Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA JULY 15, 2020 7:00 PM CITY HALL A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes: March 20, 2019 C. Approval of Agenda D. Old Business: (None) E. New Business: V2020-002 Brian & Trisha Bjurmark. Request to vary from Zoning Code Section 1001.5.b to permit a recreational vehicle to be parked in the side yard of a single-family property located at 5746 Fairley Hall Court in Dist. 6, Land Lot 346, Peachtree Corners, GA V2020-003 Rubina Habib. Request to encroach into the required 25’ impervious setback area landward of the required 50’ stream buffer to allow for construction of a new single-family home at 3621 Farmington Ln. in Dist. 6, Land Lot 300, Peachtree Corners, GA V2020-004 Norcross Realty Holdings. Request to reduce the required buffer between dissimilar zoning districts from 75’ to 10’ and to reduce the required minimum parking from 14 to 9 spaces to allow for construction of a new gas station and retail center at 5211 Buford Hwy. in Dist. 6, Land Lot 256, Peachtree Corners, GA F. City Business Items: (None) G. Comments by Board Members. H. Adjournment.  DRAFT COPY CITY OF PEACHTREE CORNERS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES March 20, 2019 7:00PM The City of Peachtree Corners held a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The meeting was held at City Hall, 310 Technology Parkway, Peachtree Corners, GA, 30092. The following were in attendance: Zoning Board of Appeals: Wayne Knox, Post B Marcia Brandes, Post A Amreeta Regmi, Post C Matthew Gries, Post D - absent James Kucik, Post E Jack DeLong, Alternate Member Sherry Ferguson, Alternate Member Staff: Diana Wheeler, Com. Dev. Director Jeff Conkle, Planning & Zoning Admin. Rocio Monterrosa, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Approval of February 20, 2019 Minutes. MOTION TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 20, 2019 MINUTES. By: Marcia Brandes Seconded: James Kucik Vote: (5-0) (Brandes, Kucik, Knox, Regmi, Ferguson) AGENDA: Approval of the March Agenda MOTION TO APPROVE THE MARCH 20, 2019 AGENDA. By: Amreeta Regmi Seconded: Marica Brandes Vote: (5-0) (Regmi, Brandes, Knox, Kucik, Ferguson) OLD BUSINESS: V2019-001 Norcross Realty Holding, LLC. (Continued from February 20, 2019) V2019-001 Norcross Realty Holding, LLC. Request to reduce the required buffer between dissimilar zoning districts from 75’ to 10’ and to reduce the minimum parking from 14 spaces to 9 spaces to allow for construction of a new gas station and retail center at 5211 Buford Hwy. in Dist. 6, Land Lot 256, Peachtree Corners, GA. Diana Wheeler, Community Development Director, stated that this case was tabled Page | 1  DRAFT COPY to the March meeting so that the applicant could provide the following: • A revised layout plan that provided for adequate parking while minimizing impacts on surrounding residential properties • Architectural elevations of the proposed buildings and structures • Evidence of a community meeting to address the concerns of surrounding residents The applicant has provided a new layout plan which shifts the building and gas canopy further into the site, allowing additional parking in the front of the property and thus eliminating the need for a parking variance. The rear 75’ buffer is maintained and the requested side buffer reduction to 10’ remains the same. Architectural elevations of the retail building have been provided and show a brick, stucco and glass storefront building. The brick and stucco cover the front and two sides, while the rear is a metal panel finish. The applicant held a community meeting with concerned neighbors on the evening of March 13, 2019. The applicant’s representative, Terry Boomer, stated that his client agrees with staff requiremendations and that they met with the surrounding neighbors, they are still in opposition of request. Mr. Boomer also stated that with the new layout he is addressing traffic circulation, adding sidewalks on both frontages and decelaration lane is not being removed. They are also willing to add additional signage about dead end on Herrington Drive. Chairman Knox opened the floor to anyone wanting to speak in favor or opposition to the application. There were 4 comments in opposition to the application stating traffic, noise, light and possible crime issues. Commissioners asked applicant about hours of refuling pumps, need for additional retail space and the viability of the gas station at this location. A motion was made after discussion. BASED ON A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE RECORD AND THE HEARING BEFORE THIS BODY, I MOVE THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND DENY THE VARIANCE ON THE BASES THAT (1) THERE ARE NO EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE, SHAPE AND TOPOGRAPHY; AND, (2) THE REQUIREMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY WOULD NOT CREATE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IN TERMS OF ZONING, BUT BUFFER THEY ARE REQUESTING; AND, (3) SUCH CONDITIONS ARE NOT THE RESULT OF ANY ACTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER; AND, (4) RELIEF, WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND IMPAIR THE PURPOSES OR INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION. By: Marcia Brandes Seconded: James Kucik Vote: (5-0) (Brandes, Kucik, Knox, Regmi, Ferguson) Page | 2  DRAFT COPY OLD BUSINESS: V2019-002 Soren Thomas. Request to permit an accessory structure in the front yard and to increase the permitted height of a fence or wall at an existing residence at 3552 Jones Mill Rd. in Dist. 6, Land Lot 281, Peachtree Corners, GA. Diana Wheeler, Community Development Director, stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow an accessory structure to remain in the front yard of the property and to allow a fence/wall to exceed the maximum 4’ in height when located in a front yard. If approved, the applicant would be able retain the accessory structure and fence/wall in their current condition; both were built without permits. The property in question is a large, non-conforming residential parcel at the end of Jones Mill Road, approximately 2000 feet east of Winters Chapel Road. The parcel is non-conforming because it contains two single-family homes on one lot: a smaller one on the western side of the property and a larger one (relevant to this case) on the eastern side. The property has been under enforcement for code violations for approximately the last two years. The larger home and the accessory structure, which is the subject of this variance request, were renovated, expanded, and/or constructed without permits. The accessory structure in question is an open-air pavilion (termed a “gazebo” by the applicant) containing an outdoor fireplace and seating areas under a roof. The pavilion’s columns and fireplace are constructed of brick with asphalt shingles on the roof. The property also has a fence/wall constructed of brick, stone and stucco that is the subject of a variance request. The variance is being requested because the wall exceeds the 4’ height limit in several areas, varying from just a few inches over 4’ to one foot over the 4’ limit. Section 600 of the zoning ordinance permits accessory structures only in the rear yard of residential properties. The location in question is the front yard, directly adjacent to the front property line. In the letter of intent, the applicant states that the street (Jones Mill Road) has not been maintained by the city or county and thus views it as “abandoned.” The applicant further states that the perceived abandonment of the street renders the definition and application of “front,” “side,” or “rear” yards for zoning purposes moot, thus allowing the accessory structure in its current location and the fence/wall to exceed 4’ because it is not in the “front” yard. Jones Mill Road has never been formally abandoned and regardless of this fact, the property has a front yard for zoning purposes. Additionally, maintenance of the area between the pavement and the adjacent private property is the responsibility of the adjacent private property owner, not the city, and failure to maintain it does not constitute abandonment by the city. Sec. 10-346 of the Property Maintenance Code requires “All premises yards and exterior property shall be maintained free from debris, litter, and rubbish, as well as grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches in height. The term 'exterior property' shall include all areas on the property to the edge of street pavement. All noxious weeds shall be prohibited.” The code also defines “exterior property” further as “the open space on the premises and on adjoining property under the control of owners or operators of such premises.” The property’s 8+ acres allow for numerous viable alternative locations for accessory structures which can comply with the zoning ordinance’s location requirement. Additionally, the fence/wall is clearly within the area at the front of the property that limits such structures to 4’ in height. After reviewing the applicant’s request and the variance criteria, Staff finds that given the property’s large size and multiple alternative ways in which to comply Page | 3  DRAFT COPY with zoning regulations, a hardship cannot be justified. If the Board does consider approval of the variance requests, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The accessory structure shall remain in its current state and shall not be permitted to increase in footprint or height nor otherwise expand. 2. The fence/wall shall remain in its current state and shall not be permitted to increase in height, length, area enclosed, or any other change to the current configuration. 3. The applicant shall submit an engineer’s letter to the City Building Official describing the construction of the accessory structure. The applicant shall also apply for the required building permit(s). The Applicant’s representative, Wallace Nichols, stated that they are aware of the violations and are working with the City to bring the property up to compliance. Mr. Nichols also stated that the Pavilion should not be destroyed since their property is on a dead end street and not affecting anyone. Chairman Knox opened the floor to anyone wanting to speak in favor or opposition to the application.Three applicants spoke in opposition stating, that the owners should not be exempt from following the City ordinances. Commissioners spoke about not finding hardship on the pavilion, but see no problem with leaving the fence/wall up. A motion was made after discussion. BASED ON A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE RECORD AND THE HEARING BEFORE THIS BODY, I MOVE THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE PAVILLION AND DENY THE VARIANCE ON THE BASES THAT (1) THERE ARE NO EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE, SHAPE AND TOPOGRAPHY; AND THAT ANY HARDSHIP WAS SELF-IMPOSED BY OWNER FOR NOT GETTING A PERMIT BEFORE BUILDING BECAUSE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE AGREED TO THE PERMIT TO BUILD. FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE WALL, I MOVE THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND APPROVE THE VARIANCE ON KEEPING THE WALL AS LONG AS ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED ACCORDING TO THE CITY STAFF ON THE BASES THAT (1) THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAUSE OF ITS EROSION AND TOPOGRAPHIC IRREGULARITY ; AND, (2) THE REQUIREMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY WOULD NOT CREATE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IN TERMS OF ZONIG,; AND, (3) SUCH CONDITIONS ARE NOT THE RESULT OF ANY ACTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER; AND, (4) RELIEF, WOULD NOT CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND IMPAIR THE PURPOSES OR INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION. THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR A BULDING PERMIT. THE FENCE/WALL SHALL REMAIN IN IT’S CURRENT STATE AND SHALL NOT Page | 4  DRAFT COPY BE PERMITTED TO INCREASE IN HEIGHT LENGTH OR AREA ENCLOSED OR ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION. By: Marcia Brandes Seconded: James Kucik Vote: (5-0) (Brandes, Kucik, Knox, Regmi, Ferguson) CITY BUSINESS ITEMS: Jeff Conkle, Planning and Zoning Administrator stated that there will be no Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on April. COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS: None. AJDOURNMENT: MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:24 PM. By: Amreeta Regmi Seconded: Sherry Ferguson Vote: (5-0) (Regmi, Ferguson, Knox, Brandes, Kucik) Approved, Attest: _________________________ __________________________ Wayne Knox, Chairman Rocio Monterrosa, Deputy City Clerk Page | 5  V2020-002 5746 Fairley Hall Court  City of Peachtree Corners Zoning Board of Appeals July 15, 2020 CASE NUMBER: V2020-002 PROPERTY LOCATION: 5746 Fairley Hall Court 6th District, Land Lot 346, Parcel 043 CURRENT ZONING: R-100 PARCEL SIZE: 0.60 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Brian & Trisha Bjurmark APPLICANT: Brian & Trisha Bjurmark REQUEST The applicants would like to park a recreational vehicle (“RV”) in the side yard of their property. Zoning Ordinance Sec. 1001.5.b permits the parking of an RV in the side yard only if within a garage or carport, otherwise it must be parked in the rear yard. If approved, the applicants would keep the RV parked on the existing driveway in the side yard. LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The property in question is a single-family parcel on the east side of Fairley Hall Court, near the Chattahoochee River, accessed by Revington Drive off Jones Bridge Circle. The home was built in 1988; the driveway and side yard in question are on the left side of the home, as viewed from Fairley Hall Court. VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS Sec. 1605.3 identifies specific findings that must be made in order for a variance to be granted. These findings are as follows: A. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography, and B. the requirements on this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship, and C. such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved, and D. such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner, and E. relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this Resolution. ANALYSIS The zoning ordinance requires RVs to be parked within carports or garages if located in the side yard. Such vehicles may be parked in the rear yard without the need for a carport or garage if located 15’ from adjacent property lines. The property owner does not want to alter the rear yard to create an RV parking area and chose to apply for this variance. In his letter of intent, the applicants state that if they have to relocate the RV behind the house, they will be required to modify the topography and remove several existing trees, shrubs, and other landscaping that add value to their property and the neighborhood. If they were to build an enclosure to screen the RV, it would negatively affect the aesthetics of the home and, by extension, its value. The adjoining neighbors to the left and across the street were consulted and have signed letters indicating their preference to keep the RV as it is currently situated. CONCLUSION After reviewing the applicant’s request and the variance criteria, Staff finds that maintaining the RV in its current location may be justified. However, it may be possible to install a narrow canopy, similar to a carport, over the RV to enclose it and minimize its appearance to neighboring properties. The applicant’s letter of intent includes a statement concerning their willingness to include a sunset provision with an approval and a restriction to limit the approval to their existing RV.  V2020-003 3621 Farmington Lane  City of Peachtree Corners Zoning Board of Appeals July 15, 2020 CASE NUMBER: V2020-003 PROPERTY LOCATION: 3621 Farmington Lane 6th District, Land Lot 300, Parcel 179 CURRENT ZONING: R-100 PARCEL SIZE: 0.74 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Rubina Habib APPLICANT: Rubina Habib REQUEST The applicant would like to construct a new single-family home on this vacant parcel. The proposed home would extend into the 25’ impervious setback area that adjoins the 50’ buffer from the creek that forms this parcel’s rear property line. LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The property in question is a single-family-zoned parcel at the cul-de-sac of Farmington Lane, a street that is accessed via Wildwoood Farms Drive off Bush Road. The property abuts a creek at the rear which eventually empties into the Chattahoochee River. The property was platted in 1993 and has never been built upon. At the time of platting, the stream buffer regulations were not in place. The requirements for this and other buffers were enacted by Gwinnett County in 2005. Today’s regulations require a 50’ undisturbed natural vegetative buffer plus an additional 25’ impervious setback (totaling 75’ from the creek), thus limiting the buildable area for a home on this property. VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS Sec. 1605.3 identifies specific findings that must be made in order for a variance to be granted. These findings are as follows: A. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography, and B. the requirements on this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship, and  C. such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved, and D. such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner, and E. relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this Resolution. ANALYSIS This lot was platted prior to adoption of the current stream buffer regulations. Recently, the property owner became interested in constructing a home on the lot. After discussion with staff, we were able to grant an administrative variance for a front setback reduction to 25’ (reduced from the standard 35’) to allow the home to be moved away from the buffer area. However, the property owner would like to build a ranch style home to accommodate their medical needs and a home of that type does not fit within the buildable area of the property. In order to build a one-level home, the owner will need the buffer reduction that is the subject of this request. The adjacent home at 3631 Farmington Lane and the home two lots away at 3641 Farmington Lane both encroach into the 75’ impervious setback area. Therefore, a home with the location being requested by the applicant would not be out of character for the neighborhood. CONCLUSION After reviewing the applicant’s proposal and the variance criteria, staff finds that the buffer encroachment may be justified, as there are conditions unique to the property that are not the result of any action of the current property owner. The property owner’s actions did not create the stream buffer requirements that were enacted after platting of the lot. However, the property was purchased in February 2020, so the code requirements and parcel limitations were known to the owner at that time. If approval of the stream buffer variance is considered, the following condition is recommended: • The applicant shall not encroach more than 25’ into the impervious buffer and shall not create any additional impervious area within the impervious setback beyond that which is needed for construction of the home. View of vacant lot at 3621 Farmington Lane  V2020-004 5211 Buford Highway  City of Peachtree Corners Zoning Board of Appeals July 15, 2020 CASE NUMBER: V2019-001 PROPERTY LOCATION: 5211 Buford Highway 6th District, Land Lot 256, Parcel 028 CURRENT ZONING: C-2 PARCEL SIZE: 1.112 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Norcross Realty Holding, LLC APPLICANT: Norcross Realty Holding, LLC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a reduction in the buffer required between dissimilar zoning districts. In this case, the applicant’s C-2 property adjoins an R-75 property to the northeast at 5195 Buford Highway. If approved, the applicant would reduce the 75’ buffer to a 10’ buffer to allow for construction of a gas station and two, small retail tenant spaces on the property. The applicant is also requesting reduction in minimum parking from 14 spaces to 9 spaces because of the small size of the lot. HISTORY The property was previously the subject of the same variance request at the Zoning Board of Appeals initially in February 2019 but continued to March 2019. The ZBA ultimately denied the variance. The applicant has chosen to exercise their right to reapply after one year of time has elapsed since the last application. The previous application first contained (at the Feb. 2019 hearing) a proposed layout that included the buffer reduction and parking variance, which is the same layout proposed in today’s July 2020 hearing (see attached Exhibit A). Because of the parking and circulation concerns raised by the board members and the public in February 2019, staff drew a conceptual plan which reduced the variance requests and provided that to the applicant (see attached Exhibit B). The applicant then came back in March 2019 with a revised plan which did not mirror the staff’s plan, but which did reconfigure the site to accommodate the required parking, thus reducing the variance request to just that of the buffer reduction (see attached Exhibit C). The applicant’s plan submitted with this application is identical to Exhibit A, the one first proposed in February 2019. At the hearings in 2019, area residents as well as the property owners to the immediate north and west spoke in opposition to the request. LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The property in question is a commercial parcel on the west side of Buford Highway at the corner of Herrington Drive. The front of the property has approximately 150’ of frontage on Buford and approximately 315’ of frontage on Herrington. The property contains an existing commercial building constructed in 1974 which would be torn down to construct the proposed use. Because of the substantial buffer requirement of 75’, the property would be developable only on its southern half, thus significantly constraining the site. VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS Sec. 1605.3 identifies specific findings that must be made in order for a variance to be granted. These findings are as follows: A. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography, and B. the requirements on this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship, and C. such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved, and D. such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner, and E. relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this Resolution. ANALYSIS The zoning ordinance requires a 75’ buffer between commercial and residential zoning districts to mitigate any negative impact of the adjoining uses. Because of the subject property’s small size, the 75’ buffer impacts approximately half of the lot, thus limiting its redevelopment potential. If the buffer requirement were applied, the buildable portion of the site would be reduced from 150 ft. to 75 ft. It would be difficult to develop the property commercially with only 75 ft. of property width. Additionally, the small site restricts the amount of parking that can be provided, thus resulting in the applicant’s request to reduce the number of spaces from 14 to 9. However, it should be noted that the two small retail tenant spaces add to the need for the buffer reduction and the parking variance. Without these tenant spaces, the buffer could be reduced to 50% instead of 85% and there would be no need for a parking variance. It is possible, however, that the two retail spaces are required to make the project financially viable and removing them may make the project unbuildable in that regard. In the letter of intent, the applicants state that the area covered by the 75’ buffer requirement was previously used as parking, albeit unpaved. The buffer area is also not currently vegetated beyond some grass/groundcover. The letter also states that the residential property adjoining this site is approximately 10’ higher in elevation and the applicant proposes to install new privacy fencing and landscaping in the remaining 10’ buffer area to provide screening for the residential property. Also, in the letter of intent, the applicant believes the fuel pump islands should count toward the parking requirement because gas customers are using those spaces to park during fuel purchases. If counted, the fuel parking would increase their parking count to 17. The buffer requirement affects the north and west side of the applicant’s property. However, the variance request for a buffer reduction only applies to the north side of the property because the west side buffer has been met. CONCLUSION After reviewing the applicant’s request and the variance criteria, Staff finds that given the small size of the property, the amount of buffer required for this site could be considered a hardship. Although reducing the scope of the project would decrease the buffer variance and eliminate the parking variance, it might also undermine the viability of the development. Therefore, if the Board considers approval of the variance requests, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The property shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the submitted plan shown on Exhibit C (noted on the drawing as ‘received on 3/5/2019’) by Civil Consulting Engineers, Inc., (which does not require a parking variance). 2. The 10 ft. buffer adjacent to the residential property to the north shall include a 6 ft. high privacy fence and a landscape buffer consisting of a double staggered row of evergreen plantings at least 6’ in height at the time of planting spaced 15’ apart. 3. The 75 ft. buffer adjacent to the residential property to the west shall include a 6 ft. high privacy fence and a landscape buffer consisting of a double staggered row of evergreen plantings at least 6’ in height at the time of planting spaced 15’ apart. EXHIBIT A Applicant Site Plan Version 1 February 2019 EXHIBIT B Staff-Suggested Site Plan Feb-Mar 2019  EXHIBIT C Applicant Site Plan Version 2 N March 2019 MUNICIPALITY: MUNICIPALITY ADDRESS: MUNICIPALITY PHONE: Revisions: Building Prototype: Project Number: Project Name: GWINNETT COUNTY C-STORE Project Address: 5211 BUFORD HIGHWAY Project Address: PEACHTREE CORNERS, GA 30071 Client: GENERAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, LLC Client Address: 1833 LAWRENCEVILLE HWY Client Address: DECATUR, GA 30033 Date: 6/11/18 Dwg: PRJ1 Civil Consulting Engineers, Inc. IT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT 211 EAST MAIN STREET UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION AS THE LOCATION OF UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAT ARE Canton, GA 30114 APPROXIMATE AND POSSIBLY INCOMPLETE. THEREFORE CERTIFICATION TO THE LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND 3/5/19 678-462-4072 UTILITIES ARE WITHHELD. CivilConsultingEngineersinc.com Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. SITE PLAN RECEIVED 3/5/2019 C1 ENGINEER OF RECORD View of front along Buford Highway. Neighboring residential property on the right. View of property at the corner of Buford Highway and Herrington Drive