circle (Variable R/W); thence along the Southern Rights-of-Way of Mendell Circle
(Variable R/W) S 82
o
16’23" E a distance of 54.60’ to the Point of Beginning.

Said Tract of Land being known as Lot 2 of the Property of Lawrence P. Cobb (Plat Book 17,
Page 122), containing 0.18 acre.
1053 Mendell Circle
1065 Mendell Circle
1071 Mendell Circle
1074 Mendell Circle
1075 Mendell Circle
1078 Mendell Circle
1079 Mendell Circle
1081 Mendell Circle
1082 Mendell Circle
1091 Mendell Circle
1092 Mendell Circle
1093 Mendell Circle
1094 Mendell Circle
1095 Mendell Circle
1103 Mendell Circle
1109 Mendell Circle

Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm


Case: ZBA13-044
Location: 2279 Coosawattee Drive, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel #18-201-04-137
Property Owner/
Applicant: Kirk and Danielle Sonnefeld
Request: To decrease the minimum required rear yard of an R-60 lot from 40
feet to 30.75 feet.


I TEM DESCRI PTI ON
This request relates to a home addition and deck remodeling on the rear of a home located at 2279
Coosawattee Drive. The site is a one-family home lot zoned R-60 (Single-family Residential
District), located on the east side of Coosawattee, between its intersections with Briarwood Road
and Wayside Drive. In the R-60 district, the rear building setback line is located 40 feet from the
rear property line, meaning all portions of the primary structure must remain clear of a required
40-ft. rear yard. The applicant has indicated in the application that there is planned an 18-ft. rear
addition on the rear of the home, which would encroach up to 9’3” into that required rear yard.
SI TE PLAN AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The subject property is a rectangular shaped, conforming lot in the R-60 district, comprising 8,005
square feet and having 63 feet of frontage along the right of way. The home is centered on the lot,
and the rear yard, the area in question, is fenced-in and bounded by trees along the property
borders. There is today an open, unenclosed deck attached to the rear of the home which lawfully
encroaches into the rear yard by just more than three feet. The front of the home sits 30.27 feet
back from the street right of way, and the rear wall is 43.79 feet away from the rear property line.
The applicants propose to expand the home structure on the rear to the east, toward the rear
property line 18 feet, encroaching into the rear yard setback by 9’3”. Additionally, they will add
onto the addition to the north a replacement open deck approximately 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep.
RELEVANT TEXT FROM THE CI TY ZONI NG ORDI NANCE
Sec. 27-206. - Lot width; lot area; setbacks.
“The following requirements shall apply to all lots and structures in the R-60 (Single-family
Residential) District:
… (e) Rear yard: Forty (40) feet.”

ANALYSI S
Building setback lines are implemented to establish a development scale for properties in the
zoning district, including limiting the size and amount of site improvements, and play a large part
in establishing development density for the district as well. Less restrictive setbacks allow for a
higher development density, as a higher percentage of the lot can be used for buildable space.
The zoning ordinance statement of purpose for the R-60 district reads as follows:
“Sec. 27-202. - Statement of purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of the city council in establishing the R-60 (Single-family Residential)
District is as follows:
(a) To provide for the protection of neighborhoods within the city where lots have a minimum
area of eight thousand (8,000) square feet;
(b) To provide for infill development in neighborhoods having eight thousand (8,000) square
foot lots in a manner compatible with existing development;
(c) To assure that the uses and structures authorized in the R-60 (Single-family Residential)
District are those uses and structures designed to serve the housing, recreational,
educational, religious, and social needs of the neighborhood.”
Therefore limiting the area of improvements that are developed on a lot in the R-60 district limits
the intensity of use on the lot, helping to establish and preserve the character of the existing
neighborhood while still ensuring that the housing, recreational, educational, religious, and social
needs of the neighborhood are being met.
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the city Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The zoning board of appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
2


(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason
of exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the
strict application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights
and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
Staff Comment:
There are no such exceptional conditions associated with the development site. The lot is
primarily rectangular in shape, and is not particularly narrow nor does it contain any steep
slopes. However, the 40’ required rear yard setback is quite large given the minimumsize
requirement of the district.
(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and
does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
The request appears fromthe drawings to be the minimumrequired to complete the addition.
Approving the request would not grant any special privilege froma land use perspective.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
Granting this variance should not be detrimental or injurious to public welfare, property or
infrastructure.
(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements
of this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The strict application of this provision of the code would not cause any perceptible minimal
land use hardship, primarily because the home can continue to be utilized as built. If no
variance is issued to allow for the proposed home expansion, the home will still be able to be
occupied and used; however, the right to use the property and to his/her assigns may result in
an economic hardship based on the property investment and future use of the property.
(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and
the DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
Staff Comment:
3


The requested variance has no significant impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board view the application favorably, and if approved, further suggests
the following conditions:

1. The project will be completed in substantial compliance with the submitted site plan
documents, dated received 02/28/2013. (Prepared by Paul Lee Consulting Engineering
Associates, Inc. dated 9/6/06).
2. This approval is not a blanket rear yard setback variance and only applies to the variance
sought within the subject application.
4

Sonnefeld Residence
2279 Coosawattee Drive NE
Site Photos







Sonnefeld Residence
2279 Coosawattee Drive NE
Site Photos






Sonnefeld Residence
2279 Coosawattee Drive NE
Site Photos






Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm


Case: ZBA13-045
Location: 2688 Osborne Road, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel #18-240-04-037
Property Owner/
Applicant: Strode Group. LLC
Request: To decrease the minimum required side yard of an R-100 lot from
10 feet to 2.3 feet.


DESCRI PTI ON
This request relates to a two story home addition located at 2688 Osborne Rd. The site has a 1,712
square foot single family home with an attached two car garage that is found approximately two
feet from the property line. The property is zoned R-100 (Multifamily Residential District) and
borders property zoned R-100 to the north and RM-100 (Multiple Family Residential) to the south.
The applicant’s request is to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 2.3 feet.
SI TE PLAN AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The lot on which the proposed addition would be built totals .372 acres. The area is zoned R-100
and has 76 feet of street frontage along Osborne Rd. With a width of under 100 feet, the lot exists
as a legal non-conforming lot of record. The rear property line has a length of just 80 feet, which
demonstrates the proposed lot is rectangular in shape.
In an effort to improve the scale and character of the original home, the owner is requesting to
construct a two-story garage addition along the side yard of the property. The proposed addition
would attach to the main structure and align the new structure to the front plane of the residence.
The addition would also tie in with the existing garage which would be converted into two floors
of heated living space.
RELEVANT TEXT FROM THE CI TY ZONI NG ORDI NANCE:
“Sec. 27-146. – Lot width; lot area; setbacks.
“The following requirements shall apply to all lots and structures in the R-100 (Single-family
Residential) District:

...(d) Interior side yard setbacks: Ten (10) feet.”
ANALYSI S
1


Building setback lines are implemented to establish a development scale for properties in the
zoning district, including limiting the size and amount of site improvements, and play a large part
in establishing development density for the district as well. Less restrictive setbacks allow for a
higher development density, as a higher percentage of the lot can be used for buildable space.
The zoning ordinance statement of purpose for the R-100 district reads as follows:
“Sec. 27-202. - Statement of purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of the city council in establishing the R-100 (Single-family Residential)
District is as follows:
(a) To provide for the protection of neighborhoods within the city where lots have a minimum
area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet;
(b) To provide for infill development in neighborhoods having fifteen thousand (15,000)
square foot lots in a manner compatible with existing development;
(c) To assure that the uses and structures authorized in the R-100 (Single-family Residential)
District are those uses and structures designed to serve the housing, recreational,
educational, religious, and social needs of the neighborhood.”
Therefore, maintaining setbacks is an important zoning requirement for preserving the character
and scale of a neighborhood. It also helps to preserve privacy between neighbors and to leave an
appropriate amount of open space within a community.
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the city Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The zoning board of appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict
2


application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
Staff Comment:
The utility of the lot is greatly diminished by the narrowness of the site. At 76 feet, the site remains
24 feet narrower than 100 feet which is required for the RM-100 district. The rear yard also does
not present any viable options for an addition due to existing 36-38 inch hardwood trees.
(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
As drawn, the requested variance is the minimumrequired to complete the project. Staff would
make note that exceeding the district standard for lot coverage is not uncommon for many similarly
non-conforming lots in the R-100 zoning district, as there are other examples of homes in the
vicinity of the subject property with garages, sheds and roomadditions within the side yard
setback.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
Because the existing garage is already in the setback without any substantial impact on the
neighboring property, the request to encroach in the side yard should not further impact the
adjoining property. Further, there remain no buildings in the vicinity of the proposed addition, so
granting the variance for an addition will have minimal impact on the neighborhood.
(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
If the applicant was required to build the addition with the required 10 foot side setback, the
addition would be reduced in size from20.3 feet wide to 12.9 feet wide. This literal interpretation
and strict application of the setback provision is not a hardship, but more of an inconvenience to
the applicant, as enforcing the setback requirement would create a substantial amount of
additional site work and construction expense. It would also require a redesign of the architecture
with a less desirable outcome despite the additional expense.
3


(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
Staff Comment:
The requested variance has very little to no impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the application and suggests the following conditions:
1. Development of the lot shall occur in substantial accordance with the site plan submitted
to the Community Development Department, which is attached to this report. (Prepared
by Survey Land Express, Inc dated 1/24/13).
2. The granting of this variance is to accomplish the completion of the proposed new home
addition depicted in the attached development plans, and is not to be considered a
“blanket variance” to any/all future construction on the property.


4


Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm


Case: ZBA13-046
Location: 2684 North Thompson Rd, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel #18-242-02-020
Property Owner/
Applicant: Reiner Rietig of HSC Intown, LLC
Request: To allow for an averaged required front yard setback reduction of
8.06 feet, from 45.56 feet to 37.50 feet


DESCRI PTI ON
The site has a proposed single family home located at 2684 North Thompson Road, on the west
side of North Thompson Road, approximately 150+feet south of the intersection with Valverdere
Drive. The property is zoned R-75 (Single family residence district) and borders properties zoned
R-75 (to the north, south, east and west). The applicant’s request is to reduce the required
“averaged” front yard building setback from 45.56 feet by 8.06 feet to 37.50 feet, which is more
than the standard R-75 District requirement of 35 feet.
SI TE PLAN AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The lot on which the proposed home would be built totals 0.224 acres +/-. The area is zoned R-75
and has 89.68 feet of street frontage along North Thompson Road. The rear property line has a
length of just 60.00 feet, which illustrates that the lot gets narrower moving front to back. The
proposed new home is indicated to be built approximately 37.88 feet from the right-of way. This
is a reduction of 17.69% to the city’s “average” required front yard setback on a block with 60%
or more developed lots.
RELEVANT TEXT FROM THE CI TY ZONI NG ORDI NANCE
“Sec. 27-788. - Yard requirements.
“The following regulations shall apply relating to yard requirements:
“(a) Average setback. When a lot (or lots) is (are) located within a block where sixty
(60) percent or more of the lots within said block have been developed, and where there
are existing buildings fronting on the same street and within the same zoning district within
seventy-five (75) feet of the side lot lines of such vacant lot (or lots), then set back
averaging shall be required. The minimum required building set back line for said vacant
lot (or lots) shall be determined by averaging the existing building setbacks of buildings
1


within seventy-five (75) feet of the side lot lines of such vacant lot (or lots). The minimum
setback for additions to existing structures may be the average of the existing setbacks.”
ANALYSI S
Setback averaging is a useful development tool for preserving the character and scale -be it
pedestrian or vehicular- of a neighborhood. Averaging prevents disparate building setbacks along
a developed street, which can make one or more infill projects look out of place alongside a block
of existing home sites.
However, issues can arise by the use of setback averaging if not implemented with the actual
development pattern of the street in mind. If the predominant development pattern of the street is
to have homes further from the street than what is found in smaller, higher density neighborhoods,
then the averaging requirement can be more restrictive than the standard district requirement to
new home placement. Additionally, the inverse is also true: if the homes on the block are nearer
the street, then new, replacement homes have to be located nearer the street, which can adversely
dictate the architectural style and site layout and design.
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the city Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The zoning board of appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict
application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
Staff Comment:
There would be no property rights nor loss of utility or enjoyment of the property were the request
to be denied. However, the lot does get narrower toward the back of the lot, which does impact
the buildable area. There is also a prevalent trend of newer, larger homes being built nearby,
which is consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
The requested variance is to build the proposed home within a proposed 37.50 feet setback, which
is greater than the general district requirement of 35 feet, a distance employed in all standard lot
development in the R-75 district.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties; the request is made
to better match the emerging neighborhood character.
(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the average setback provision is not a hardship,
and yet the code requirement is more than an inconvenience to the applicant, who would have to
redesign the architecture and site layout of the lot.
(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
Staff Comment:
The requested variance has very little to no impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board view the application favorably, and if approved, further suggests the
following conditions:
1. Development of the lot shall occur in substantial accordance with the site plan submitted
to the Community Development Department, which is attached to this report.(Prepared
by BH&D Engineering, Inc. dated 11/12/12).
2. The granting of this variance is to accomplish the completion of the proposed new home
depicted in the attached development plans, and is not to be considered a “blanket
variance” to any/all future construction on the property.

Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm


Case: ZBA13-047
Location: 2684 North Thompson Road, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel #18-242-02-020
Property Owner/
Applicant: Reiner Rietig of HSC Intown, LLC
Request: To allow for a required rear yard reduction of five feet, from 40 feet
to 35 feet.


DESCRI PTI ON
The site has a proposed single family home located at 2684 North Thompson Road, on the west
side of North Thompson Road, approximately 150+feet south of the intersection with Valverdere
Drive. The property is zoned R-75 (Single family residence district) and borders properties zoned
R-75 (to the north, south, east and west). The applicant’s request is to reduce the required rear yard
setback from 40 feet by 35 feet, a reduction of 12.5%.
SI TE PLAN AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The lot on which the proposed home would be built totals 0.224 acres +/-. The area is zoned R-75
and has 89.68 feet of street frontage along North Thompson Road. The rear property line has a
length of just 60.00 feet, which illustrates that the lot gets narrower moving front to back. The
proposed new home is indicated to be built approximately 35 feet from the rear property line.
RELEVANT TEXT FROM THE CI TY ZONI NG ORDI NANCE:
“Sec. 27-186. – Lot width; lot area; setbacks.
The following requirements shall apply to all lots and structures in the R-75 (Single-family
Residential) District:

(e) Rear yard: Forty (40) feet.
ANALYSI S
Maintaining setbacks is an important zoning requirement for preserving the character and scale of
a neighborhood. It also helps to preserve privacy between neighbors and to leave an appropriate
amount of open space within a community.
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
1


The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the city Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The zoning board of appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict
application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
Staff Comment:
There would be no property rights nor loss of utility or enjoyment of the property were the request
to be denied. However, the lot does get narrower toward the back of the lot, which does impact
the buildable area. There is also a prevalent trend of newer, larger homes being built nearby,
which is consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
The requested variance is to build the proposed home within a proposed 35 feet rear setback,
which is less than the 40 feet distance employed in all standard lot development in the R-75 district.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties; the request is made
to better match the emerging neighborhood character.
2


(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the average setback provision is not a hardship,
and yet the code requirement is more than an inconvenience to the applicant, who would have to
redesign the architecture and site layout of the lot.
(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
Staff Comment:
The requested variance has very little to no impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board view the application favorably, and if approved, further suggests the
following conditions:
1. Development of the lot shall occur in substantial accordance with the site plan submitted
to the Community Development Department, which is attached to this report.
2. The granting of this variance is to accomplish the completion of the proposed new home
depicted in the attached development plans, and is not to be considered a “blanket
variance” to any/all future construction on the property.


3


Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm


Case: ZBA13-048
Location: 1258 Windsor Parkway, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel #18-275-14-002
Property Owner/
Applicant: EPPS Heritage Investments LLDC
Request: To reduce the required lot width from 90 feet to 73 feet, the
required lot area from 10,000 square feet to 8,477 square feet, the
required yard adjacent to a public street from 30 feet to 20 feet,
the required rear yard from 40 to 30 feet, and the requirement
that corner lots located within subdivisions have an extra 15 feet
of width.


DESCRI PTI ON
The site is Lot 2 of a proposed four-lot subdivision which encompasses 1258 Windsor Parkway,
on the northwest corner of Windsor Parkway and Cates Avenue. The property is zoned R-75
(Single family residence district) and borders property zoned R-75 (to the north and west) and
Windsor Parkway (to the south) and Cates Avenue (to the west). The applicant’s request is to
reduce the required lot width from 90 feet to 73 feet, the required lot area from 10,000 square feet
to 8,477 square feet, the required yard adjacent to a public street from 30 feet to 20 feet, the
required rear yard from 40 to 30 feet, and the requirement that corner lots located within
subdivisions have an extra 15 feet of width.
SI TE PLAN AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The lot on which the proposed home would be built totals 0.195 acres +/-. This lot and the
surrounding neighborhood are zoned R-75, and this lot has 73.18 feet of street frontage along
Windsor Parkway and 129.75 feet along Cates Avenue. The rear property line has a length of just
69.10 feet, which illustrates the proposed lot is rectangular in nature. The proposed new home is
indicated to be built approximately 30 feet from the Windsor Parkway right-of-way, but only 20
feet from the Cates Avenue right of way, and 5 feet from a proposed new home.
RELEVANT TEXT FROM THE CI TY ZONI NG ORDI NANCE
“Sec. 27-186. – Lot width; lot area; setbacks.
The following requirements shall apply to all lots and structures in the R-75 (Single-family
Residential) District:


(a) Lot width: All lots shall have at least seventy-five (75) feet of frontage as measured along
the public street frontage.
(b) Minimumlot area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
(c) Minimum yard adjacent to public street: Thirty (30) feet.
(e) Rear yard: Forty (40) feet.
Sec. 14-257. - Corner lots.
Corner lots for residential use in a subdivision shall have an extra width of not less than fifteen
(15) feet more than required for interior lots by the zoning ordinance for the zoning district
within which they are located in order to provide appropriate front building setback from and
orientation to both streets.
ANALYSI S
Maintaining lot widths, lot areas, and required yards is an important zoning requirement for
preserving the character and scale of a neighborhood. Through the buffering technique of
distancing, these tools also helps to preserve privacy between neighbors and to leave an appropriate
amount of open space within a community. Each zoning district makes specific allowances for
what distances and areas are required in that district. However, because so many of the lots in this
neighborhood are non-conforming for both lot width and lot area, creating this four lot project at
this location will ensure the eventual development of the lots is more in keeping with the
surrounding character of the neighborhood.
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the city Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The zoning board of appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict
2


application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
Staff Comment:
The proposed lots are actually wider than most if not all of the surrounding non-conforming lots
that front Cates, Victoria, Francis & Mae Avenues. Loss of property rights and loss of utility or
enjoyment of the property similar to the emerging neighborhood development trend may result
should the request be denied. There is a prevalent trend of newer, larger homes being built nearby
on existing non-conforming lots of record.
(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
The requests are the minimumnecessary to complete the project proposed on the supplied site
plan. The requested variance is to build the proposed home on a lot which does not have the
minimumrequired width or area, within a proposed 20-foot side yard setback and a 30-foot foot
rear yard setback. Although the use proposed will be conforming, these development metrics are
less restrictive than the area and distance employed in all standard lot development in the R-75
district, but in keeping with the emerging neighborhood.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties because of the
consistent manner in which setbacks are applied with relation to existing development; the request
essentially matches the emerging neighborhood character.
(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the required yards provision may rise to the
condition of a hardship. The code requirement is excessively restrictive for the applicant, as it
would be for any applicant, with regard to the immense required yards and large lot area required
on these proposed lots.
3


(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
Staff Comment:
The requested variance has no known impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board view the application favorably, and if approved, further suggests the
following conditions:
1. Development of the required subdivision plat and subsequent building plans shall occur
in substantial accordance with the site plan submitted to the Community Development
Department, dated Received April 5, 2013, attached to this report. (Prepared by Land
Development Surveryors, Inc. dated 2/27/13).
2. The granting of this variance is to accomplish the completion of the proposed new home
subdivision project depicted in the attached development plans, and is not to be
considered a “blanket variance” to any/all future construction on the property.

4


Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm


Case: ZBA13-049
Location: 1254 Windsor Parkway, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel #18-275-14-001
Property Owner/
Applicant: EPPS Heritage Investments LLDC
Request: To reduce the required lot width from 75 feet to 65 feet, the
required lot area from 10,000 square feet to 8,184 square feet, and
the required rear yard from 40 feet to 35 feet.


I TEM DESCRI PTI ON
The site is Lot 3 of a proposed four-lot subdivision which encompasses 1254 Windsor Parkway.
The lot in question is proposed to be located on the west side of Cates Avenue, approximately 110
feet north of its intersection with Windsor Parkway. The property is zoned R-75 (Single family
residence district) and borders property zoned R-75 on all sides. The applicant’s request is made
to complete a four-lot subdivision and construct four new single family homes on each lot. The
specific requests are to reduce the required lot width from 75 feet to 65 feet, the required lot area
from 10,000 square feet to 8,184 square feet, and the required rear yard from 40 feet to 35 feet.
SI TE PLAN ANALYSI S AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The lot on which the proposed home would be built totals 0.187 acres +/-. The area is zoned R-75
and has 65 feet of street frontage along Cates Avenue. The rear property line has a length of just
55 feet, which illustrates the proposed lot is rectangular in nature. The proposed new home is
indicated to be built approximately 32 feet from the public street right-of-way and 10 feet from a
proposed new home to the north.
RELEVANT TEXT FROM THE CI TY ZONI NG ORDI NANCE
“Sec. 27-186. – Lot width; lot area; setbacks.
The following requirements shall apply to all lots and structures in the R-75 (Single-family
Residential) District:

(a) Lot width: All lots shall have at least seventy-five (75) feet of frontage as measured along
the public street frontage.
(b) Minimumlot area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet.

(e) Rear yard: Forty (40) feet.
ANALYSI S
Maintaining lot widths, lot areas, and required yards is an important zoning requirement for
preserving the character and scale of a neighborhood. Through the buffering technique of
distancing, these tools also helps to preserve privacy between neighbors and to leave an appropriate
amount of open space within a community. Each zoning district makes specific allowances for
what distances and areas are required in that district. However, because so many of the lots in this
neighborhood are non-conforming for both lot width and lot area, creating this four lot project at
this location will ensure the eventual development of the lots is more in keeping with the
surrounding character of the neighborhood.
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the city Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The zoning board of appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict
application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
Staff Comment:
The proposed lots are actually wider than most if not all of the surrounding non-conforming lots
that front Cates, Victoria, Francis & Mae Avenues. Loss of property rights and loss of utility or
enjoyment similar to the emerging trend may result should the request to be denied. There is a
prevalent trend of newer, larger homes being built nearby on existing non-conforming lots of
record.
2


(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
The requests are the minimumnecessary to complete the project proposed on the supplied site
plan. The requested variance is to build the proposed home on a lot which does not have the
minimumrequired width or area, within a proposed 35-foot rear yard setback. Although the use
proposed will be conforming, these development metrics are less restrictive than the area and
distance employed in all standard lot development in the R-75 district, but in keeping with the
emerging neighborhood.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties because of the
consistent manner in which setbacks are applied with relation to existing development; the request
essentially matches the emerging neighborhood character.
(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the required yards provision may rise to the
condition of a hardship. The code requirement is excessively restrictive for the applicant, as it
would be for any applicant, with regard to the immense required yards and large lot area required
on these proposed lots.
(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
Staff Comment:
The requested variance has no known impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board view the application favorably, and if approved, further suggests the
following conditions:
3


1. Development of the required subdivision plat and subsequent building plans shall occur
in substantial accordance with the site plan submitted to the Community Development
Department, received April 5, 2013, attached to this report. (Prepared by Land
Development Surveyors, Inc. dated 2/27/13).
2. Lot 3 shall be required to include a 10’ no access easement along the Antioch Road
property frontage to preclude a through lot, which is prohibited by Code. The required no
access easement shall be included on the recorded subdivision plat.
3. The granting of this variance is to accomplish the completion of the proposed new home
subdivision project depicted in the attached development plans, and is not to be
considered a “blanket variance” to any/all future construction on the property.


4


Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm



Case: ZBA13-04A
Location: 1250 Windsor Parkway, Brookhaven, GA 30319
Tax Parcel #18-275-14-003
Property Owner/
Applicant: EPPS Heritage I nvestments LLDC
Request: To reduce the required lot width from 90 feet to 73 feet, the
required yard adjacent to a public street from 30 feet to 20 feet,
the required rear yard from 40 to 30 feet, and the requirement
that corner lots located within subdivisions have an extra 15 feet
of width.


DESCRI PTI ON
The site is Lot 1 of a proposed four-lot subdivision which encompasses 1250 Windsor Parkway,
on the northeast corner of Windsor Parkway and Antioch Drive. The property is zoned R-75
(Single family residence district) and borders property zoned R-75 (to the west, north, east and
south), and R-A5 (Single family Residential District) to the southwest (across Windsor Parkway).
The applicant’s request is to reduce the required lot width from 90 feet to 73 feet, the required yard
adjacent to a public street from 30 feet to 20 feet, the required rear yard from 40 to 30 feet, and the
requirement that corner lots located within subdivisions have an extra 15 feet of width.
SI TE PLAN AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The lot on which the proposed home would be built totals 0.230 acres +/-. This lot and the
surrounding neighborhood are zoned R-75, and this lot has 73.19 feet of street frontage along
Windsor Parkway and 155.48 feet along Antioch Drive. The rear property line has a length of just
68.62 feet, which illustrates the proposed lot is rectangular in nature. The proposed new home is
indicated to be built approximately 30 feet from the Windsor Parkway right-of-way, 20 feet from
the Antioch Drive right of way, and 10 feet from a proposed new home to the east.
RELEVANT TEXT FROM THE CI TY ZONI NG ORDI NANCE
“Sec. 27-186. – Lot width; lot area; setbacks.
The following requirements shall apply to all lots and structures in the R-75 (Single-family
Residential) District:


(a) Lot width: All lots shall have at least seventy-five (75) feet of frontage as measured along
the public street frontage.
(c) Minimum yard adjacent to public street: Thirty (30) feet.
(e) Rear yard: Forty (40) feet.
Sec. 14-257. - Corner lots.
Corner lots for residential use in a subdivision shall have an extra width of not less than fifteen
(15) feet more than required for interior lots by the zoning ordinance for the zoning district
within which they are located in order to provide appropriate front building setback from and
orientation to both streets.
ANALYSI S
Maintaining lot widths, lot areas, and required yards is an important zoning requirement for
preserving the character and scale of a neighborhood. Through the buffering technique of
distancing, these tools also helps to preserve privacy between neighbors and to leave an appropriate
amount of open space within a community. Each zoning district makes specific allowances for
what distances and areas are required in that district. However, because so many of the lots in this
neighborhood are non-conforming for both lot width and lot area, creating this four lot project at
this location will ensure the eventual development of the lots is more in keeping with the
surrounding character of the neighborhood.
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the city Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The zoning board of appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict
application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;

Staff Comment:
The proposed lots are actually wider than most if not all of the surrounding non-conforming lots
that front Cates, Victoria, Francis & Mae Avenues. Loss of property rights and loss of utility or
enjoyment similar to the emerging trend may result should the request to be denied. There is a
prevalent trend of newer, larger homes being built nearby on existing non-conforming lots of
record.
(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
The requests are the minimumnecessary to complete the project proposed on the supplied site
plan. The requested variance is to build the proposed home on a lot which does not have the
minimumrequired width, within a proposed 20-foot side yard setback and a 30-foot foot rear yard
setback. Although the use proposed will be conforming, these development metrics are less
restrictive than the area and distance employed in all standard lot development in the R-75 district,
but in keeping with the emerging neighborhood.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties because of the
consistent manner in which setbacks are applied with relation to existing development; the request
essentially matches the emerging neighborhood character.
(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the required yards provision may rise to the
condition of a hardship. The code requirement is excessively restrictive for the applicant, as it
would be for any applicant, with regard to the immense required yards and large lot area required
on these proposed lots.
(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
Staff Comment:

The requested variance has no known impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board view the application favorably, and if approved, further suggests the
following conditions:
1. Development of the required subdivision plat and subsequent building plans shall occur
in substantial accordance with the site plan submitted to the Community Development
Department, dated Received April 5, 2013, attached to this report. (Prepared by Land
Development Surveyors, Inc. dated 2/27/13).
2. The granting of this variance is to accomplish the completion of the proposed new home
subdivision project depicted in the attached development plans, and is not to be
considered a “blanket variance” to any/all future construction on the property.


Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
April 17, 2013 – 7 pm


Case: ZBA13-04B
Location: 637 Woods Drive, Brookhaven, GA 30318
Tax Parcel #18-275-14-004
Property Owner/
Applicant: EPPS Heritage Investments LLDC
Request: To reduce the required lot width from 75 feet to 65 feet, the
required lot area from 10,000 square feet to 8,113 square feet, and
the required rear yard from 40 feet to 35 feet.


DESCRI PTI ON
The site is Lot 4 of a proposed four-lot subdivision which encompasses 3178 Cates Avenue. The
lot in question is proposed to be located on the west side of Cates Avenue, approximately 175 feet
north of its intersection with Windsor Parkway. The property is zoned R-75 (Single family
residence district) and borders property zoned R-75 on all sides. The applicant’s request is made
to complete a four-lot subdivision and construct four new single family homes on each lot. The
specific requests are to reduce the required lot width from 75 feet to 65 feet, the required lot area
from 10,000 square feet to 8,113 square feet, and the required rear yard from 40 feet to 35 feet.
SI TE PLAN ANALYSI S AND SI TE ANALYSI S
The lot on which the proposed home would be built totals 0.187 acres +/-. The area is zoned R-75
and has 65 feet of street frontage along Cates Avenue. The rear property line has a length of just
55 feet, which illustrates the proposed lot is rectangular in nature. The proposed new home is
indicated to be built approximately 31 feet from the public street right-of-way and 10 feet from a
proposed new home to the south.
RELEVANT TEXT FORM THE ZONI NG ORDI NANCE
“Sec. 27-186. – Lot width; lot area; setbacks.
The following requirements shall apply to all lots and structures in the R-75 (Single-family
Residential) District:

(a) Lot width: All lots shall have at least seventy-five (75) feet of frontage as measured along
the public street frontage.
(b) Minimumlot area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
1


(e) Rear yard: Forty (40) feet.
ANALYSI S
Maintaining lot widths, lot areas, and required yards is an important zoning requirement for
preserving the character and scale of a neighborhood. Through the buffering technique of
distancing, these tools also helps to preserve privacy between neighbors and to leave an appropriate
amount of open space within a community. Each zoning district makes specific allowances for
what distances and areas are required in that district. However, because so many of the lots in this
neighborhood are non-conforming for both lot width and lot area, creating this four lot project at
this location will ensure the eventual development of the lots is more in keeping with the
surrounding character of the neighborhood.
CRI TERI A TO BE USED BY THE BOARD
The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be
made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the city Zoning Ordinance:
Sec. 27-916. - Criteria to be used by the board in deciding applications for variances and
special exceptions.
No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the
intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The zoning board of appeals
shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:
(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon
making all of the following findings:
(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict
application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;
Staff Comment:
The proposed lots are actually wider than most if not all of the surrounding non-conforming lots
that front Cates, Victoria, Francis & Mae Avenues. Loss of property rights and loss of utility or
enjoyment similar to the emerging trend may occur should the request to be denied. There is a
prevalent trend of newer, larger homes being built nearby on existing non-conforming lots of
record.

(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
The requests are the minimumnecessary to complete the project proposed on the supplied site
plan. The requested variance is to build the proposed home on a lot which does not have the
minimumrequired width or area, within a proposed 35-foot rear yard setback. Although the use
proposed will be conforming, these development metrics are less restrictive than the area and
distance employed in all standard lot development in the R-75 district, but in keeping with the
emerging neighborhood.
(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Comment:
Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties because of the
consistent manner in which setbacks are applied with relation to existing development; the request
essentially matches the emerging neighborhood character.
(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a
casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and
Staff Comment:
The literal interpretation and strict application of the required yards provision may rise to the
condition of a hardship. The code requirement is excessively restrictive for the applicant, as it
would be for any applicant, with regard to the immense required yards and large lot area required
on these proposed lots.
(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.
Staff Comment:
The requested variance has no known impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends the Board view the application favorably, and if approved, further suggests the
following conditions:

1. Development of the required subdivision plat and subsequent building plans shall occur
in substantial accordance with the site plan submitted to the Community Development
Department, dated Received April 5, 2013, attached to this report. (Prepared by Land
Development Surveyors, Inc. dated 2/27/13).
2. Lot 4 shall be required to include a 10’ no access easement along the Antioch Road
property frontage to preclude a through lot, which is prohibited by Code. The required
no access easement shall be included on the recorded subdivision plat.
3. The granting of this variance is to accomplish the completion of the proposed new home
subdivision project depicted in the attached development plans, and is not to be
considered a “blanket variance” to any/all future construction on the property.