Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SUMMARY Stonecrest City Hall - 6:30 PM *Spoke-in-Person Meeting September 19, 2023 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ As set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Stonecrest will assist citizens with special needs given notice (7 working days) to participate in any open meetings of the City of Stonecrest. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office via telephone (770-224-0200). I. Call to Order Commissioner Michael Armstrong called the meeting to order 07.02 pm. II. Roll Call Chairman Michael Armstrong (District 4) called the roll. Ms. Gwendolyn Green (District 2) and Mr. Shedrick Harris (District 5) were present. Ms. Kelly Ross (District 1) and Ms. Sonja Hicks (District 3) were absent. There was a quorum. The Planning & Zoning - Ray White, Deputy Director – Matthew Williams, Senior Planner – Tre’Jon Singletary and Planner - Abeykoon Abeykoon were present. Attorney Alicia Thompson, Fincher Denmark, LLC, virtually attended. III. Approval of the Agenda Need: Chairman Michael Armstrong (District 4) called for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Agenda dated September 19,2023 was called for a motion to approve. Mr. Shedrick Harris (District 5) motioned to APPROVE. Ms. Gwendolyn Green (District 2) second the motion. The motion was unanimously APPROVED. IV. Minutes: Commissioner Michael Armstrong called for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary dated June 20, 2023, was called for a motion to approve the Zoning Boards of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary dated June 20, 2023. Ms. Gwendolyn Green (District 2) motioned to APPROVE. Mr. Shedrick Harris (District 5) seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously APPROVED. V. Announcement: The Planning & Zoning – Senior Planner – Tre’Jon Singletary explains about the Planning & Zoning “Project Viewer” which provides more information to the public regarding different planning and zoning projects that are currently going through the process. The project viewer is an interactive digital map showing planning activities such as Land Development Permits (LDP), Rezonings (RZ), Special Land Use Permits (SLUP), Variances (V) and Special Administrative Permits (SAP). VI. Presentations: Upcoming Cases Presented by Ms. Abeykoon Abeykoon, Planner V-23-005 VII. Old Business: No Old Business. VIII. New Business Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary 09-19-2023 -|Page 1 of 10  LAND USE PETITION: V23-005 PETITIONER: Battle Law P.C. on behalf of Atlanta Residential Investors LLC LOCATION: 2375 Panola Road OVERLAY DISTRICT: I-20 Tier 2 PETITIONER’S REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking a Variance to reduce stream buffer from seventy-five (75) feet to fifty (50) feet. The Planning & Zoning, Planner – Abeykoon Abeykoon Presented V-23-005. “Today we have only one case it is V-23-005. The Address is 2375 Panola Road. The applicant is seeking a stream buffer variance to reduce the required seventy-five (75) foot stream buffer to fifty (50) feet for a mixed-use development. The subject property belong to council District 2 and District representative is Mr. Rob Turner. Future Land use or the Character area of the property is Light Industrial. Underline Zoning of the property is M – Light Industrial and it also property is within the I -20 overlay district Tier 2.” Future Land use of the area Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary 09-19-2023 -|Page 2 of 10 Overlay and Underline Zoning Districts of the property. “According to the areal map of the area the property is currently undisturbed vacant land.” Areal map and the areal image of the area Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary 09-19-2023 -|Page 3 of 10  “Site plan shows the proposed mixed-used development. Staff provided a enhance image that clearly show the requested 25 stream buffer and the development that will take place on that encroached area.” Site plan of the property and Enhanced image of the site plan “The Petitioner’s Stated Hardship, it is the unusual shape of property, and the Stream traverses the rear of the subject property and steam buffer requirement (75 feet) had limited the buildable area. The Zoning Ordinance that applicant seek the releasement is Chapter 14 (Land Development) – Article 7 – Sec.14-543 (minimum Stream Buffer Requirements). Petitioner’s request variance to reduce stream buffer requirement from seventy-five (75) feet to fifty (50) feet. Chapter 14 (Land Development) – Article 7 (Stream Buffer) – Sec. 14-543 (Minimum Stream Buffer Requirements) Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary 09-19-2023 -|Page 4 of 10  STAFF ANALYSIS Following are the specific variance considerations listed in Sec 7.5.3 of the Stonecrest Zoning Ordinance that must be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance. These considerations include: A. By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of exceptional topographic and other site conditions (such as, but not limited to, floodplain, major stand of trees, steep slope), which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. The subject property has an irregular lot shape and narrows in the southern portion. The natural structure of subject property (with a stream & rough topography) itself reduced the buildable area. Status of the property is an undisturbed lot (vacant). The magnitude of proposed development should not exceed the minimum requirements that impact on environmental sensitivity and sustainability. B. The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The requested variance goes beyond the minimum necessary requirements to afford relief. C. The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The grand of the stream buffer variance will impact on the water quality of the subject stream and reduce the positive impact of vegetated buffers near streams such as filtration of storm water runoff, water in streams, and disallow wildlife a critical corridor for moving throughout an ecosystem. D. The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship. The hardship of the development is basically not having sufficient buildable areas to accommodate requirements (such as parking) for the proposed project magnitude or scale of the development. Therefore, the redesign of the project could avoid the hardship. E. The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the Stonecrest Comprehensive Plan text. The proposed variance does not comply with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and current ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings and conclusions, it appears the requesting stream buffer variance does not comply with the city of Stonecrest ordinance chapter 27; Sec 7.5.3 (A) (1) and Chapter 14; Article VII; Sec. 14-544. Therefore, staff recommends Denial of V23-005. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary 09-19-2023 -|Page 5 of 10 Chapter 14 (Land Development) – Article 7 (Stream Buffer) – Sec. 14-544 (Exemptions and special administrative permits.) Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary 09-19-2023 -|Page 6 of 10 Chapter 27 (Zoning Ordinance) – Article 7 (Administration) – Sec. 7.5.3 (Applications for variances; and criteria to be used by the zoning board of appeals in deciding applications for variances.) A (1) Gwendolyn Green (District 2): Ask for a clarification staff analysis number 5; The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the Stonecrest Comprehensive Plan text. The Planning & Zoning, Planner – Abeykoon Abeykoon states that the proposed variance does not comply with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and current ordinance. Chairman Armstrong: asked is there a possible alternative franchise to obtain a relief to proposed steam buffer requirement. The Planning & Zoning Director - Ray White explains that the applicant who states the hardship should advocate alternatives and staff consider the characteristics of land, city ordinance and argument of the variance to offer a relief. Chairman Michael Armstrong asked for a motion to open public hearing. Gwendolyn Green (District 2) motioned to open the public hearing. Mr. Shedrick Harris (District 5) seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously approved. Michele Battle – Battle Law P.C (on behalf of the applicant) make the presentation. The location is an interesting place to proposed site which adjacent to the Industrial Park. The subject property is currently vacant and abuts industrial and industrial uses including Coca-Cola vending, Pyramid Masonry Contractors, and the Kingdom Life Church Worldwide Ministries. Property in question traverses by a stream located along the western perimeter of the site. That covers roughly half of the site and makes unusable land due to 75 feet buffer. When considering the entire site; it is very compacted because of the presence of stream buffer. The whole intent of the variance request is that the shape size and topography of the property would deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary 09-19-2023 -|Page 7 of 10  Presentation: Slide 01 Presentation Slide 02: The buildable area of this property significantly reduced because of the location of stream buffer. The site can be developed without any rezoning for multifamily products which consider a mixed- use product were providing retail on the first floor of the primary building. The site is located along the Panola corridor and if the project moved closer in the right way the project will require a setback reduction. Residence closer to an arterial road could be more hazardous. When the project needs to meet the parking requirements for the number of units the total number of parking spaces is 160. Because this is a mixed-use development, the developer must provide 30 additional parking spaces for the retail component. This is one of the first projects that would be along this corridor that have a mixed-use building. Many of the south side municipalities request the proposed type developments have a retail component on the first floor of the building. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary 09-19-2023 -|Page 8 of 10  Presentation Slide: 03 Presentation Slide 04: Proposed building visual. Thre are no alternative adjected units to the site which could provide required parking facilities for the residents. The proposed site can meet the water quality requirements to make sure the water quality of the stream and no record for threated wildlife presence. Petitioners respectfully request a approval for the proposed variance. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Summary 09-19-2023 -|Page 9 of 10