Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
Video Transcript
Duration: 128 minutes
Speakers: 18
There There's my mic
and
they just let it keep let this keep going. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And then see if it turns red. K.
Test. Yeah. That's what
Yep.
Good evening. This meeting is called to order at 07:02
on July 8.
My name is Ian Kowalski, and it's my pleasure to welcome you to the board of zoning appeals.
The board consists of Roswell residents appointed by the mayor and approved by city council.
We serve voluntarily
and without compensation.
The board has the final say on tonight's applications.
Appeals must be filed within thirty days with Superior Court of Fulton County.
Before we start, there is a procedural detail we need to take care of.
Both the BZA chairman
and the vice chairman are absent tonight.
As the past chairman from 02/2004,
I have opened the meeting tonight. Our first order of business
is for the board to appoint a chairman for tonight's meeting.
Rocky?
Rocky Hoard.
I
move that,
Ian,
the,
our acting chairman this evening.
Second. Dan Seager seconds it.
All in favor, raise your hand.
I see that four people are in favor.
I abstain.
With that taken care of, let's move forward.
We have we will review three applications this evening.
Here's the procedure we will follow tonight.
The city representative
will give their report and their recommendation.
The applicant will present their case.
Public comments
limited to two minutes per speaker and relevant to the application
will be solicited.
Speakers must state their name and address and speak clearly in the microphone. So if you're a speaker tonight,
come up to the center area here,
give your name and address,
and
there is a timing light that is used tonight. You can see green, yellow, red.
It gives two minutes to give us an indication and keep us on time in tonight's meeting.
Then there is applicant excuse me. Applicant rebuttal, if desired.
Board members may ask questions at any time.
We will then close the meeting to the general public,
and the board will deliberate
and vote.
Simple majority decides.
We'll begin with the city's presentation.
Good afternoon.
Can you guys hear me?
Alright. Name's Richard. Planner two, City of Roswell.
The first
The first case tonight is a withdrawal request for 1335
Holcomb Bridge Road.
They were requesting withdrawal, which requires a vote
by the BZA.
Chair
the chair recognizes mister Hanna.
John Hanna. I make a motion
that
we, approve the applicant requesting the withdrawal BZA
20250529.
Dewey?
I second the motion.
All in favor, raise your hand.
It's unanimous.
The first application tonight
is BZA 202515
95,
290 Broadmeadow Cove.
They were, requesting two variances to reduce the minimum lot width.
Some background,
the property is owned to r s 30, single family estate and is part of the Stillwater Shade subdivision.
The property has an area of about,
100,749
square feet,
lot width of,
a 103.24
feet, and currently has a single
family house, a lake, and a stream on the property.
When the original Stillwater Shade plat was recorded
in 1983, the subject property was shown as two lots, Lot 19 and Lot 20.
The lot was designated as recreational.
The plat was revised in 1985 and re and,
platted and recorded in 1989,
amending Lot 20 to be a buildable lot.
The applicant purchased Lot 20 from the developer in 2003
with the intention of building on the lot in the future.
In 2010, without the knowledge or consent of the applicant, Lot 19 And 20 were combined into a single lot design, designated as Lot 19.
The applicant went before the board of zoning appeals on 02/19/2025
for a side and rear setback variance request.
At the meeting, the existence of the combination plat was introduced by a member of the public.
Staff and the applicant were unaware of the existence of this combination plat.
As a result, the applicant withdrew his application with the intention to subdivide his property back to the original two lots
in the 1989 revised plat.
In the proposed subdivided lots, the applicant has increased the lot width of proposed Lot 20 from the previous 31 feet
to 43.24
feet.
And the lot width for proposed night, Lot 19 has been decreased from the previous 72.25
to 60 feet.
By increasing the lot width for proposed Lot 20, the applicant no longer needs a side or or rear setback variance,
that should say front setback variance,
for the proposed
single family house he intends to build for his daughter and her family on Lot 20.
Proposed Lot 19 will be 43,394
square feet, and proposed Lot 20 will be 57,355
square feet.
Both proposed lots will have a front setback of 50 feet, side setback of 15 feet, and a rear setback of 40 feet.
The lake encompasses roughly a third of proposed Lot 19 and approximately half of proposed 20 and is located in the southwest area of both proposed lots.
The topography of both proposed lots live approximately 30 feet from the street to the lake and the stream which feeds into the lake.
Here is an aerial view.
Now they're separated because in our GIS, the city's GIS,
it is two lots, but as we know, it has been combined and our GIS has not been updated.
Zoning map.
Code requirement
is UDC three two two, detached house,
r s 30,
Number one letter b lot width minimum
is a 120 feet.
Behrends request. Proposed lot 19. The applicant is requesting relief from UDC three two two one b to reduce the required minimum lot width for an RS 30 single family house from from a 120 feet to 60 feet.
Proposed lot 20. The applicant is requesting relief from UDC three two two one b to reduce the required minimum lot width for an RS 30 single family house from 120
feet to 43.24
feet.
Here is the 1989
revised recorded plat.
You can see there were two separate lots at that time.
This is a,
blown up version of the note on the bottom right.
States, the purpose of this revision is to remove note
from lot number 20
and note,
I believe this is 11 from subdivision data. This changes Lot 20 from recreational
purposes to building lot.
This is the 2010 recorded combination plat.
And it's gonna be hard to read,
but
it combines lots nineteen and twenty into Lot 19,
adds, I believe that says, 35
feet
stream buffer to lot
being 19.
Here is the proposed lot that the applicant has given us.
So it's mostly the same shape as the previous
'19 89
plat,
just with different,
lot widths.
Slightly larger version.
On lot,
20,
you can see the proposed house.
Because he's increased the lot width of that
lot, he will not need any variances to setbacks,
which is what he went originally for.
The hardship for Lot 19.
At the time of purchase of Lot 19, the property was a lot of record and the applicant did not consent to the 2010 combination plat.
Planning and zoning policy allows for cul de sac lots to have a minimum lot width that is 50% of what is required for lots on a standard road
due to the naturally shorter frontages of cul de sac properties.
Proposed Lot 19 will have a lot width of 60 feet, which is exactly 50% of the UDC's a 120 feet for RS 30 lots.
It is staff's opinion that only one true variance is being requested for Lot Twenty's lot width. But because the two proposed lots are connected,
the variance request for proposed Lot 19 is being considered due to the technical reality of a variance based on code requirements.
The variance request is the minimum variance possible to allow at least one of the proposed lots, Lot 19, to abide by the planning and zoning policy of allowing cul de sac lots to have 50% of the UDC's required minimum lot width.
Most neighboring properties of Lot 19 are also nonconforming lots with lot widths less than a 120 feet and with two
lots that are less than 60 feet.
300,
the abutting property to the north of Lot 19, has a lot width of approximately 84 feet,
and thus adheres to the city's cul de sac policy.
Abutting properties 305
And 295 Broadmeadow Cove both have a lot width of approximately 25.4
feet,
Less than the 50% cul de sac standard, but allowed as they are lots of record.
275
Broadmeadow Cove, the abutting property to the east, has a lot width of approximately a 109 feet, which is not which not being in a cul de sac is non conforming, but does not need a variance as it is a lot of record.
The requested variance will be in harmony with the purposes and intent of this UDC as it aligns with planning and zoning policies, which permit reasonable accommodations for cul de sac lots.
Those Lot 20 variance hardship.
Again, this is the same, basically. Most neighboring properties of Lot 19 are also are of Lot 20, that should say, are also nonconforming lots with lot widths less than a 120 feet
and with two less than 60 feet.
Don't know if you need me to restate the neighboring lots. I think you guys kinda get the point there.
The all neighboring lots besides one are underneath or, below the 120,
foot requirement.
A quick question. Ian Kowalski here. Can you, on the map, show us where and maybe, when you do get the map, show where 275 Broadmeadow Cove is?
Leave.
The reason I asked is that there's a document zoning map within the package, which identifies the property next door is 270, and I just want to clarify that.
I believe 275 is across the street Okay. Across the cul de sac.
But I'd have to take a look at a map or something. I don't know,
top of my head.
Richard,
this this is Rob Huey.
The properties that you list is being, a lot with approximately 25.4
feet. Are those applicable in this case? Because aren't they essentially driveways to, open up to a larger piece of property?
Yeah. They are flag lots. Okay. But that area,
that is the lot width. Okay. It's the width at the street. Right. But they're they're set way back off of the cul de sac at that point. Alright. Thank you.
Planning and zoning director. Our current code no longer allows flag lots. Okay.
It's across. Okay.
So it's probably
Okay. So this is 275. I guess you can't see my pointer.
If you look
up to the right,
it's the lot that's in between the larger lot at the far right and then that lot in the middle. It's kind of a triangular shaped lot. It's 275.
The requested variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this UDC as it aligns with planning and zoning policies, which permits reasonable accommodations for cul de sac lots.
This variance request preserves the applicant's ability to utilize his land in a responsible and previously
allowed manner.
The special circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant.
The variance request is the minimum variance possible to allow at least one of the proposed lots, Lot 19, to abide by the planning and zoning policy of allowing cul de sac lots to have 50%
of the UDC's required minimum lot width.
Here is a view of the front of the house.
To the left is where proposed Lot 20
would be,
that open space.
The applicant's house currently is the house on the right.
This is looking at the applicant's house
from proposed lot 20.
This is looking to the neighboring house.
Right?
Staff recommendation.
For proposed lot 19, staff recommends approval of the variance request to reduce the required minimum lot width for an RS 30 single family lot from a 120 feet to 60 feet.
Proposed lot 20.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to reduce the required minimum lot width for an RS 30 single family lot from a 120 feet
to 43.24
feet,
with conditions.
If the BZA approves both variance requests,
then staff recommends the applicant plant six foot tall evergreens or install a fence between the newly curated Lot 20 And 270 Broadmeadow Cove, which is the adjacent property.
That is it.
Thank you.
Were there,
the, applicant can now come up and present?
Good evening, mister chairman, members of the board of appeals. My name is Ethan Underwood. I'm an attorney with the, firm of Underwood Scoggins. Our address is 202 Triple Gap Road in Cumming, Georgia.
We're here
for a very simple reason. Our applicant,
mister and missus Romine,
want to build a house for their daughter and son-in-law.
And when they started this process, they thought they had two lots.
They start going through the process, and they find out they've got one. We're here just asking you all to provide relief so that, yeah, they can have two lots again. That's really all we're here to discuss.
We know that there was a lot of information that was put forward at the February meeting
that
frankly, it was that was where the, Reminds learned that their lots had been combined.
So we're asking for relief just so that they can have what they thought they started with was is two lots.
Staff has asked us to go through this,
process, obviously, trying to get a variance to to resubdivide the property. And so what we're presenting to you, we think, is better than the original two lot configuration, and we hope that you will grant the variance. With that,
what we have now, now that the lots are combined, is a 2.3 acre tract. It's currently zone RS 30.
And it stated we're trying to get variances just to resubdivide
the tract.
Staff has has did a very, very good presentation.
I won't
repeat a lot of the information they provided, but we are trying to provide
one conforming lot, which is 60 feet wide. The other lot is more conforming than when we started. The original was around 37 feet wide. What we're proposing is 43 feet wide.
Again, staff showed this image. This is important because it does show
what GIS and the Romines thought that they had, which was two lots, and this shows the configuration.
If you look up at Broadmeadow Cove, you do see some wide lots. You see some some narrow lots. But what we're proposing would not be out of character, particularly in in this particular coleslaw.
So as far as the Romines
knew, this was their title chain. Now, you know, being a lawyer, of course, I went through and plowed through it and found more things. But the ones that are highlighted in yellow are the ones that they were particularly aware of. There was a plat recorded
for Stillwater Shade.
They purchased Lot 19 in 1984.
They understood that the property next door to them was a developable lot. So in 02/2003, they bought it, but they didn't combine the lots.
And then there were some quick claim deeds that were cleaned up between,
the Chaddams.
You may see Howard Chatham. He was originally in the chain of title. I believe he passed, and and that was conveyed to his holding company. But long story short, the remains bought like the remains bought Lot 19 that they bought, like, Lot 20 almost twenty years later with the understanding that they could develop that property at some point in the future.
At the February hearing, these were the surprises that we all had to deal with.
And so let's just go ahead and deal with the elephant in the room. One, the Romans learned of a a letter that was pulled out of a file that nobody had seen for almost twenty five years
that was issued by Roswell staff saying that this shouldn't be developed.
With all due respect, we don't think that the Roswell zoning administrator at that time should have been opining as to whether or not a lot's usable or not
or or for what whether that, should have been,
could be developed. It was recorded. It was an approved plat, and it showed it as being converted to a,
residential use. So we would submit to you that really has no relevance as to whether or not the Romanes get to split their property back to what they thought it was when they started this process.
Secondly, this is where they learned,
was the 2010 plat that combined the lots. They didn't consent to that. They weren't aware of it. From the get go, they thought they had two two lots, and that's what we're asking here to
reinstate.
Now, again, this is
we can staff already showed you this. This was the original plat. Showed two lots, nineteen and twenty.
Plat was rerecorded as best we can tell. This does not look to be any different, but it was recorded in plat book one forty two, page 33.
But in,
plat book 01/6583
in 1985,
there was a plat that was issued, but it was not recorded until 1989,
and it did
change that use. So our understanding is the developer had the right to change the use on that property. That's what they did. And in reliance upon this particular plat, the remains bought this tract in 02/2003.
However, this is what we've learned as staff shows you. This is the plat that was recorded without the Romines' consent.
Lot 20 went away, and it was merged with Lot 19. And now we're here asking to reinstate Lot 20 just because this is not a hardship that was caused by the Romans. This is a a remedial
act act that we are requesting. So what did we have? This was the site plan that was submitted on, that was dated December,
February
6. This is what you saw in February,
and it traces almost exactly the original plat from 1985.
You'll see the shift.
It's easy to go back and forth here.
The lot is Lot 20 is getting wider.
And by getting wider, it eliminates the need for side variances and front
variances.
So the only variances that we're needing at this
point are the road frontage
distances.
Technically, if you look at c one, it will be 60 feet. That will be a conforming lot,
and conforming distance. The only performance standard that does not, satisfy your current code is on c two. We're asking for approximately 17 feet
a little less than 17 feet of deviation
just to simply reinstate
the lots the number of lots that the Romanians thought that they owned.
So
is the variance justified? I think staff went through this, but I do have to for the record, so I I hope you'll bear with me. But is a literal interpretation,
of the UDC? Would it deprive the reminds of
rights commonly enjoyed? And staff concluded, yes. We agree,
that there are similar
width lots,
and we are here to correct an error for which they're not responsible.
We do need the relief. That's what the variance process is created for.
Substandard
b, granting the variance, will not confer upon the property or applicant any special privileges.
I would propose to you I've I've done this for over twenty years.
I don't usually roll in here with plats that were recorded without my client's knowledge. This is certainly a special circumstance that they need relief from your code for.
Section
c, requested variance
will be in harmony and with the purpose of the and the intent of the UC. What we're showing to you is before that plat into the Romines' knowledge, you had a more nonconforming
configuration than what the Romanes are proposing.
They are trying to clean this up and get it to be more conforming. We do feel that this is in keeping with the intent and the purpose of the unified development code.
Item d, special circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant. As we stated, they they didn't know that this plat was recorded, so we are asking for your help in trying to resubdivide the property.
The variance requested is the minimum.
It is absolutely the minimum because we're trying to make
one lot 19
conforming,
and then we're trying to make Lot 20 as wide as we possibly can just given the amount of earth that's out there.
Standard e, e, the variance requested I'm sorry. Standard f, the variance does not permit use of land, which is not permitted in the zoning district. We're not asking for a use that's not otherwise allowed. We're simply asking to be able to build a single family detached residence,
which is allowed in fact, the only thing that's allowed in an RS 30 zoning category.
Standard g, the variance does not reduce the lot size below the minimum lot size. We don't. We could be complying with the lot size minimums. It's just simply one performance standard along the cul de sac. And standard h, the variance does not increase the maximum allocation of sign area. We're not asking for any signage on this side.
I believe that we've, the same standards apply to both lots nineteen and twenty. We do have a little bit of difference in the width. But
we
do, would submit to you that we do,
comply with the standards that justify variance. This is an oddity, and that's what the whole variance code is created for is to cure
very unique situations. So with that, we would respectfully request that you approve the variances as requested and reserve any time that we have remaining for rebuttal and for questions. Thank you.
Chair recognizes mister Hanna.
John Hanna,
thank you for your presentation. I can ask you to come back up, please.
Can you go to the second page of your property time line sheet?
Scroll through every one of them again. Yes, sir. Not all.
Just
one.
Right there.
The second page.
Yes. Thank you.
So in February,
that was,
recorded combined Lots 19 to 20 without the consent. Right? Yes.
When did the,
applicant,
purchase the property? 2000 they they the first Lot 19 was in, 1984.
Lot 20 was in 02/2003.
02/2003.
So my my question would be, I would imagine
that
the applicant
received two tax bills,
each year after he purchased the property before they were combined in 02/2010.
Shouldn't there have been some question at that time in regards to okay. I've been getting a
property bill for each one of my properties, and now all of
a sudden I have
one.
How can how can you
not
understand
it? I'll have to defer to my client on that. I'm not aware that that what of of how many tax bills he had received.
But even your own GIS is showing it as two parcels as recently as as I understand.
Thank you.
Chair recognizes mister Seager. Yeah. Dan Seager.
Just continuing
with his
question. So we don't know how or what the process was for combining those two lots in 2010.
Someone returned recorded a plat. Now as you can see from the time line, there's a history of people showing up and recording plats years after the process.
But the our client purchased the property in February
2003,
and then this plat shows up seven years later in the land records on the notes to mark We we understand
all this history, but
we have as as a as a team here, we have not been able to uncover why those lots why the Fulton County put those two lots
back into Lot 19.
We we don't know why that happened.
We do not know why the plot was recorded that that that combined those lots. Now as far as Fulton County, if you're talking about the tax board of tax assessors combining the lots, I think that's a separate analysis. I'm I'm not aware of when that happened, but we do know that there was a combination plat recorded without my client's consent in 02/2010.
Okay.
Thank you very much. I see no further questions at this point.
Would the applicant themselves like to speak at this point?
Evening. I'm Steve Romine.
I reside at 290 Broadmeadow Cove.
At the last meeting that we had regarding this property, my wife was attendants and I was on the Zoom call. So I figured I better show up at least at this one.
I don't think well, maybe we need to go through the dates again,
But, you know, the facts are that we purchased the lot,
in 1984,
and then
we purchased Lot 20 in 02/2003.
In the meantime, there's one thing that nobody has brought up yet
is that in 02/2005,
Fulton County implemented
a greater buffer on the creek. So
if mister Chatham had prior previously,
done a site plan
with the house down near the creek. But then when Fulton County put in a new ordinance
expanding
the stream buffer, it eliminated any buildable area there.
So
this the question you raised about twenty ten,
seven years after we purchased Lot 20, the lots were combined.
I I don't know how it happened, but I do know,
that Wilson Long was the surveyor.
Wilson Long did all of Howard Chatham's surveying,
and he's the one who
prepared the survey and wrote the note.
And in addition, they had a 25 or 35, it's hard to say,
drainage easement on Lot 18,
K, which is neither 19 or 20.
So
why that's there, I have no earthly idea,
but
it's sort of a mystery. And, of course, we showed up at the first meeting thinking we had two lots, and then it was brought to our attention that we had one lot.
So so I think we've made it clear as to what what our position is and and what the staff has to do. And I may like to comment if we hear something from other folks, but leave it at that if you have any questions for me right now.
Chair recognizes mister Hanna.
John Hanna.
Same question that I had,
for the gentleman that spoke prior to you.
You know, you would have been receiving two tax bills for each piece of your property
from the time you purchased in 2003
up through 02/2010,
which at that time would have been one tax bill.
You have no idea
that that something had happened to your property? Well, I I don't wanna
be flip about it, but,
in 02/2003,
I I started a business,
of my own
and was fully occupied with that, with all of the accounting and bookkeeping that went on with that. So my wife is handling this,
maybe a little bit beyond what she would normally like to do, but it was never brought up.
So
Thank you.
Chair recognizes mister Hoard.
I have a question,
excuse me, for the city staff and our is there a representative from the city attorney's offices here as well?
No. Okay. City staff it is then.
If we just hypothetically assumed that
mister Romine
forgot that he'd asked the Chatham Organization to process a combination
plan, or if he even
asked it is now acting like he didn't, which I don't believe to be the case. But
regardless,
he would either be here with two lots trying to move a lot line
in, you know, to enlarge
Lot 19,
which he owned, which was skinnier at the time,
or
he needs
to subdivide
a single lot.
But in either event, we're we would be asked to give a variance
perhaps with different frontages, but
variances nonetheless
regardless whether he knew about the combination or not. Is that a fair statement?
So you're
you're proposing
that the lot combination
exists.
Oh, it clearly it it does. Or are you giving me a scenario where it does and it doesn't?
Yes. So
that's correct. Okay. In either in either instance, it seems the applicant would have to come to us
for
two variances or at least a variance
to
to to have a minor or to set up to subdivide
the single
lot or, frankly, enlarge
lot 19.
So if the two lots existed,
the scenario would be much like what was proposed to you in February
where
the setback Thankfully, I was not here. Okay. So the setbacks
were
the two lots existed. They were lots of record,
and they were buildable.
So nothing
nothing, you know, we can argue that point or talk about that point later, but there was no reason that that he could not build on either lot. But the proposed
location on the lot
required him to come for variances
in regards to the front setback and side setback.
So he was asking for relief of setbacks only, but he would not need
a lot
width, frontage, width requirement,
or
variance
at that time because it was a lot of record.
So now that the combination
exists
for him to be approved to split it back into two lots,
staff cannot approve
a division process
that creates
a a lot that does not meet the UDC.
And so
then the scenario shifts
to require
the variance to be the lot frontages.
So we have the technical variance that exists on Lot 20
that he has now reduced to 60,
feet across the front, which is something internally if we saw that. If he could do two sixty foot lots, that is something by process,
that that staff has done
historically
since the UDC.
That is not a decision that was made by any staff here. That was just an internal policy that was practiced. But because he cannot split and achieve 60 feet on both lots,
he has reduced the size of his current lot to 60
to allow for lot 20 to now exist
in as large of a frontage,
you know, as possible.
Now there's another little thing that happened in there
in that the setback lines
that are now
part of the proposal
can meet the regulations of the UDC
and do are not superseded by the plat document.
So that previous request
had a very large front setback of a 140
feet. And the plat, whatever is more restrictive,
supersedes.
So the plat supersedes
and would require that 140 foot setback.
Now we don't have to impose that 140 foot setback
based on this new scenario.
So I know there's some layers in there that I might have added more questions. So when you say based on this new scenario, based on the fact that the lots were combined by plat in 2010.
And I do wanna point out you've kind of gone around the question without asking it. So I apologize. I'm gonna answer a question that hasn't necessarily been asked.
But
our plat documents
have a spot for the owner, and the owner on the plat document that was recorded
in 2010
was not even they didn't even attempt to put mister Romine's name.
It was Chatham.
So it So we know that Chatham,
either mister Chatham and or his organization,
were the source of the submittal of that 2010 plan. An assumption can be made that that that is the assumption that we would make because
the Romine's name were nowhere on the document
as far
as signed off on ownership.
Thank you.
Chair recognizes mister Huey.
Hey, Jeanie. Rob Huey. So the question back to you just to make sure that I'm clear.
The only importance of the combined plat in 2010 is them having to come back. But say, if that combined plat had not existed
in in 1989,
someone would have been able to build a house on that lot.
Correct. So it's our understanding that the very original plat
labeled that property, not even as recreation, it had an on label, like, to be maintained by the owner
the property owners
of the subdivision.
And then when it was the revised
final plat was submitted,
which is the document we were originally working off in February,
it had the note that labeled that recreation was taken off, but that wasn't precise language.
But, yes, that was the plat that was recorded.
So that made it a buildable lot at that point? Absolutely.
That made it a buildable lot at that time and therefore at the time of the Romine's purchase Right. Their understanding would have been that it was buildable. Got it. Thank you.
Chair recognizes mister Seager.
Just wanna get a little bit more clear on this. Alright. If if the lot the two lots existed today,
you can build on Lot 20.
It's permissible. But he's going whoever bills on that lot would
need different variances than what's being requested today.
It's it's buildable but not without certain variances,
which we encountered the first time in the
first application. Based on the proposed location that mister Romine was proposing the house to
be at. I don't know that I can answer whether or not a house could be built with no variances,
but you could entertain that thought that there is a
location
on that lot
that
could provide someone the ability to build with no variances. It things
at
play.
Can you build on that lot with a 140
foot
set
things at play. Can you build on that lot with a 140
foot setback? Yes.
Without without the house being in the pond?
I can't speak to that. I I, you know, didn't do the design or or stare at it long enough. But, I mean,
there was probably you know, the the likelihood of there being a spot on that lot to build with no variances
is
likely.
It's possible.
It's possible.
Question is staff, Richard,
were there any letters in support or letters in opposition that have been submitted?
Of support and two letters of opposition. I printed them out if you would like copies.
Those are what were those are the ones that, were part of the package.
I believe so. We just received one, new one from,
Betty Price, I believe.
Might as well. We'll hand them out. Okay.
Thank
you.
Okay. At this point, we would like to
open up the meeting to public comments if anyone would like to speak,
in favor or in opposition
to granting of these variances.
If anybody would, please come up to the central podium and give your name and address. And
Hi. Good evening. My name is Joy Purcell. My address is 699
Collier Road.
I am here tonight to speak in support of the recommendation
made by the staff
to approve the variance requests,
that were filed by the Romine family for Lots 19 And 20.
The issue for you all to decide tonight is whether the Romines should be deprived of the use of Lot 20.
But I want to say a few words about the people who will be affected by your decision.
I've had the privilege of knowing this family for more than thirty years, and I can state unequivocally that this is the type of family that you want in your neighborhood.
Carlin and Steve have lived at 290 Broadmeadow Cove for approximately forty years. Their daughter, Katherine, grew up in this house and plans to relocate her own family close by so that she can help care for her parents as they age.
Katherine and her husband, Keith, are both small business owners.
Keith is an accomplished architect, and as a previous client, I can attest to his talent.
They plan to send their two adorable daughters to local schools and to be active in the community.
I recognize that some residents in the neighborhood oppose the staff's recommendation to approve the requested variance
and want Lot 20 to remain vacant. But in doing so, they are asking that the Romine family give up their right to build on the property that they purchased more than twenty years ago to build a house for their family.
I find it hard to believe that those here tonight speaking against the staff's recommendation
would be willing to give up the use of their property without compensation.
I encourage everyone here tonight to remember the golden rule and treat others how you would like to be treated.
Thank you.
Hello, everyone. My name is Gloria Bargi. I'm speaking today on behalf of my parents, Rasul and Sadie Bargi, that reside at 270 Broadmeadow Cove
in the cul de sac adjacent to the recreational lot.
My parents have lived in this home for forty years, and they're among some of the first homeowners in Stillwater Shade. They purchased their lot directly from Chatham, who've also built their home.
In every situation,
there are two components,
the facts and the story. I believe it's important today to share both.
My father always told me, your word is your character. If you say something, be proud to put your name behind it and stick with it.
These are the principles by which he lives his life and continues to practice business with a gentleman's handshake, never failing to uphold his promises.
I share this because it is important to understand who my parents are and the promise made between the Bargi and Romine families
that has remained unbroken until today.
1985,
my parents purchased the lot with a premium due to several factors.
One, it's a cul de sac lot.
Two, the view of the lake from their home. And three, the presence of the green area between the two neighbors designated by Chatham as a recreational area for the community.
The original survey of our property reflects this designation.
This lot was designed with the intent of remaining vacant for recreational use. Otherwise, it would have been part of a larger lot for construction.
In the early nineties after the first phase of the subdivision was completed, my father and mister Romine noticed some activity on this recreational lot,
and it was Chatham attempting to build a home. They both were adamantly opposed to any construction on this lot. They went to the city of Roswell to protest the plan. The city halted development
confirming that the lot is recorded as a recreational area in the Fulton County Superior Court.
Why would this designation change now?
A little while later, mister Romine informed my father that he did purchase that lot from mister Chatham
for the sole purpose of preserving its status and preventing future development.
At the time, my father, mister Romine,
had a gentleman's agreement that this would remain recreational and that they would share the responsibility of its maintenance.
Since then, I've personally witnessed my father dedicate countless hours maintaining that lot. In fact, the majority of maintenance has fallen on him as the Roan mines spend a lot of their time traveling to visit their two daughters overseas and in their second home in Upstate New York.
Despite this, my father has honored his maintenance on the lot honoring his word.
I'm sharing all this today because my parents will be most directly impacted by the development on this lot.
Beyond the emotional and personal implications,
there are broader considerations.
Although it has been stated that this home is intended for mister Romine's daughter, please keep in mind that mister Romine is a developer. This is his business. There is no guarantee that this will not be used for other purposes such as flipping or for resale,
leaving the neighbors at a disadvantage.
Furthermore, it raises concerns about precedent.
If the city of Roswell allows this variance, what prevents other developers from purchasing single lots in established neighborhoods and splitting them and building additional homes?
In our own neighborhood of Stillwater Shade, there are at least four other lots, 100, one zero five, two forty five, and 300
that could potentially fit this profile if this is approved.
Is this goes the against the intended zoning of the community and we believe the intent of the City Of Roswell's unified development code, UDC.
In closing, I hope that by hearing both the facts and the story of this forty year commitment between neighbors, the committee understands why we strongly oppose construction on this lot. It is not simply a matter of development, but it is about upholding a promise, preserving the integrity of this neighborhood, and protecting the homeowners of Stillwater Shade. Thank you.
Thank you.
Dane Howard. Excuse me. I live at 185 Broadmeadow Cove and have for the last twenty five years.
I'm not directly in the cul de sac, so I'm not as,
impacted, but I've been interested because I'm concerned about the character of the neighborhood and
is,
assuring that
the the as it is remains to be the quality of neighborhood that we purchased our home in twenty five years ago.
I'd like to offer
a possibility, if you will, for the confusion around the twenty ten combined plot.
In my
research,
the
2,003
purchase
that the Roan Mines
are alluding to
of the
recreational lot
was actually not the recreational lot that was purchased
or quitclaim to them.
The records show that there was a quitclaim deed to the row mines
of a Lot 20
in a different district
and a different landlot.
In fact, there were two
land lots
and in District 2
that were quick claimed to them
on 08/04/2003.
Reason I mentioned this
is if that was the
purchase agreement or that was the time they say they purchased the lot, first of all, quitclaim isn't a purchase.
But secondly,
the 2,010
combining by Chatham Holdings would have been done because they owned it.
The only quick claim that I can find that confers the said property to the Roam Mines is dated 03/08/2016,
and it was one lot,
Lot 20 was conferred to them
in 02/2016.
So I don't know,
you know, I'm not a real estate developer.
I'm not an attorney.
I just am a a consumer that went into the search engine for Fulton County and discovered these records.
I do I didn't bring a lot of copies, but I do have a copy if you'd like to see it.
Also,
I would tell you that,
there's been a lot of obfuscation
during this process.
Intentionally or unintentionally,
I can't say.
But I can tell you that there is also a 1994
plat
that shows the lots combined, and it was a survey that the Romans had done.
So the fact that they don't think the lot was combined
but whether that's relevant or not, what I do think is relevant is,
you know, our
subdivision
always considered that recreational
space,
and it keeps keeps being referred to as a buildable lot.
I know at some point there was the,
idea,
at least I've heard this, may just be lore, but I have heard that it is,
developable for a fishing
pier and flat dock.
So that may be buildable. That may be what had been conferred as buildable. I don't know that a residential property ever belonged on that lot or ever was approved for that lot.
So
Thank you.
Chris Humphreys, who lives on Broadmeadow Cove as well,
and I think he said two ninety,
had brought had sent a, packet. He also wanted to call in like mister Romine did in the first meeting
and speak to you, and he gave me his he's on vacation.
And that brings to light the fact we had two business days notice of this meeting, and it was over a holiday weekend. Because I can tell you that the sign said June 30 up until on June 30, still said June 10. The sign did not demonstrate,
the date of July
until July 1. So he's out of town,
and he
like to call in.
Question to staff. Is that something that can be done?
I think that that's up to you to decide.
I can't say that it's not. We
did Technically, is that something that can be done?
There's no technicality that I know of that wouldn't allow it. So it's up to you whether How would we go about doing it if we wanted to do it? I'm sorry? How would we go about doing it if we wanted
to do it? I think that she's offering to facilitate I'm offering to call him on my phone and And he can listen in. Yeah. That is fine if he wants to listen in.
I think he wants to review his packet that he provided. Did you receive He wants to make comments. Right. He wants to comment.
He can do that if he sticks to two minutes. We've received the, packet and we've had a chance to review his packet. And if you want to phone in so you can listen, that is
fine. And if you wanna bring the phone up at some point, he can have two minutes.
Okay. I'll I'll defer to
I'll call him. Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Elizabeth
Price. I live at 295
Broadmeadow Cove, which is accessed through the cul de sac that we've seen on the proposal.
I would respectfully ask that the d BZA deny the two variances requested in this application, primarily on the grounds that by this very
process, we would be violating
city code.
And I feel like there's been a number of
irregularities,
improper notification,
only two business days
notification,
to put an accurate sign on our street.
When I left town last week on Tuesday,
it was the old sign from the June meeting.
When I came back last night, of course, I saw that it was it was, updated.
And the previous sign in June was placed behind trees
on another property, and apparently, according to staff, it was requested to be placed there. And I still don't know who requested it and why they put it under the trees on a totally unrelated
property. Also, the audio minutes
of June 10
and the printed minutes three days later do not match.
I think that
we have been ignoring the subdivision
plat.
Owners
bought lots with a promised amenity,
access to the lake
via Lot 20,
as was previously described
on many plats as
recreational
use. And that's what it says on mine, and I'll put it there.
And you can see that I do have an odd,
access to the cul de sac. It is a small,
entry,
but not to be compared in any way to the proposal because my house is not even able to be seen from the cul de sac. But as you can see down here,
it says
Lot 20 for recreational
use.
Also, I have a letter from the City Of Roswell
in 1993
that was apparently related to some dispute,
and I think you've seen that before.
But that was a letter to us from the city of Roswell, and I don't know if there's been a legal opinion on that,
but it exists.
Of course, this
end of the subdivision, and it changes about halfway down the street, is R S 30, which is 30,000 square foot minimum single family estate.
I have to say that the staff report
was riddled with many inaccuracies
as you all already detected.
275
Broadmeadow Cove does not abut either Lots
19 or the old Lot 20.
This item has been deferred twice.
Why is there not a delay enforced before this repeatedly comes up again and again, wasting everybody's time?
The application from February was deferred and never came back.
We're told now that it was withdrawn,
and the June application was totally different from the February application, totally new number and everything.
There was no reason given
for the staff deferral in June.
The staff recommended denial of the side setbacks back in February,
but is now recommending approval of reducing the minimum lot width. I don't know how you reconcile,
going at that, animal from two different directions and saying no to one and yes to another.
And in the newest version, of course, the proposed house is even closer to 270 Broadmotor Cove than it was before. And I do wanna just point out that the
survey that we saw
back in in in
February
showed that.
I think that was done in December.
But then the current one
being shown is is not just a survey. It's a minor plat.
And if you're
responding to a minor plat, you cannot do that with variances.
That has to go before mayor and council.
So the goal should be to preserve the neighborhood,
not to advocate for or advance the desires of one resident.
Family issues are not part of this legal process and discussion.
The adjacent and most affected neighbors at 270 Broadmeadow Cove have withdrawn their support as they've seen in the most most recent iteration,
the house is closer to them and blocking their view.
It is really not up to the city to rectify rectify
a problem acquisition of one resident.
Caveat, emptor.
Let the buyer beware.
Unfortunately,
the Romines have acquired
an albatross by a quitclaim,
but no warranties or guarantees of clear title come with that.
I'm concerned that the application process the application itself, the staff report,
this very dubious timeline, the letters of support that come and go that were, I think, written by the applicant,
it's claims of hardship. They're all very disingenuous,
inconsistent,
and seem to be intended to obfuscate.
It basically just does not pass the smell test. I'm almost finished. There is no lot 20. Lots nineteen and twenty have been combined,
so you have to deny at least that portion because there is no lot 20. The applicant claims that he did not know that the lots were combined.
However,
here's a
survey that the applicant himself requested
in
'20
sorry, 1998,
professional survey was made at the applicant's request and it does show the combined lots at that time. So if if they're hanging their hat on the fact that they didn't know that the lot was combined, here's evidence that they they knew in plenty of time.
So this is not a request to restore the old lots 19 And 20, that was asked for in February. But this time they're asking for totally new lines.
How do you approve a variance after the fact? Would the applicant have to saw off part of his house?
The variance being requested is totally unreasonable,
76
feet.
And we know that that's very long, three times as long as a London bus
and many other comparisons I've provided for you all. It's an unreasonable
variance request.
It's a minor plat with two variances. It must go to mayor and council
according to thirteen point five point two dash four, so it must be denied on that basis as well. There is no room there to fit a house in in a standard with the street.
It's gonna look more like a townhouse, a tall vertical structure.
It needs to be denied.
This would destroy the property values on the street, re ruin the neighborhood integrity and harmony.
We we've seen your submittal and this is beginning to go on too long. I'm I'm at I've got two two points. I'm just about done. 15¢.
Anyway, it's this was once
considered undevelopable. The steep slopes, the stream buffers,
half of the meets and bounds in the lake
does not meet the 30,000 foot square foot minimum
for these for the,
zoning district that we're in.
They're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. And then there's the whole issues of lake protection. I don't feel like
we're comforted that this would be properly handled.
And the precedence, as has been mentioned earlier,
that other
places that have play room to squeeze lots in between existing houses would just have a field day if this were approved. Thank you.
The chair wants to let mister Romano know that I see you wanting to speak.
When we've gone through the present the, public speaking, you'll have a chance to get up and address any issues you'd like to address.
Go ahead.
Okay.
All good.
What the chair is going to comment is back in February, we had the reverse situation where mister Romine called in from when he was out of town and his wife was here. So
in lieu of that, I'm saying yes.
Chris? Yep. Okay.
You're on.
Hello. This is Chris Humphrey.
I apologize. Can everyone hear me? Yes, Chris. This is the chair. We can hear you. I'd like you to keep this tight, and we'd like you to keep this to two minutes. We do have the paperwork that you submitted in.
You do have the paperwork? Okay. Good. Thank you very much.
Yeah. So, this is Chris Humphrey. I live at 240 Broad Meadow Cove. I'm gonna keep this short and sweet.
I I do appreciate you you indulging me being able to dial in and not be there in person. I'm sorry that I couldn't benefit from the
the conversations that have been had and presentation
and and whatnot.
But that being said,
I'm not in favor of of allowing this. I think that it
it it it's a slippery slope,
for our subdivision in terms of, you know, allowing something it's
out of character for the neighborhood, right, at the end of the day.
The
the the lot was originally platted for recreational use. At some point, it was converted.
Understand
that the the Romans had had no knowledge of this 2010 merger, but but nonetheless, here we are.
One could arguably state that, you know, the the residents didn't have any knowledge of the conversion from a recreational use to a buildable lot back in 1985.
So,
you know, they're not asking for a restoration of the 1985
plat,
that shows the lot lines where they were, which is still a not buildable lot.
They're asking for a subdivision of their property
to skirt
the, in my mind,
the
the a lot with them and setback requirements that would be needed to build on the lot. It's gonna shoehorn something in.
It's not gonna fit in the neighborhood,
and it just doesn't make sense to to to allow. The lot has its own challenges.
And,
yeah,
that's that's really, you know, from my perspective, what I have to say.
And, you know, if if it were approved, there's no one doing it. Right? At the end of the day, it's like, okay. Well, we'll approve this. And then let's say that
a lot it doesn't get built on. Well, now we still have a buildable lot. Kinda ergo the
the letter from 1993 from the city
that they made a mistake. It's not buildable.
No building permit will be issued, yet here we are.
Right. Mister Humphrey, this is mister Kowalski now. You've, reached two minutes. Please wrap it up in the next couple of seconds.
I apologize. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. Chris, he said you've reached two minutes. Can you wrap it up in the next couple of seconds?
Yep. I'm done.
Thank you, Chris. Thank you. Do you wanna continue to hear or
Would anybody else from the public like to speak?
Would the applicant like
to come up and speak again
and address any of these comments?
With all due respect, you have all been presented with a lot of emotional arguments that are frankly irrelevant.
What we're here to discuss tonight is not whether
there was a
drawing that the Romanes looked at and said, well, could we combine it? It was never recorded.
What we're here solely to discuss we're not even here to talk about use of the property. We're sitting here to discuss,
can the Remind subdivide their property,
make one lot that they didn't know was merged, back into two.
Now what we would submit to you is that people have said, well, this is gonna create odd precedent. No. It doesn't. This is our exceedingly
unique situations.
Actually, if my may,
speak up, this is mister Kowalski.
What this board is addressing tonight are two variances that are being requested. Whether or not the lot gets subdivided, that's not something
that we're addressing or have anything to do with.
Well, the we can tell you the purpose of the variances is so that they can be subdivided. That's that's why we're asking for these.
With that though,
this is certainly not a deal
that would be new to the neighborhood. The neighborhood
understood
that Lot 20 existed.
So we're not asking for any more lots than were in the original plat. We're not asking for any other use other than what was approved back in 1985
when this was shown to be a buildable lot.
So we again, there's a lot of things that have been put forward to you. You've been asked to consider hearsay. Someone said that, well, I heard there's a rumor there might be a fishing pond. Completely irrelevant. Respectfully, y'all can't consider that evidence.
The only thing that you, were asking that you do consider is look at your staff. Your staff has said this is a complying,
situation. This is why the variance process was was created is because you have a real oddity. You have a lot that was combined
without the consent of a property owner. They are asking you to split it back up and so that there's no more lots than what the neighbors bought in for. There is,
actually more conform conformity
now to your code than there would be if it was, left in the original site design.
So with all due respect, all we're here tonight to ask is,
is a variance appropriate? Has the hardship been met? Your staff says it has. We respectfully would submit to you that it has. We would ask that you approve this and just let the Romines have back what they thought they had, which is two lots.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mister Romine, would you like
to address any of this?
Only that I feel that I've been insulted up one side and down the other. One of the reasons I have an attorney here is because
I might,
get my emotions involved in this and listening to
missus Price go on for I don't know how many minutes. I mean, the first time she spoke for ten minutes. This time, I think she took ten minutes. I don't know how that happens. But,
and, you know, there's a lot of misinformation.
It's sort of a tradition, I think, that they carry forward.
I
sincerely apologize to the Bargies. That was Gloria Bargie. Her dad here is Rasul, my neighbor of forty years. They live on the other side of the lot.
They have,
come to some conclusions
that,
I don't
agree should've that they should've come to.
And,
unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to
talk with them once,
in the in in the last couple weeks about that. But, you know, when we when I bought the lot,
yes, it is true that I bought the lot in order to
make sure that mister Chatham
or anybody else didn't build there. That's true. But That was how many years ago?
Twenty years ago. K?
Now we're all
witness to how things change. I think we're all struggling with the change that has occurred in our country in the last year. Actually, it's been six months. Okay?
So in twenty years, there's a possibility that circumstances might change. And the only reason I would wanna build a house here is for my daughter. Okay? The claim that I'm a developer yes. I'm a retired developer
and builder. I've built over a thousand homes in Atlanta. I
am retired from that. The only thing I do now is build houses for my children, and I have a child somewhere else I build a house for.
But I'm I'm
I've I've been accused of a lot of stuff tonight, and it really,
really irks me. And I I'm not gonna go through this list of trying to
tell you which you know, what's right or what's wrong. But I I have been called a liar. I've been called somebody who doesn't honor his word, and I think that's really inappropriate
and probably
not relevant to the issue at hand. Okay?
The reason I'm here and the reason I'm passionate tonight about this, and I've been to lots of zonings. I've done a lot of zonings myself
over the years.
But this is an important one because I'd like my daughter to have a house, and she can't afford to have a house in Roswell
unless
we build on this lot. Okay? You say, well, then she can move to Woodstock. She can move to Jasper or something like that. But, you know, my my wife and I are aging as are the people who are represented here to oppose us because we're all the previous generation. We have a new generation of people coming in.
And
so it's it's important for us that we get our children moving in here.
That's all I can ask is that I appreciate if you would stay and focused on the issue
and not be confused by all of this,
babble that's been going on.
Thank you. Thank you, mister Romain.
Are there are there any questions at this point from
board?
Chair recognizes mister Hoard.
Just a question back, kind of a follow-up to my earlier question just to the staff.
If we say arruendo that
the Romanes in fact did process
the combination
plant
or just hypothetically
speaking,
would there be any constraint on them coming back today
some, you know, twenty five years later, fifteen years later, excuse me, whenever,
and asking
for
a variance to accommodate a lot split.
No. I believe you're asking if they had issued,
or recorded In other words, they just chanced their mind and we wanna subdivide even though we combined it fifteen years ago. Yes. Correct. They would be going
Thank you.
At this point, I would like to close the public part of this meeting, and the board can now deliberate and make a decision.
Would anybody on the board
like to make a motion?
Excuse me. The board recognizes mister Hoard.
Rocky Hoard.
For the folks that stood up and gave,
I don't know if it's testimony,
but advocacy or,
or opposition,
Would you mind telling,
the board when you acquired your lot in Stillwater Shade?
What year?
'55.
Thank you. You.
Thank you.
Okay.
Alright. Thank you. Thank you.
The, chair will entertain a motion from any one of the board members. I'm sorry. I have one more question. Excuse me. Mister Hord has another question.
Like Peter Falk. Oh, and another thing.
The question for the staff,
I believe we have a quorum.
If,
I am
neighbors, friends, and fans of everybody who's been in here,
So on both sides of this,
would an abstention by me in the vote,
harm the quorum?
No. Four four members are what we need for a
Okay. Good.
Mister chairman, I, in light of what I just said,
I am willing to cast a vote if I need to break a tie, but otherwise, I'm going to abstain.
I believe mister Hoard is giving us
forewarning that he wants to abstain, but I'm not sure that once he abstains, he can reenter the process.
And when it comes time to vote,
if mister Hoard chooses to abstain, he can abstain
or he can vote one way or the other.
Would there be any further questions, mister Hoard?
Well, I can probably think of some more of being an attorney, but I'll I'll abstain k.
From asking questions.
Would anybody on the board like to make a motion? I would. Go for it, John. The, chair recognizes mister Seager. Dan Seager.
I move to deny the application of BZA
20251595290
Broadmeadow
Court Cove, which requests relief from UDC
three point two
point two point one point b to reduce the required minimum lot width
for an RS
30 single family house
from 120 feet to 60 feet and
43 forty forty three point two four feet for proposal lots nineteen and twenty respectively.
That make sense?
Mister Hana seconds the motion. Discussion?
Well, I'll make a quick comment on why I denied it.
I'm approaching this from the standpoint
as if this was an existing
situation without all this history behind it, that somebody came before this board,
with a lot that they wanted to
divide into two lots and would end up with the same criteria that we've have here.
I would think that lot 20,
if that
situation existed being 43.24
feet,
is about 60% below
the code
and about 18% or maybe it's 25%
below
after the the city would allow,
a 50%
reduction
in a lot with due to being on a cul de sac. So I think it's just more
of a variance than what we can justify today.
Further discussion?
In that case,
we will take a vote.
All in favor of denial,
raise your hand.
All in let it represent
that four members,
Seager,
Kiwi,
Kowalski, and Hannah
have voted in the affirmative to deny.
Does anybody
vote against denial?
Mister Hoard votes against denial.
The variance is denied.
Is the city ready to proceed with the next agenda item? Should we take a three to five minute break?
Let's take a three to five minute break. Biology break granted.
The, chair would now like to reconvene the meeting.
Is staff ready to
present the next agenda item?
Yes.
This is Richard,
City of Roswell, planning and zoning.
The third item of the night,
BZA,
number 202520181180
Lake Drive, variance to reduce the side setback.
Background.
This property is owned RS 18, single family residential,
and is 23,400
square feet,
point five six acres
in size.
It has two road frontages off Lake Drive and Lake Crest Drive and is part of the Land Of Lakes subdivision.
The lot is generally rectangle shaped with a 20 foot side street setback off Lake Crest Drive, a 50 foot front setback off Lake Drive,
and a 10 foot side setback and a 35 foot rear setback.
The primary structure is a two story single family house
and is 2,774
square feet.
There is a fence along the south side property line, which helps screen the garage
from 1170
Lake Drive and an existing retaining wall located five feet off the property line.
The proposed pavilion will be located in this area.
There is an 846
square foot pool
and a 1,851,
square foot pool deck that takes up much of the rear yard along with a fence which encloses the rear yard.
The side yard off Lake Crest Drive has small vegetation and pine straw.
The applicant proposes,
is proposing to build a 400 square foot, 18 foot tall pavilion at the end of their driveway
and next to the southeast part of the pool deck.
The proposed pavilion would contain two grills, a sink, a fireplace with an approximately 20 foot tall chimney,
an ice machine, and a mini fridge.
The proposed pavilion would have two walls,
one facing the east of the property and the other facing the south, making the pavilion open to the driveway and backyard pool.
The proposed location of the pavilion
would encroach five feet into the 10 foot side setback adjacent to the neighboring property to the south.
Here's an aerial image.
Zoning map.
Code requirement, UDC 323
detached house number one letter f side minimum principal building setback is 10 feet.
Parent's request, the application the applicant is seeking relief from the UDC 3231
F to reduce the
existing conditions.
Here's a proposed site plan. This,
Gray Square is the proposed pavilion location.
And here is a proposed, the proposed site plan enlarged.
I outlined the area in red. That'll be the area of the pavilion that is encroaching. It's about a 120,
square foot that will be in the, setback.
Hardship.
Granting the requested variance will give the applicant special privileges
over other lots within the RS 18 zoning district because no hardship exists related to the size, shape, and topography
of the lot. This property is within the neighborhood residential character area,
and the purpose and intent of this character area is to preserve the existing scale and character of the neighborhood as stated in the comprehensive plan.
The special circumstances are the results of the actions of the applicant.
The backyard pool, which takes up much of the rear yard, was constructed recently.
The pool's design and size limit,
the pool's design and size limit the buildable area of the lot.
The 400 square foot pavilion could be designed or oriented in a way as to reduce or eliminate the side setback encroachment.
Here's a vote a photo from Lake Drive.
The proposed
pavilion would be at the very end of the driveway there.
There's the intersection of Lake Drive and Lake Crest Drive.
View from Lake Crest Drive, the side yard.
And this is a view. It's kinda hard to see, but this is the view of the fence in the backyard.
Here's the,
construction drawing of the proposed pavilion.
Here's a rendering of the proposed pavilion from the adjacent the the adjacent southern property.
Here's the proposed pavilion from
the
rear yard.
The proposed new pavilion from Lake Drive, this would be from the,
front of the house.
Staff recommends denial
of this
petition.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Would the applicant like to speak?
Hey. Good evening.
My name is Chris Nardone. I'm an architect with CNNA Architects. I live at 1125
Land O'Lakes Drive.
Been there since 1999.
I'm here to represent mister Jason Hughes. He, unfortunately, is out of town, so he couldn't make it tonight. But,
we started this process
about eighteen months ago,
and
normally, you know, come to the planning department, and I talk to the planners and get their feedback.
And at that point,
it was recommended that
they could either give us a two foot administrative variance
or
why don't you know, you could go for a five foot variance. And
and I always ask what the temperature is, and he said, well, you know, you got a probably pretty good shot at it. It's, you know, maybe 80%
chance, that they've been approving these. So he was like, okay. Well, I'll I'll recommend that to the client, and we'll move forward.
When I got the staff report, Thursday, I think, was when I first realized it was posted
and it's all denial. I I came up,
Richard
we were just gonna withdraw it, because I thought there was a penalty associated
with,
a denial per se. But, Richard said that was more for,
commission board of commissioner stuff and larger rezonings. So,
he suggested I came up, come up tonight and just explain to you guys why we proposed what we have.
And
a little bit of history I had
I I really wasn't involved in
in the backyard landscaping and pool development, although I'll admit it. He's done a really phenomenal job.
And being in the neighborhood, we always like it when people,
spend a lot of money, enhance their properties.
And
and in this particular
case, shares it. He's got younger kids. On our cul de sac, we got 14 kids under the age of 12. So it's a it's a very lively little street, which is great.
So
he asked me to
draw my 20 by 20 Pavilion because he had a 20 by 20 slot where his retaining wall formed a corner.
That's when the whole process started. So
we feel like
it's positioned
in a spot that is
very inconspicuous.
It's very hard to find a view of that piece, that little piece of the property the way it's up on a hill.
You almost have to be in at the driveway looking straight up the driveway to even see the thing. If you're coming up, Lake Crest Drive or Lake Drive,
the house is in the way. And so you can't see it coming down from Land O'Lakes. You can't see it because of the fence.
The neighbor that is directly affecting
or is directly adjacent on the south,
gave him a letter of support.
So
the one person it kind of may affect directly,
is in support of the pavilion.
And that that's really,
you know, that's really where it started.
So I understand where
that's coming from,
but we would still,
like to ask you to approve the application,
as is.
Or if there's any questions or modifications you wanna, you know, propose,
be interested in that as well.
The chair recognizes,
mister Hanna.
Question for staff. Did you receive letters of,
support?
One he's speaking of.
Do we have a copy of that? Should.
Email it to you or print it off and give it to you at another time, but I don't have it printed off here. Would it be in the package here by any chance?
It's a pretty attractive
pavilion that you're
proposing there, but it is
rather significant in size.
I think with the amount of encroachment,
to
the side setback,
it's going to be a struggle to get a structure that size approved.
Have you got have you worked on an alternate plan that you'd be willing to share with us or is there something some of the considerations you made for the positioning of that pavilion other than the current
location in your variance request?
Well,
I want to say, yes, we we looked at it.
We started out with a size
and then fit it in between the
pool deck and the pool and the retaining walls.
There was no effort of
trying to slide it closer to the pool, which we don't really want to do because we don't want it too close to the pool.
Would it be shorter?
Of course.
So that's, you know, that's the question of So you understand the predicament
after you've heard those staff's
presentation?
You know, there's there's a lot of
qualifications that are required
to meet the hardship requirements.
And
in my just my opinion, we haven't heard from anybody else, but I think I think you have a real high bar across there. That's why I was wondering if you if there's any other alternative you'd wanna share
or just wait for the
The only ones we kind of looked at and rejected were in different locations in the yard, one behind the pool, one off to the side of the pool closer to Lake Drive, but
not really
reducing the size of it. That's really what would happen if, this impacts not you know, it'll go to a 15 by 20.
Or if we can get two foot administrative, then maybe it's a 17 by 20. Yeah. It's it's significant when you think about, you know, you're looking at a five foot incursion
as the setback,
that's 20 feet long and
20 feet
high, it's rather significant.
Yeah. So
and
and as Richard pointed out, these are
you know, Jason built the pool. He
the landscaping and the hardscaping, he built the retaining walls.
And so
the space the spot is there
to put the pavilion in at that location. If you don't, what we're going to have is a eight to 10 foot tall retaining wall with a five foot gap between the Pavilion and the retaining wall.
So not a whole lot you can do with that
space outside,
trying
to
applies the land as much as
we
could.
Mister Kowalski here. A question to staff. You had mentioned the pool was recently built.
Do you have a date on that?
Thank you.
Are there any other questions before we hear from the public?
If I may, I I can,
if if you would would would mind, I can read the letter out from the public. Okay.
K. So the letter reads,
requesting permission to build a 20 by 20 pavilion along the existing retaining walls on the side interior of property located on 1180 Lake Drive.
The current setback requirement
is at 10 feet. The request is to push it back to five feet so the pavilion can sit along the retaining wall and not interfere with the existing pool.
And then there is a signature.
This is from 1170 Lake Drive, Roswell, Georgia, and then there is a email.
So this is from to clarify, this is from the neighbor who is would be closest to the pavilion?
Correct. Thank you.
With that said,
chair recognizes mister Hoard.
So in my under that really for the staff. In my understanding that,
they could build out to 17 feet and essentially get an administrative
approval
for a I guess what it would be, a two foot encroachment into this into the setback?
I mean, they they can certainly apply.
I think the hardship would still remain. The the issue of the pool, I'd have you know,
the the fact that that pool is there and it was built so recently,
I don't think that's something staff would be able to,
support.
In which case then you're you're relegated to
15 by 15.
15 by 20. 20. 15. Fifteen twenty feet. Yes. Good. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you.
I I'd like to add that the hardship,
review
is done during the administrative process.
Mhmm.
Thank you very much.
Is there anybody from the public who would like to come up and comment?
April McNair. I live at 12:05 Sorry. Start again near the microphone, please. For April McNair. I live at 1205
Land O'Lakes Drive
in the neighborhood.
And I I came for the Broadmeadow Coast, so I don't have anything prepared.
I've lived,
in the neighborhood since 1999,
and I've seen a major improvement with the
what is it? 1170
Lake Drive, I think it is.
And and not only did he
second owner since the people who died there in, I think,
9000 of something.
But not only did he move in,
he made sure he put retainer walls,
all the things that prevent water damage and drainage
and all those things.
I don't know.
As well as it's an improvement.
I mean, probably two or 300%
over what it was.
In addition to that,
I don't know why
he filed for permission
because many people in the neighborhood
have houses
they call,
what you call
where they put their equipment in in their yards about the same size as mine, almost an acre.
And they never apply for anything.
Mostly, I was my concern was it is it 800 square feet or 600 square feet? My concern, it is that it's not
over
as long as we don't go too close to the neighboring land, and I think that's an ordinance
that defines the number of feet that they could be from the land from the house next door.
Outside of that, the front
and the appearance of what they're building there for
for which is really a pool house,
almost like a deck,
is very attractive
for the pool and everything else there.
I'm asking that it be approved
because it's not really as overwhelming as a pavilion
or an additional house.
If you will consider that in in regard to the improvement to the neighborhood,
the increase in property value for that house as well as others, as well as no intrusion on the neighboring
neighboring house. Thank you very much for your comments.
Would anybody else from the public like to speak?
Would the applicant like to, rebut?
Oh, with that said, I'd like to close the public part of the meeting,
and I will
entertain a motion
from the board.
The chair recognizes mister Huey.
This is Rob Huey. I make a motion to deny the side setback
and keep it at 10 feet.
Did I does mister Hord second it?
Rocky Hord. I'll second the motion. Motion is seconded. Discussion?
Mister Kowalski here. I would just like to add that it looks like there are,
the pool is recently built. There are new and this is something the owner decided on where to place the pool. There are a number of things that can be done with this pavilion,
either moving it over or making it slightly smaller and still having a very nice pavilion.
As such, I do not see granting the variance. So I agree with denial. Any other comments?
In that case,
all in favor of denial, please raise your hand.
It's unanimous. All five members
are denying the variance.
When staff is ready, we can move forward with the fourth item.
Good evening, mister chairman, honorable members of the city of Roswell, Board of Zoning Appeals. I'm Shay Dixon. I'm the economic development planner for the city of Roswell.
I'm part of the planning and zoning team, along with my colleague here, mister Sykes, and mister and miss Peten. And, I'm here to present on staff's findings and recommendations regarding BZA 20252248
for 1350
North Meadow Parkway. This is a non residential variance,
specifically to UDC ten point two point eight point d regarding the screening
of ground mounted equipment.
Now a little bit of background. This property is zoned industrially. It's specifically zoned I l for light industrial.
It's a 63,744
square foot building on 6.34
acres.
The building fronts North Meadow Parkway, which is a private right of way, but, but also has a side, side property,
pardon me. Also, abuts a public right of way on the side of the property.
The applicant is planning to build 38 foot tall exhaust stacks as part of the building connecting to the existing 24 foot high 24 foot, eight inches tall, high building.
The exhaust stacks will be part of a small jet engine testing facility that is inside the building.
This project is mainly a this company is mainly a research and development
company for,
small jet engines and aerospace equipment.
The shape of the lawn is roughly rectangular, and the topography puts the rear of the building within a clear site of the public right of way, that being Hembree Parkway,
which we'll also show in one second.
And unlike other industrial buildings in the IL Zoning District, this means that its ground mounted equipment
must be fully screened, as it would be fully within in the view of a public right of way, in accordance with UDC ten point two point eight point c.
Going on to a aerial image, you see mostly surrounded by warehouses and other industrial facilities.
Going on to zoning, we can see almost all of the abutting properties are zoned light industrial, just like this one, which is the most intense industrial zoning the city of Roswell currently has. Of course, a few properties to the north here also zoned industrial, but zoned industrial flex specifically.
Going on, the code requirement
in, ten point two point eight is that ground master equipment is required to be screened either by landscaping or an opaque wall that is compatible with the principal building. And the variance request
being that the applicant is seeking relief from this,
in order to reduce the required height of screening
for crown practice equipment from the public right of way. Screening is still proposed to be provided up to at least 16 feet high,
which would only leave the upper 22 feet of the proposed exhaust stacks visible
from Hembree Parkway.
Going on here to first the site plan of the entire property,
the specific area we're looking at is inside this red rectangle here. We're gonna zoom in on that right in a moment.
Here's a closer view of the site plan.
Get us a little bit more zoomed in here. There would be two exhaust stacks. There will eventually
be, fuel tanks surrounding these exhaust stacks, the location of which hasn't been definitively
selected yet, but it's not exactly in the scope of the variance as it currently stands.
We've attempted to remain
to make sure that this variance only applies to these exhaust stacks, and the fuel tanks would still have to be screened on their own.
Going on, the summary of the hardship is that the shape and placement of the property puts the rear of the property in clear view of that public right of way. This isn't exactly normal for other industrial buildings within the IL zoning districts,
which therefore deprives the applicants of the rights enjoyed by owners of or owners and occupiers of similar properties.
Furthermore, the granting of this variance does not confer any special privileges
not held by those other property owners.
The applicants are not the original developers,
and, this is not an issue caused by the applicants. They are tenants of this building.
In addition, due to the UDC's lack of specification
regarding exhaust stacks in industrial districts, it fails to account for the possibility that they might be needed,
and that the fact that they're needed
sorry. Pardon me. Might worsen the visual harmony of a structure from a public right of way. In this way, the proposed variance might actually be more in harmony with the intent and purpose
of the UDC
than if we were to allow the UDC to be followed, strictly speaking.
As well as with the conditions recommended by staff, the variance would be minimized to the stacks only, making this the minimal variance needed to accomplish this project.
Moving on to a site photo here. This is the view of the back of the property from the public right of way from Himbry Parkway.
You can see most of the entire
rear of the building
is visible, except a little bit where it's blocked by a, blocked by a sanitation screening.
They'll move on a little bit further down that same right of way, Even as we even as we, decline down a hill here, most of the back of the building
still visible.
Going on, this is the this is the parking lot here,
on the rear of this building, roughly speaking, where the proposed exhaust stacks would be.
Speaking, where the proposed exhaust stacks would be.
Another angle of it here, still partially blocked
by the,
by the sanitation screening.
Going on to a quick construction drawing, we can see the exhaust stacks as they would stand up relative to the building.
This is slightly the enclosure listed here is slightly lower. The applicants have notified us that they're going to build a slightly taller enclosure than this, only by this currently shows approximately 13 feet. The applicants have said it's going to be at least 16.
And no more particular
notes here except for the inclusion of a silencing system on the exhaust stack to reduce
noise in the surrounding area.
Going on to some renderings,
you can see how the exhaust stacks would look behind
the previously mentioned sanitation screening.
And this this would be from the parking lot that we previously saw, including the screening that applicants are proposing.
Provide. That
pardon
me. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions, that the relief from screening requirement does not apply to any structure over 38 feet. It has to remain as it is currently proposed, and that the relief from the screening requirement only applies to the exhaust acts shown on the site plan received by the city on May 21. This is slightly worded differently than how
staff originally put it into
the staff report. We originally said ground mounted equipment. We wanted to make sure we specify that this variance wouldn't
apply to the future fuel tanks, that it only applies to the exhaust stacks. That would be the only difference in the conditions that you might see.
And, that is the full summary of the project from staff.
Mister Kowalski speaking.
We keep saying 38 feet. I thought I saw in here that the height of the stack is approximately
38 feet more or less. Did I
the applicants will be
And the applicants will be able to answer more questions about this. So they are present today. I can hold that question till the applicants present.
Any questions from,
board at this point?
Would the applicant like to present?
Good evening, mister chairman, members of the board.
My name is Hayes Daley. I represent PBS Aerospace.
Just as a little bit of a background,
you know, we made an announcement to move to Roswell to open up our jet engine factory in February.
We,
we moved into this facility at 1350 North Meadow Parkway in April.
We're planning to be building jet engines,
in very near future.
Of course, the test cell facility that we are discussing tonight is a very essential part to the assembly and test of,
small turbojet engines. We are a defense company. We'll be supporting the United States Department of Defense.
And,
assuming we're able to ramp up at the rate we would like to, we'll make Roswell the number one producer of military jet engines in the country.
So we think we have a very unique,
position
to
attract more economic development, more jobs, more people to Roswell. And,
none of this rapid expansion would have been possible without the,
thorough support of the city of Roswell, mayor Wilson, city council, and everyone on staff who has,
provided tremendous support. So I wanna thank you all again,
for
getting us to where we are tonight.
And
I don't really have much else to say on a technical,
point of view.
I think, mister Dixon
has presented everything well, and we agree,
and and we appreciate your recommendation for approval.
Just happy to answer any questions about the,
about this variance that each of you may may
have. Mister Kowalski, are you the right person to mention whether the stack is 38 foot or kind of 38 foot and more or less?
It is no more than 38 feet. No more than 38 feet. Okay.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, sorry.
No. No. Okay.
Question to staff. Were there any was there any, letters received
either
in support or opposing?
Shay Dixon planning and zoning staff. There were no letters of support or opposition received by by staff,
as of today. Okay.
I'd like to ask if there's anybody from the public who would like to speak tonight on this matter.
K. Thank you.
I'm assuming there will be no applicant rebuttal at this point.
Fair.
Chair recognizes mister Hoard.
So in what you're proposing,
Rocky Hoard. I'm sorry. I'm I'm here on the board of zoning appeals.
To the applicant for what the the stacks that you're proposing,
what's the approximate
diameter outer diameter of those stacks?
Yep. So what I'm getting at is if we grant the variance, you know, and all of a sudden now, they they widen out to 10 feet because you're building a lot more jets,
jet engines, then I don't think that's what the the board would have in mind. So
No. So
I guess what I don't see in the record is,
a description or the specifications on those on those stacks, but maybe I'd maybe I overlooked it.
If you don't mind, Jeanne Payton, planning and zoning director,
staff has recommended a condition
that,
would condition the approval
to the site plan submitted with this application. I don't know if that
helps with
your consideration. Does the site plan
sufficiently
It is describe the would be measurable,
so we
would better what is submitted in the building permit to
match what is
being approved
should you condition it in that way.
So what you're seeing would have to match what is proposed later on. Thank you.
Mister Kowalski here.
So I believe, if I understand correctly, this is for a test cell.
There are certain
the test cell can test a certain number of engines, maybe one at a time, maybe more at a time. And if production were to ramp up, you still can't test more engines in that cell. You would have to create
additional cells and deal with whatever variances are needed at that time with those additional cells. Do I understand correctly?
Yes,
sir.
I just asked him to come to the microphone if any more conversation take place.
Okay.
Yes, sir. That what you said is correct. K.
Shay is plenty loud, so
we we granted leniency earlier.
In this case,
I'm going to, close the meeting now to public discussion. We can call anybody up, and,
I will entertain a motion if anybody would like to make a motion.
The chair recognizes mister Hoard.
I would like to, make a motion that we approve
the
requested variance subject to a couple of conditions.
To say that more specifically that the application for variance
for relief from the screening requirements
of UDC
section ten point two point eight point d,
be be permitted
such that the height
excuse me. The applicable height requirement
be reduced to
16 feet,
but subject to the conditions
that the height of the proposed
exhaust stacks
be less than or equal to 38 feet from ground level.
And the second condition being
that the dimensions
of the,
ground mounted equipment,
match
those shown on the site plan received by the city on 05/21/2025.
Is there a second?
Mister Hannah seconds?
Discussion?
Chair recognizes mister Huey.
This question I actually, Rocky. So you're trying to ensure that we don't build a 13 foot fence. It truly is a 16 foot fence and then
screening no more than 38
feet or the screening of 16 feet. The exhaust stack is no more than 38 feet. That's just to summarize what you're asking there because there was some discussion about 13 feet versus 16 feet. Thank you for your excellent summary.
There you go. Thank you.
Mister Kowalski,
does that meet the intent of what the applicant is trying to achieve?
Yes. I see. I heard a yes, and I see no heads nodding.
Further discussion?
In that case, take a vote. All in favor
of
the variance as presented by mister Hoard?
Let it show that it is unanimous.
All five members
approve.
I believe the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from
a month ago.
Chair recognizes mister Hanna.
Make a motion that we approve
minutes
from
June 10 BZA meeting.
Chair recognizes mister Huey. I second the motion. Mister Huey seconds. All in favor?
Unanimous.
I move to adjourn if there's no objection.
Hearing no objection, we are adjourned.