2026-11-05 - Board of Zoning Adjustment

Summary

Built from the captions; no agenda document or minutes were retrieved. Names and numbers may be misheard.

V-25-248 – Variances and special exceptions for front-yard setback, lot coverage, driveway area/width, garage recess, and retaining-wall heights for a bridge/stairs on a District 6/NPU F single-family lot. Staff recommended denial without prejudice; the board voted 4-0 (Perry, Thomas, Bacon, Williams aye) to deny without prejudice.
V-26-100 – Appeal of an administrative officer's decision for a District 9/NPU E property. Staff recommended denial without prejudice; the board voted 4-0 to deny without prejudice.
V-26-109 – Variances to increase building height to 37 ft 4 in and retaining-wall height from 6 ft to 17 ft for a new single-family dwelling in District 8/NPU C. Staff recommended deferral; the board voted 4-0 to defer to December 3, 2026.
V-26-111 – Variances to reduce side and front setbacks and increase lot coverage for a new three-story single-family dwelling in District 5/NPU N. Staff recommended deferral; the board voted 4-0 to defer to December 10, 2026.
V-26-137 – Appeal of an administrative officer's decision for a District 11/NPU S property. Staff recommended denial without prejudice; the board voted 4-0 to deny without prejudice.
V-26-139 – Special exception to reduce required parking from 31 to 7 spaces for a new restaurant in District 2/NPU F. Staff recommended deferral; the board voted 4-0 to defer to December 10, 2026.
V-26-144 – Special exception to allow active recreation in a street-adjacent yard for a pool, spa, and patio extension in District 8/NPU C. Staff recommended deferral; the board voted 4-0 to defer to December 10, 2026.
Consent agenda – V-26-141 and V-26-143 – V-26-141 sought variances for a new detached garage, and V-26-143 sought a special exception for an active recreational pool in a street-adjacent yard, both in District 5/NPU O. The board voted 4-0 to approve the consent agenda as read.
V-26-142 – Variance to reduce the half-depth front-yard setback from 15 ft to 3.8 ft for a second-story addition in District 2/NPU M. Removed from consent after a request to be heard; staff and NPU recommended approval. The board voted 4-0 to approve, noting the work stayed within the existing footprint.
V-26-073 – Variances to increase the transitional height plane from 35 ft to 59 ft and reduce the transitional yard from 20 ft to 0 ft for a new multifamily development in the Blandtown area / District 9/NPU D. Staff recommended approval; NPU recommended denial. The board voted 4-0 to approve.
V-26-101 – Variance to increase front-yard driveway width from 20 ft to 43 ft and special exception for parking in the required front yard in District 8/NPU A. Staff recommended denial; NPU recommended approval. The board voted 4-0 to approve, finding it likely not detrimental to the public.
V-26-126 – Variance to increase lot coverage from 50% to 62.77% for a screen porch with fireplace in District 5/NPU N. Staff and NPU recommended approval, NPU with a condition. The board voted 4-0 to approve, conditioned on the site plan received by the Office of Zoning Development on September 17, 2026.
V-26-135 – Variances to reduce front-yard setback from 17.5 ft to 7 ft and rear-yard setback from 15 ft to 7 ft, plus special exceptions for an active recreation pool, an 8 ft privacy fence, and an 11 ft retaining wall for a new single-family dwelling in Virginia Highland / District 2/NPU F. Staff recommended approval of the setbacks, pool, and retaining wall, and denial without prejudice of the fence height; NPU recommended deferral. The board voted 4-0 to approve the first three components and deny the privacy-fence height without prejudice.

Agenda

Agenda adoption and consent-agenda adjustment
V-25-248 – Denied without prejudice
V-26-100 – Denied without prejudice
V-26-109 – Deferred to December 3, 2026
V-26-111 – Deferred to December 10, 2026
V-26-137 – Denied without prejudice
V-26-139 – Deferred to December 10, 2026
V-26-144 – Deferred to December 10, 2026
Consent agenda: V-26-141 and V-26-143 – Approved
V-26-142 – Approved
V-26-073 – Approved
V-26-101 – Approved
V-26-126 – Approved with site-plan condition
V-26-135 – Approved in part; privacy-fence height denied without prejudice

Sources

Video (1:47:34): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2RHiQz8jUI

Video

Transcript

*These captions were uploaded by the channel; names and numbers may still be misheard.

Transcript

08:14OK. Good afternoon, ladies and

08:17gentlemen. This meeting is

08:18being held and in compliance

08:19with With the Georgia Open

08:23Meetings Act OCGA 5014-1. This

08:27this meeting is the Board of

08:28Zoning Adjustment of

08:30five-member board created by

08:31the Atlanta City Council and

08:32confirmed by the Atlanta City

08:35Council. It has created to

08:36exercise and perform all the

08:37functions, powers, and duties

08:39of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

08:41My name is Michael Williams,

08:43chair of the board. I have the

08:44honor of introducing the other

08:45members of the board. With us

08:48today is Mr. Philip Perry, Miss

08:50Ayesha J. Thomas, and Vice.

08:50Chair, Mr. Kevin Bacon. Ms.

08:54Angela Blatch is secretary of

08:56the board, Ms. Valerie

08:58Lemberger is with the Office of

08:59Zoning Development. Also

09:02present is a Boy's attorney, Mr

09:04Patrick O'Connor. Before we get

09:06started, I'd like to reclaim us

09:06all with some of the rules and

09:09procedures of this meeting

09:11official records of the

09:12proceeding are being taped when

09:14give testimony, please speak

09:15directly into the microphone

09:17and address all comments to

09:19board members. Please be

09:20advised that the board may

09:21adopt a consent agenda today to

09:24approve non-controversial and

09:26routine applications,

09:28non-controversial routine

09:29applications may include

09:30applications with unanimous

09:31recommendations for approval

09:33with no conditions attached

09:34from both plants. staff and NPU

09:38The conditions are attached to

09:41an approval recommendation from

09:42me, the staff for NPU

09:43application will not be

09:44included on the consent agenda

09:46unless the conditions are the

09:48same from the staff and MPU. If

09:51the application is included

09:53within the consent agenda.

09:55Testimony from any party will

09:57not be required. After

09:59carcinogen is sounded, the

10:00board will immediately go into

10:02deliberation, vote on the

10:04consent agenda. However, before

10:05this occurs, the chair will ask

10:06whether any board. member was

10:09to remove an item from the

10:11proposed consent agenda. The

10:11chair will also ask whether any

10:16Applicant or other interested

10:18party wishes to be heard on any

10:20proposed consent consent agenda

10:22item. If so, The application

10:27will be removed from the

10:29consent agenda, and it will be

10:29heard in the order in which it

10:31was received by the secretary

10:33and listed on the published

10:35agenda as amended. Unless the

10:38board acts to amend the agenda

10:40cases are generally heard in

10:41the following order, deferrals,

10:44withdrawals, consent of gender

10:45cases, appeals remaining new

10:47cases and previously deferred

10:49cases. Now Secretary will sound

10:51each case on the agenda and

10:53we'll give planning staff and

10:56NPU recommendation. All cases

10:57will be heard in the orders

10:58listed on the agenda or in

11:01accordance with the amended

11:02agenda as adopted by the board.

11:05Everyone who wishes to speak

11:07must feel sign-in sheet on the

11:09podium prior to presenting any

11:11testimony, each speaker will be

11:13asked to state his or her name

11:15and address for the record. If

11:18that applicant wishes to defer

11:20his or her case, please make

11:22the request to defer

11:23immediately after the case is

11:25sounded and before making any

11:27statements on the merits of the

11:27case. The board may defer or

11:30postpone on a motion of any

11:32board member or on the request

11:34of the filing party only for

11:36good cause and with his consent

11:38of the majority of the board,

11:40cases that are deferred at the

11:42request of the applicant will

11:43be assessed a deferral fee.

11:45Secretary of the board will

11:47notify the applicant of the.

11:48The amount of the required fee,

11:49which should be paid within 3

11:52days, and of notification in

11:54order for the case to be placed

11:56on a subsequent agenda. But

11:59cases being heard today, the

12:01applicant will be allotted a 10

12:02minute, a total of 10 minutes

12:03to present his or her case,

12:05testimony from members of the

12:07public in support of the case

12:09shall be included within the

12:1110-minute applicant

12:12presentation time since the

12:14burden of proof is upon the

12:14applicant. The applicant may

12:16choose to save part of the 10

12:18minute time period for rebuttal

12:19following all of the testimony.

12:21The rebuttal time will be

12:23limited to addressing comments

12:25or questions that have been

12:26raised by the opposition or for

12:28clarification purposes.

12:30purposes. After the initial

12:32presentation by the applicant

12:33parties who opposed the case

12:34shall be allotted a total of 10

12:36minutes to present their

12:38testimony. It benefits these

12:39parties to be as concise and

12:41organized as possible regarding

12:43each presentation and be

12:45considerate of the number of

12:46parties that wish to speak in

12:48opposition of the application.

12:52All testimony taken as if under

12:53oath and subject to the

12:54penalties of perjury, all

12:57testimony should be relevant,

12:58although we do not adhere to

12:59formal court rules of evidence

13:02or material that you submit to

13:03this board becomes can be

13:06easily copied, you may request

13:08that it be returned and our

13:10secretary will do so. in all

13:12testimony board, we're promptly

13:13going to deliberations, have

13:15time to consider the

13:17presentation by all parties and

13:19any relevant material presented

13:20as well as as questions of each

13:23party as desired and necessary

13:25then vote immediately following

13:26each case. No participation by

13:29the public will be permitted to

13:32deliberation unless requested

13:33by a board member. Written

13:35notification from the officer

13:37Zone and Development,

13:38confirming the results of the

13:39hearing will be sent within one

13:41week. The only manage this

13:44board will address are zoning

13:46issues related to applicable

13:47variant special exceptions, or

13:50other appeals as advertised and

13:51stated and published the agenda

13:53for this meeting. Please

13:54address and confine all

13:55comments to that specific

13:57subject in the interest of time

13:58the chair reserves the right to

14:00caution any speaker who has

14:02strayed too far from the

14:04subject at hand and requests

14:05that the Party, remove his or

14:08herself from the room if

14:09disruptive to the proceedings.

14:11The board will decline to

14:13mediate disputes that are not

14:13related to the case. Please

14:16note that this board does not

14:18have authorities over the

14:20policies, procedures of

14:21operations of departments of

14:22the city of Atlanta. We will be

14:25addressing zoning matters

14:26pursuant to the city of Atlanta

14:28zoning ordinance as it relates

14:29to the relevant facts,

14:31particular application and

14:34comments and evidence from the

14:35parties that are before. and

14:37speaking in either support or

14:39denial. One other matter should

14:43be mentioned, differing

14:45viewpoints may be presented

14:46today, and it's possible and

14:47even probable that not everyone

14:49will agree with or be pleased

14:51with the decisions of the board

14:53However, this board intends to

14:54make fair decisions based on

14:56relevant facts of the case and

14:58in accordance with the relevant

15:00ordinance contained in the city

15:01of Atlanta's zoning ordinance.

15:03After this hearing, the result

15:07letters reflecting the board's

15:07decision will be available 7

15:10business days from the date of

15:11the hearing. Finally, no

15:14demonstrations will be

15:15permitted in the chamber.

15:16Please refrain from any

15:18applause or dialogue when any

15:20person is speaking and at the

15:22conclusion of a particular

15:25application hearing, please

15:25depart the chamber in a quiet

15:27and orderly manner. At this

15:29time we ask that you turn off,

15:32vibrate all cell phone paging

15:34devices and flashes from

15:36cameras so that we can proceed

15:38with this little disruption as

15:38possible. When I entertain a

15:41motion to adopt today's

15:43published agenda. Mr. Chair, I

15:43move that we adopt today's

15:45agenda with the exception of

15:46moving the following cases to

15:47the top of our agenda for

15:49consideration of a possible

15:50deferral or withdrawal. The

15:52cases are V-25-248, V-26-100,

16:02V-26-109 V-26-111, V-126-137

16:10V-26-139 NV-26-144. Perry, 2nd

16:12motion's been made improperly

16:14second, although those in favor

16:15state your name, say aye or nay

16:17Philip Perry, I. Aisha J.

16:19Thomas, I, Kevin Bacon, I,

16:21Michael Williams, I. 09 today

16:24in a motion to move to uh items

16:26to the carcinogen, Mr. Chair, I

16:28move that the following cases

16:30be moved to the consent agenda.

16:32The cases are V-26-141,

16:36B-26-142, and V-26-143. Phillip

16:41Perry, 2nd. Motion's been made

16:44improperly second before we put

16:44it to a vote. Is there anyone

16:46present wish to remove any

16:48consent agenda items to be

16:50heard. Like, uh. So if you

16:55would please come to the

16:57microphone. And state your name

16:59and address for the record.

17:04keep my address is 55 East

17:06Avenue Northeast Atlanta 30312,

17:09and I request that V-26142 be

17:13removed from the consent agenda

17:15If I heard you correctly,

17:19that's V26142 Correct. OK.

17:26Thank you, Ms. Whitney. We'll

17:31update our motion. There are no

17:33others. Uh, I will update my,

17:35amend my motion to remove Case

17:39V-126-142. Philip Perry 2. Is

17:42there any board members wish to

17:44remove any items from

17:44carcinogen. No, sir. No. The

17:49motion and properly second. All

17:50those in favor, state your name

17:51say aye or nay. Phillip Perry,

17:53I, Aisha J. Thomas, I. Kevin

17:55Bacon, I, Michael Williams, I,

17:58motion passes. Case of a

18:02V25-248. Application of April

18:02Ingram for variances to reduce

18:04the front yard setback from 35

18:06ft to 22.18 ft, increased the

18:09lock coverage from 50% to

18:1354.82% increased the paved area

18:13of a driveway from 33% to

18:1893.84% increase in maximum

18:20width of a driveway from 20 ft

18:22to 55.76 ft. Reduce the recess

18:27of a front-facing garage from

18:2910 linear feet from the front

18:31front facade of the principal

18:33structure to 0 ft and special

18:35exceptions to increase the

18:36height of a retaining wall in

18:38the front yard from 3 ft to 6

18:40ft and increased the height of

18:40a wall in the side yard from 3

18:43ft to 11.2 ft. For the

18:45construction of a bridge and

18:46stairs for property located at

18:49901 Los Angeles Avenue,

18:51Northeast, fronting 60.78 ft on

18:53the south side of Los Angeles

18:55Avenue and begin at

18:56approximately 245 ft from the

18:58southwest intersection of

19:00Maryland Avenue in Los Angeles

19:02Avenue, Zone R4 single family

19:05residential lion lot, one of

19:05the 17th district of Fullerton

19:07County, Georgia, on a Boris Jer

19:11Joinia Council District 6 MPUF

19:14staff. recommendation is denial

19:16without prejudice. A present.

19:20see no one will go into

19:21deliberation, entertain a

19:22motion, Mr. Chair, with respect

19:23to case number V-25-248. I move

19:27that we deny this case without

19:28prejudice, Philip Perry 2nd

19:30motion's been made improperly

19:32second with respect to fee

19:3525248, all those in favor,

19:37state your name and say aye or

19:38nay. Philip Perry, aye. Aisha J

19:39Thomas, I. Kevin Bacon, I,

19:43Michael Williams, I motion

19:43passed. Case appeal of Kaihu.

19:47of a decision of administrative

19:50officer and office of buildings

19:50for property located 538 Ethel

19:52Street Northwest, running

19:54approximately 50 ft on the

19:55south side of Elton Street and

19:58beginning 148.7 ft from the

19:59southwest intersection of

20:01Macmillan Street and Ethel

20:03Street, Zone R 52-family

20:05residential Home park overlay,

20:08landline 149 to 17 District of

20:08Fulton County, Georgia. Owners

20:12Kai Chu and Elika Moor Chou,

20:14Council District 9, MPUE. Staff

20:16recommendation is denial

20:17without prejudice. napkin

20:20present. Seeing no one will go

20:23into deliberation, entertain a

20:24motion, Mr. Chair, with respect

20:26to Case B-26-100. I move that

20:28we deny this case without

20:30prejudice. Philip Perry, 2nd.

20:32Motion's been made and property

20:34second with respect to V26100.

20:37All those in favor, state your

20:39name and say aye or nay. Philip

20:40Perry, aye. Aisha J. Thomas, I.

20:42Kevin Bacon, I, Michael

20:44Williams, I motion passed. OK,

20:49I V26-109, application of tail

20:50land for advance to increase

20:52the building height from 35 ft

20:55to 37 ft 4 inches, and a

20:57special substance to increase

20:58the height of a retaining wall

20:59in the front yard from 6 ft to

21:0217 ft for the construction of a

21:03new single-family dwelling for

21:04a property located 1064

21:06Peachtree Battle Avenue

21:08Northwest, front of 123.68 ft

21:11on the south side of Peachtree

21:13Battle Avenue and beginning 500

21:15ft from the southwest. US

21:17intersection of Peace Street,

21:18Battle Circle and Peace Street

21:20Battle Avenue, Zone R3,

21:22single-family residential

21:24landline 184 of the 17th

21:25District of Fullerton County,

21:26Georgia. Owner, owner. Urbanova

21:31LLC Council District 8, NPUC

21:33Staff recommendation for

21:35deferral. African president.

21:38And no one will go into

21:40deliberation, entertain a

21:40motion, Mr. Chair, with respect

21:42to case B-26-109. I move that

21:45we defer this case until a

21:46regularly scheduled meeting on

21:47December 3, 2026. Phillip

21:51Perry's 2nd. Motion's been made

21:52improperly second with respect

21:53to the case V 26109. Although

21:56some favors state your name and

21:58say ayon name. Philip Perry, I.

22:00Aisha J. Thomas, I, Kevin Bacon

22:02I. Michael Williams, a motion

22:05passed. Case number V26-111.

22:07Application of Jane's cheeks

22:09for variance to reduce the

22:10north and south side yard

22:12setbacks from 7 ft to 2.5 ft,

22:16reduced to front yard setback

22:16from 30 ft to 20 ft, and And to

22:20increase the maximum lot

22:21coverage from 55% to 60.9% for

22:25the construction of a new

22:28three-story single family

22:29dwelling for property located

22:31at 73 Kenyon Street Southeast

22:33fronting 18.90 ft on the west

22:35side of Kenyon Street and

22:39beginning 195.47 ft from the

22:40southwest intersection of Waley

22:41Street and Kenyon Street, Zone

22:44R 5 two-family residential

22:45beltline overlay landline 13th

22:47of the 14th District of

22:48Fullerton County. Georgia,

22:51owner Austin Starnes, council

22:52District 5, MPUN. Staff

22:56recommendation is deferral.

22:58African president. Say no one

22:59will go into deliberation,

23:01entertain a motion. Uh, Mr.

23:03Chair, with respect to case

23:05V-26-111. I move that we defer

23:06this case into a regularly

23:08scheduled meeting on December

23:0910th, 2026. Philip Perry 2.

23:12Motion's been made and properly

23:14second with respect to case V

23:1726111. All those in favor,

23:19state your name and say aye or

23:19nay. Philip Harry. Aisha Thomas

23:23I, Kevin Bacon, I, Michael

23:25Williams, I motion passed. Case

23:28number B26-137, appeal of

23:30Nicholas Whitson of a decision

23:32of administrative officer in

23:33the Office of Buildings for

23:34property located at 2146

23:36Jackson Place Southwest

23:39fronting approximately 670.015

23:43ft on the south side of Jackson

23:43Place and begin at

23:46approximately 188 ft from the

23:48southeast intersection of

23:49Philadelphia Street and Jackson

23:50Place, Zone R4BC single-family

23:54residential conditional

23:55landline 183 of the 14th

23:56District of Fulton County,

23:58Georgia. Owner of Cascade

24:01Forest Forest Development LLC

24:03Council District 11 MPUS staff

24:06recommendation is denial

24:06without prejudice. Yeah,

24:10present seeing no one we're

24:11going into deliberation,

24:13entertain a motion. Mr. Chair,

24:15with respect to case V-26-137.

24:17I move that we deny this case

24:19without prejudice. Phillip

24:21Perry, 2nd. Motion's been made

24:23improperly second with respect

24:24to case V 26137. All those in

24:28favor, state your name, say aye

24:29or nay. Philip Perry, I Aisha J

24:32Thomas, I, Kevin Bacon, I,

24:33Michael Williams, a motion

24:35passed. Case number V26-139

24:39application of E E. Penciler

24:40for a special exception to

24:42reduce the required parking

24:44spaces from 31 spaces to 7

24:46spaces for a new resident for

24:48new restaurant for property

24:49located at 9. 92 North Highland

24:52Avenue Northeast fronting 60.20

24:55ft on the west side of North

24:57Highland Avenue and beginning

24:59505 ft on the northwest side of

25:00Adair Avenue and North Highland

25:02Avenue. zone R. Zone

25:06residential limited commercial

25:08conditional landline 1 of the

25:0917th District of Fulton County,

25:11Georgia. Owner Dorothy Lynn

25:12Dewitt, Council District 2,

25:15MPUF Staff recommendation is

25:16deferral. African present.

25:19Seeing no one will go into

25:20deliberation, entertain a

25:22motion. Mr. Chair, on case

25:25V-26-139. I move that we defer

25:26this case into a regularly

25:28scheduled meeting on December

25:2910th, 2026. Philip Pering, aye.

25:33Motion's been made improperly

25:33second with respect to V26139.

25:36All those in favor, state your

25:38name and say ayon name. Philip

25:39Perry, I. Aisha J. Thomas, I,

25:42Kevin Bacon, I, Michael

25:43Williams, I motion passed. Case

25:47number B26-144 application of

25:49Kathleen Lane for a special

25:51exception to allow active

25:53recreation in a yard adjacent

25:54to the street for the

25:55construction of a pool, spa,

25:56and patio extension for

25:58property located at 10:30

26:00Peachtree Battle Avenue

26:02Northwest from the 199.78 ft on

26:05the south side of Peachtree

26:05Battle Avenue and beginning at

26:07the Southwest intersection of

26:09Peach Street, Battle Circle,

26:11and Peachtree Battle Avenue,

26:14Zone Zone, single federal

26:14residential land. Lots 111 and

26:18112 of the 17th district of

26:19Fulton County, Georgia. Owners

26:22Daniel and Lauren Alleman,

26:23council District 8, MPUC staff

26:27recommendations for deferral.

26:29African present. Saying no one

26:30will go into deliberation,

26:32entertain a motion. Mr. Chair,

26:34with respect to case V-26-144.

26:36I move that we defer this case

26:38into a regularly scheduled

26:38meeting on December 10th, 2026.

26:41Philip Perry 2. Motion's been

26:43made improperly second with

26:45respect to case V 26144. All

26:48those in favors, state your

26:49name and say aye or nay. Philip

26:50Perry, I, Aisha J. Thomas, I,

26:53Kevin Bacon, I, Michael

26:54Williams, a motion passed. The

26:57following cases are on consent.

26:59Case number V26-141 application

27:02of Michael DeCarlo for

27:03variances to reduce the red

27:05yard setback from 15 ft to 7 ft

27:07and reduced the south side yard

27:10setback from 7 ft to 3 ft for

27:12the construction of a new

27:12detached garage for property

27:14located at 36 Whiteford Avenue

27:17Northeast fronting 50.01 ft on

27:19the west side of Whiteford

27:21Avenue and beginning 300 ft

27:22from the northwest intersection

27:24of Hosea L. Williams Drive and

27:26Whiteford Avenue. Zone R4A

27:29single-family residential

27:30landlock 208 of the 15th

27:32District of DeKalb County,

27:32Georgia. Owner Tiffany Goosby,

27:35council District 5, NPUO. Case

27:41number B26S143 application of

27:44Joseph Chase Jaicki for a

27:46special exception to allow

27:48active recreational pool in a

27:50yard adjacent to a street for

27:50property located 2156 Rich Road

27:55Northeast Friday 59.99 ft on

27:57the north side of Ridgedale

27:59Road and beginning

28:00approximately 60 ft from the

28:01northeast intersection of Bates

28:03Avenue and Ridgedale Road, Zone

28:06R1cing from a residential

28:08landline 205 of the 15th

28:08District of DeKalb County.

28:10Georgia. Owner. Can, can shell

28:13favors council District 5 NPUO.

28:17Thank you, Madam Secretary

28:19Reno's consent during the cases

28:20into the record. We'll now go

28:22into deliberation, entertain a

28:24motion. Mr. Chair, I move that

28:26we approve each of the cases

28:26listed on the consent agenda as

28:28read into the record by Madam

28:29Secretary. Phillip Perry's 2nd.

28:32Motion's been made improperly

28:33second. All those in favor,

28:35state your name and say aye or

28:36nay. Philip Perry, I. Aisha J.

28:39Thomas, I, Kevin Bacon, I,

28:41Michael Williams, I motion

28:44passes. If your case was read

28:44into the record on the consent

28:46agenda, they have been approved

28:48and you are free to go. Case

28:53number B26-142 application of

28:55Falcon Murdy for advance to

28:56reduce the half-depth front

28:58yard setback from 15 ft to 3.8

29:00ft for a second story addition

29:02for property located 547 East

29:05Avenue Northeast fronting 40 ft

29:06on the south side of East

29:08Avenue and beginning at the

29:11southwest intersection of

29:11Prospect Place and East Avenue,

29:13Zone R 52 from the residential

29:16beltline overlaid landlock 46

29:17of the 14th District of Fulton

29:18County, Georgia. owners and uh

29:22Roberto and Jacob Schwartz,

29:24councilor District 2, MPU MPUM

29:28staff and MPU recommendation is

29:29approval. Applicant present.

29:38Hello. Please state your name

29:40and address for the record.

29:41Yeah, my name is Falcon Murdy.

29:43Please speak into the

29:44microphone, so I'd be good. My

29:45name is Falcon Murdy. My

29:47address is 656 East Avenue

29:49Northeast Atlanta, 30312. I'm

29:53here to represent Anna and

29:56Jacob Schwartz for variance

29:58applications. D26142. We would

30:01like to reduce the half depth

30:03front yard setback from 15 ft

30:07to 3.8 ft. The the current

30:10house sits 3.8 ft from. That

30:13side yard setback or the aft up

30:14front yard setback. You can see

30:18We're on a corner lot of

30:19prospect and East Avenue, um,

30:21the, my clients and I would

30:23like to expand the existing 2nd

30:25story. And not encroach any

30:29further than the current house

30:32sits. We're not extending the

30:32footprint at all, but we are

30:34expanding the second story, so

30:35it's a vertical addition, uh,

30:38and on that prospect place uh

30:41because it's a corner lot, we

30:43have to respect the half depth

30:44front yard setback. This house

30:45was built in the twenties, um,

30:48prior to any zoning being in

30:50place. It's also a 40 ft wide

30:52lot, so we're limited. It

30:53doesn't meet the actual um

30:56normal R5 lot requirements. Um,

30:59I think that kind of summarizes

31:01everything we're doing. We

31:01present it to both NPU, uh,

31:05both of the MPU land use and

31:06the committee and were approved

31:08and we got a staff

31:08recommendation for approval as

31:10well. That concludes your

31:13comment, Ms.. Yes. You have

31:178:41 remaining should you need

31:19it. OK. After rebuttal. OK. OK,

31:22is there anyone speak um in our

31:26in support of this application.

31:30OK. So you know one is there

31:31anyone speaking denial. V 26142

31:37Just me. Once again, uh, Keith

31:52Whitney, 5:45 East Avenue

31:55Northeast, and I want to thank

31:55the board for the opportunity

31:56to be heard. Preserve and

31:59protect the historic

32:00characteristics of MPUM

32:02neighborhoods, including the

32:03old 4th Ward, Sweet Auburn, MLK

32:06Historic District, and others.

32:07New development in NPUM must

32:09fit in character and design of

32:11these neighborhoods. That's

32:13taken directly from MPUM's

32:15policies for inclusion as part

32:17of the city of Atlanta's

32:18comprehensive development plan.

32:20However, the plan they approved

32:20approved for this house next

32:22door to mine on East Avenue are

32:26180 degrees in opposition to

32:27their own ethos of protecting

32:29historic neighborhoods from

32:31inappropriate design. The folks

32:33at 545 East Avenue, the people

32:35we live next door to, want to

32:36expand their house vertically

32:38and uh horizontally at our

32:42expense. They want to build an

32:42extension of the home, 11 ft

32:45into and over the front yard,

32:49leaving 3 ft instead of the 14

32:51ft it's supposed to be. Now, of

32:52course, what this does is it

32:55takes away much of the view

32:56that we have of our own

32:58neighborhood, which is ironic

33:00since our house is the oldest

33:00house. On the block, dating to

33:04the 1800s, back when it was the

33:07only house on the block. Now we

33:09knew nothing of this plan.

33:10There's a transparency issue

33:11here that, that aggrieves us.

33:13We knew nothing of this plan

33:14until we got a mailer from the

33:16planning department last week

33:18about this meeting, and thank

33:20God for that. By then,

33:22remarkably, NPUM had already

33:23passed the design proposal,

33:25breaking their own covenant

33:27with this historic

33:27neighborhood's design legacy.

33:29Just for a little background,

33:31Walt Frazier, Clyde the Glide,

33:32grew up in the house that used

33:34to be next to mine on the other

33:36side. Vernon Jordan grew up 3

33:38houses down from that. Now the

33:41House that replaced Walt

33:43Frazier's fits perfectly into

33:45the design ethos of our

33:46community. This is an historic

33:50neighborhood, preserve and

33:51protect that design historicity

33:54Remember, that is the credo of

33:56NPUM and they allowed this to

33:58go forward at our expense

33:59without our knowledge and our

34:01ability to challenge it. That's

34:03why we're here now in the

34:05bottom of the 9th, 2 outs in a

34:07game that we didn't even know

34:08we were playing, asking you to

34:10stop this from going forward.

34:12No one should be able to steal

34:14our view of the street so that

34:16they have a better view of the

34:17street at our expense. No one

34:19should be able to steal our

34:23hard-earned equity so that they

34:23have more. equity at our

34:25expense. No one should be able

34:27to steal our curb appeal so

34:29that they have a chance to

34:32enhance their own curb appeal

34:33at our expense. We believe this

34:37construction would damage the

34:38value of our home, and we are

34:39vehemently opposed to it. We

34:43have invested a generation

34:44there, 30 years of sweat, blood

34:48and tears. We raised our grown

34:50children, our now grown

34:50children, sent them to APS

34:52schools, Georgia State, UGA,

34:54where they all thrived because

34:56we believe in this city, but

34:59allowing this construction is

35:00what they mean when they talk

35:02about the two Atlantas that How

35:06some people can change the DNA

35:06of a community just by moving

35:08there and intentionally or

35:12inadvertently destroying the

35:13equity that seniors like myself

35:15have invested decades to secure

35:17A little more background. This

35:19used to be a very dangerous

35:22neighborhood with crack dealers

35:23and trap houses within 150 ft

35:26of our own. Our own house had

35:28been empty for 10 years when we

35:30bought it, but we knew that we

35:31could help return the street to

35:33its former greatness and we

35:35could do that with the help of

35:37many people who now are no

35:37longer there. Today we need

35:40your help to protect us from

35:40this kind of predatory

35:42gentrification. And I mean that

35:44with no animus. It's simply an

35:46empirical reality. Our view

35:48will be consumed by this

35:50project. Our neighbors, one

35:53neighbor's home design should

35:55not harm another neighbor's

35:57home design. And we humbly ask

36:00the BZA to stop this project

36:03immediately for not being

36:04transparent and for violating

36:05the design ethos of this

36:08special and historic community.

36:09They already have an addition

36:11on their 2nd floor, which

36:13prevents the sun from coming

36:15into our own house, into our

36:16own windows. We can't even put

36:18flowers and plants by the

36:20windows because the sun. Has no

36:22way of getting to that because

36:24of the addition that already

36:25exists. I don't even know if

36:27that was permitted. Nonetheless

36:28it's there. And we ask you to

36:32listen to our plea. Uh, again,

36:34we feel that we had no

36:36knowledge. Well, we know we had

36:38no knowledge of it, but we feel

36:38that we have been harmed

36:40because of that, because of the

36:41lack of transparency and the

36:43way this House will stand out,

36:43kind of like a beluga whale. If

36:47if I'm reading the design

36:48correctly, uh, we just feel

36:49it's, it it it, it's completely

36:52inappropriate. So thank you for

36:53your time. Thank you for your

36:56comments. Is there anyone else

36:58speaking opposition of B26142.

37:05Last call, there There's 5

37:07minutes remaining for anyone

37:07else to speak in opposition of

37:10V26142. Mr. Murray, you have

37:17841 remaining should you. So I,

37:23I feel like. Uh, can you show

37:27the site plan. It's gonna

37:29scroll through. So we're

37:32actually requesting. A variance

37:35for the Prospect peek into the

37:38microphone, Mr. Murray. We're

37:39requesting for the prospect

37:41play side, what you see right

37:43here, I believe our neighbor to

37:45the west. Um, we're not

37:48requesting a variance to

37:50encroach any further into the

37:52front yard towards East Avenue.

37:55In fact, it's all set back, and

37:57I have a rendering here. I'd be

37:59happy to show it to you. Can I

38:01show it to him right now? OK,

38:03OK, so what's the best way to

38:06do this, but so the, the, the

38:08actual audition is located to

38:10the back, right of the house.

38:13We're not trying to encroach

38:15any further forward into the

38:15front yard. The variants that

38:18we're requesting is for the

38:19side yard setback because the,

38:21the, it's the half depth front

38:24yard side setback because The

38:27house itself. Because it's,

38:29it's on Prospect Place there.

38:31into the microphone. Front yard

38:35setbacks, so the right side

38:37where you can see that green

38:39right there, that's what we're

38:41expanding on that right side.

38:44And that's where we're

38:45requesting the variants. So

38:47we're not actually encroaching

38:48any any any more forward, we

38:50won't block your view of the

38:51streets. No, the 2nd floor is

38:55excuse me, excuse me, let's,

38:56let's level 7, OK, um, this is

39:00being recorded, so Mr. Whitney,

39:02I, I can't allow for any

39:04comments from the back of the

39:05room, um, if the board has any

39:08questions for you. Any

39:11clarification, they will call

39:11on you. Yeah, sorry about that.

39:16So, yeah, the, the actual

39:18addition is, is, is. Back of

39:20the back half of the house, so

39:22it's the south and east corner

39:25of the house. We're not

39:27encroaching any further forward

39:29than the current 2nd story

39:31edition is, and we're not,

39:33we're not changing, um, his

39:36views or our neighbors' views

39:36in any way to the right. Like

39:40looking down the street,

39:40nothing changes. We're just

39:45requesting the ability to build

39:47on that right side, and the

39:49house itself already sits into

39:49that setback, and there's

39:52multiple examples around the

39:53neighborhood where there are

39:54homes with 2nd stories. The 2nd

39:56story that we're doing is

39:56fairly modest. It's no taller

39:58than the current 2nd story

40:00that's there. I took, we took

40:02great pains to make it feel in.

40:05Like, In keeping with the

40:09neighborhood, I live on the

40:09street as well at 656 East

40:12Avenue, and I've lived there

40:14for 15 years now and watched

40:14all sorts of second, all sorts

40:16of homes get torn down that

40:18were part of the neighborhood

40:19and the fabric of the

40:21neighborhood be torn down and

40:23rebuilt in these really large,

40:25you know, 30 ft tall, 35 ft

40:28tall, modern homes. This is

40:31something what we're trying to

40:31do is keep, build a, a small

40:33addition on the back of the

40:34house so the family can

40:34continue to grow, stay in the

40:37home. And it's With, with great

40:41care, we tried to make sure

40:41that it fits within the context

40:43of the neighborhood. Um, and I,

40:45you know, it's really not about

40:48encroaching into the front yard

40:49It's just the language of the

40:50half depth. Front yard satback

40:54is actually a side yard in this

40:55case, and it's the yard that is

40:57adjacent to Prospect Place.

41:01Does anybody have any questions

41:02for me? I'm happy to answer or

41:04clarify. I'm sure we will in

41:06deliberations. Does that

41:06include, concludes your

41:08comments, Mr. Mayor for this

41:10moment, OK. With that we've

41:12heard from the applicants, uh,

41:14representative as well as the

41:15appellate, so what we'll do now

41:17is into deliberations in the

41:19deliberation phase, what we'll

41:21do is have some follow-up

41:22questions. OK, sit down then.

41:26So we'll, we'll enter

41:28deliberations and ask any

41:28follow questions from me to Mr.

41:31Murray or. The opposition. I

41:33don't have any questions, sir.

41:35I don't have any questions. I

41:37don't have any questions. I

41:41don't have any questions, but I

41:42think I would just, you know,

41:44make sure everybody's clear

41:45here, um, you know, there's

41:46some other things going on in,

41:48in design here that are, are

41:50actually pretty good, I think,

41:51and with, with the discussion

41:53here in keeping with the

41:54neighborhood, um, you know, one

41:57the existing structure, which

41:58has been there a while, it's

42:00already nonconforming. That's

42:01why we're here for this. Half

42:02depth front yard variance, um,

42:06because you can't do the 2nd

42:07floor without it regardless. Um

42:09it's a very limited 2nd floor.

42:11Um, we have a very irregular

42:13site in terms of, of width to

42:14begin with, the, the, the front

42:16yard setback, which came long

42:18after this neighborhood did its

42:19very suburban in nature, um,

42:22really limits any development

42:23potential of this site if you

42:24were to start over again. Um,

42:26so it's, it's, this site has a

42:29lot of constraints, and, and I

42:29would say I appreciate kind of

42:31the, the sens a whole lot more

42:33could actually be done here,

42:34and, and there is a lot of

42:36restraint in this design that I

42:37see. Um, we're also removing a

42:38shed, we're, we're taking out

42:40site coverage to go with this,

42:42so, um, I'm, I tend to agree

42:44with kind of Uh, what staff has

42:47found so far in terms of the,

42:49the conditions of the side and

42:49their, their assessment of the

42:50organs. Well, say it, Mister

42:54Bacon. My comments are, are

42:56echo Mr. Mr. Bacon's comments

43:00in terms of the language and

43:03the ordinance, um, it says.

43:07Front yard, but it's actually

43:09the half deaf side yard. I just

43:11want to make certain that's

43:13clear to the opposition is to

43:16have depth side yard that's

43:18going from 15 to 3.8 is the

43:22appli what the applicant is

43:23asking for. So, uh, it's not

43:27encroaching any more than it

43:28already is into the front yard,

43:30set back just the half depth

43:32side yard setback. So we're

43:36clear with that, we're

43:36entertaining emotion. Thank you

43:38for making that clarification,

43:40Mr. Chair. I'm an architect and

43:41planner, and that one sometimes

43:43throws my brain in knots, but

43:45yeah, I think where I'm I'm

43:46very comfortable with this is,

43:48is there is no. Lateral or

43:50horizontal extension of the

43:50house. We're just working

43:52within the footprint of what's

43:54already bit to do a little bit

43:54more on the, on the top. So, um

43:57with that I'm, uh, with respect

44:01to case v Ash 26-142, um, based

44:05on the findings of fact and

44:06conclusions of recommendation

44:08as found in the staff report, I

44:09move to approve case V-26142.

44:12Philip Perry's 2. Motion's been

44:14made in property second with

44:16respect to V26142. All those in

44:19favor, state your name, say aye

44:21or nay, Phillip Perry, I, Aisha

44:23J. Thomas, I. Kevin Bacon, I,

44:25Michael Williams, I motion

44:26passes. Case number 826-073,

44:32application of Crescent

44:33acquisitions LLC care of T

44:35Chapman Pepper Locke LLP for

44:38variances to increase the

44:40required transitional height

44:40plane from 35 ft to 59 ft and

44:44reduced the required transition

44:46yard from 20 ft to 0 ft for the

44:48construction of a new

44:50multi-family development for

44:51property located at 1425

44:53Ellsworth Industrial Boulevard

44:55Northwest and 1475 Ellsworth

44:57Industrial. Boulevard Northwest

45:01AKA 14. 25 Ellsworth Industrial

45:05Drive, Northwest, finding

45:08408.78 ft on the east side of

45:09Ellsworth Industrial Drive and

45:11begin at approximately 1,606.03

45:15ft from the northeast

45:16intersection of Huff Road and

45:18Ellsworth Industrial Drive,

45:20Zone 12, heavy industrial

45:22beltline overlay Upper West

45:23Side of OA and MR2C

45:27multi-family residential

45:28conditional. Beltline overlay

45:31Upper West Side overlay.

45:33Landlot 188 of the 17th

45:34District of Fulton County,

45:36Georgia, owner lumberyard Los

45:40LLC Council District 9 MPUD.

45:43Staff recommendation is

45:44approval. NPU recommendation is

45:45a denial. Please state your

45:49name and address for the record

45:49Uh, good afternoon, members of

45:51the board. My name is Jessica

45:52Hill. My business address is

45:54600 Peachtree Street, and I

45:56represent the applicant,

45:58Crescent accquisitions. Um, I

45:58do want to make one point of

46:00clarification on the zoning

46:02district designation. It has

46:05been rezoned, um, so the

46:05current zoning district is MRC

46:093. it has been rezoned from the

46:11industrial and MR2 zoning

46:13districts. Um, this is an

46:16application for a transitional

46:16height plane variance and a

46:18transitional yard variants. Um,

46:21it is about an 8.5 acre

46:23property. I'll show you the

46:25site plan that's in your packet

46:25an 8.5 acre property on

46:28Ellsworth Industrial Boulevard.

46:30Uh, the existing Beltline Trail

46:32is located south of the site,

46:34um, and then there's a stream

46:36that runs basically through

46:37here and around up to the north

46:41um, that encompasses the

46:41southern and eastern sides of

46:43the property. Um, it's

46:45currently improved with Office,

46:48um, industrial restaurant

46:48buildings, uh, Bone Garden.

46:50Tina is currently there, uh,

46:52for those familiar with the

46:54area. The proposal is to keep

46:56the a portion of what's

46:57existing in the front. Um,

46:59there's about 81,000 square

47:01feet. I'm sorry, 81,000 square

47:01feet will be demolished and

47:04about 131,000 square feet will

47:05remain. That's what you're

47:06seeing here in Peach. And then

47:08in the rear, we're proposing to

47:10develop a new multi-family

47:12development. Um, and that will

47:13include 290 units. Uh, it is a

47:17five-story building, um, and

47:17you can see in yellow, you can

47:19see the building, and then you

47:20You can see the parking

47:21structure has been tucked in a

47:22way that it will face the

47:24industrial property to the

47:25north. Um, this property has

47:28quite a few challenges from a

47:30development perspective. It has

47:31a lot of topography. It's low

47:33here, it goes high, it goes low

47:37Um, this, there's actually over

47:3950 ft of change in topography

47:40on this site. Um, the building,

47:42the new multi-family building

47:44itself is stepping 3 different

47:46times, uh, to account for the

47:48grade and even with that, um,

47:50they have to have retaining

47:51walls that are long, and you

47:53can see this kind of darker

47:55line here. There's a retaining

47:55wall along The southern and

47:58eastern boundaries. The

48:00transitional yard variant

48:00that's before you today is for

48:02that retaining wall. Um, the

48:04building itself is not located

48:06in the transitional yard. The

48:07building itself is located

48:09outside of it, so I want to

48:11make that clear. Um, there's

48:13also, you know, more than 100

48:15ft from this property to the

48:18adjacent lots to the east, um,

48:20and about over 200 ft between

48:22the building and any building

48:22to the adjacent lots to the

48:24east. So just to give you some

48:25perspective on what we have. Um

48:28from a transitional height

48:29plane perspective, you have

48:31several images in your uh in

48:33your packet, um, that are taken

48:35from different points. The most

48:38intense encroachment into the

48:40transitional high plane is

48:40right here, um, where the

48:42property jogs up and because of

48:44the unique property shape.

48:45There are just points where

48:47this building goes into the

48:49transitional height plane. So

48:49even though it's a five-story

48:51building, it's only 59 ft from,

48:53you know, ground to top. Um, it

48:55still encroaches into the hype

48:56plane. In certain places. Um,

49:02We have uh met I would say

49:04extensively. We met 3 times

49:05with the Blandtown neighborhood

49:07and one of their board members

49:09is here to speak. Um, they have

49:11recommended approval of the

49:12variances and also the zoning.

49:14We do have an NPU denial

49:16recommendation at the MPU

49:20meeting, the zoning variances

49:22and a comprehensive plan change

49:22were all voted on as a block,

49:25so from a variance perspective,

49:25there was not a lot of

49:27discussion about the variants

49:29specifically, um, but there was

49:30concern just generally about

49:32MRC 3 zoning, um, which is,

49:34which is a, a kind of a theme

49:36in MPUD, um, but we would ask

49:38that you support the staff

49:38recommendation and the

49:40neighborhood recommendation and

49:41recommend approval of these.

49:43Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hill.

49:47Have a 6:14 should you need it

49:49for me. Name and address for

49:52the record. Hi, my name is

49:54Jarred Blankenship. My address

49:56is 1339 Booth Avenue, Northwest

50:00Uh, good afternoon, board

50:01members. Uh, I've been a

50:03Blandtown homeowner for 10

50:05years now, uh, and I've served

50:06on the Blandtown Neighborhood

50:08Association Board for the past

50:094 years. I'm also vice chairman

50:12of NPUD, um, and, uh, I helped

50:14to negotiate the community

50:16benefits agreement for this

50:17project. Uh, so today I'm

50:18speaking on behalf of Blandtown

50:21uh, in support of these

50:23adjustments. Um, I'll address

50:25that NPUD recommendation

50:26directly, uh. The vote really

50:30came for denial from some

50:32honest concerns of

50:32neighborhoods a little further

50:33away from Blandtown about

50:36precedents set in terms of

50:37density. I think that's fair

50:37for them, but those of us who

50:39live around it, uh, we had our

50:41own neighborhood vote and it

50:41was strongly in support of this

50:43development, so, uh, this is

50:45why we said yes, um, first of

50:48all, the property originally

50:49carried the industrial I2

50:50zoning, which would entitle

50:53uses we would not want right

50:54next to the brand new Beltline

50:57that has just been opened. Um,

50:58so this trades that risk for

51:00homes and shops and street life

51:02right at the front door of the

51:04Northwest Trail. Uh, I think

51:04we're very blessed where we are

51:06in Blandtown to have the brand

51:08new Beltline open, um, but what

51:09we really want also is the

51:12activated spaces and

51:13placemaking that would come

51:13around it. Uh, this is a really

51:15good first anchor and kind of

51:17step in that direction. Uh,

51:18secondly, this site currently,

51:21uh, really underperforms for

51:22the neighborhood. It is

51:24actively hostile. To

51:26pedestrians and uh there's

51:26quite a few vacancies in the

51:28space and we'd love to see more

51:29be made out of that. The, the

51:31plan that's been proposed puts

51:33that space back to work and

51:35expand some of the businesses

51:36and uh things we would love to

51:37have in our neighborhood that

51:38could make this lumberyard site

51:40special. Um, and then 3,

51:42finally, our benefits agreement

51:44delivers something Blandtown

51:44has been asking for for many

51:46years, which is, uh, expanded

51:49pedestrian connections along

51:50Ellsworth Industrial, uh, which

51:51is a street that very badly

51:53needs them. Uh, so Blaine Towns

51:55been invested in this

51:55development. We've had great

51:57partnership with the developers

51:58and uh we support the project.

52:00We ask you to approve it. Thank

52:02you. Thank you, Mr. Blankenship

52:05Did anyone else speaking in

52:07support of V26073 There anybody

52:13speak in opposition of V26073

52:20You have 4 minutes remaining,

52:21Miss Hill, should you need it.

52:22OK, with that, we'll go into

52:27deliberations and uh ask any

52:29follow-up questions and arrive

52:29at a motion. No follow-up

52:32questions for me, sir. No

52:34questions. No, none for me also

52:36We entertain emotion. I'll just

52:38say it before I make the motion

52:40um. Yeah, it's density on the

52:44beltline, that's where we

52:45wanted it. So, um, thank you

52:47for the thoughtful design.

52:48Thank you for working with the

52:49neighborhood to come to terms

52:51on the specific design and the

52:52agreements and, and with that,

52:54uh, Mr. Chair, for uh Case

53:00V-26-073, um, Based on the

53:02findings of fact, conclusion,

53:03recommendations found in the

53:04staff report. I move to approve

53:05Philip Perry, 2nd. Motion's

53:08been made improperly second

53:10with respect to V26073, all

53:14those in favor, state your name

53:15say Ron A. Philip Perry, I,

53:16Aisha J. Thomas, I, Kevin Bacon

53:19I. Michael Williams, I motion

53:21passes. Good luck to you both.

53:23Case number V26-101 application

53:27of Diane Barfield for

53:28appearance to increase the

53:29width of a driveway in the

53:30front yard from 20 ft to 43 ft,

53:32and a special exception to

53:34allow a parking pattern the

53:36required front yard for

53:38property located at 1055

53:39Foxcroft Road Northwest,

53:42finding 206.01 ft on the west

53:44side of Foxcroft Road and begin

53:46at approximately 170.12 ft from

53:50the southwest intersection of

53:52Dunbarton Court and Fascroft

53:55Road, Zone R2, Singer founder

53:58residential landlock 180 of the

53:5917th District of Fullerton

54:01County, Georgia. Owner

54:03Dominique Morea, Council

54:04District 8, MPUA. Staff

54:07recommendation is denial. MPU

54:08recommendation is approval.

54:10Name and address for the record

54:14Diane Barfield, representing

54:15the property owners. We've

54:17provided you with a good bit of

54:19Of documents and information Ms

54:22Barfield. I'm sorry. Please

54:26state your address as well. I'm

54:27sorry, Diane Barfield, PO Box

54:28475, Morrow, Georgia 30,260. OK

54:34thank you, thank you. We

54:35provided you with a good bit of

54:37information and I've got other

54:39speakers. I would just like to

54:41out the property has been

54:44developed in accordance with a

54:46duly approved permit from the

54:47city of Atlanta. They received

54:49a permit for the development

54:50through the Bureau of Office of

54:53Building, and we also received

54:55an additional permit from um

54:59traffic department to do the

55:00curb cut and put the driveway

55:02apron in as represented in the

55:02field. This property, we would

55:07like to respectfully take

55:08exception. To some of the

55:10findings of fact, the property

55:13slopes where the existing

55:15driveway is the only way to get

55:17into the to the access to the

55:19house would be through a garage

55:20up a flight of stairs. There

55:22would be no excess coming to

55:24the front of the house to, you

55:26know, through the main door.

55:28The other thing is we feel like

55:29that this design is consistent

55:34with surrounding property that

55:35is not out of character with

55:35the neighborhood and we've

55:37provided evidence to that part.

55:42I, my, my clients would just

55:44like to be afforded their

55:47constitutional right to have

55:47full and of their property as

55:49evidenced by some of the other

55:51development that's in the, in

55:53the property, I mean in the

55:55area. Having said that, I have

55:56other people that would like to

55:58speak, so I'll just reserve my

55:59time. We have 8:20, I'm sorry,

56:058:34. Name and address for the

56:07record. Anita Morea, 10:55

56:10Foxcroft Road, Atlanta, Georgia

56:14Good afternoon, members of the

56:14board. Thank you for your time

56:16and consideration today. My

56:18husband Dominic and I are

56:20seeking a variance and special

56:21exception for a front yard

56:23driveway and parking area at

56:24our home at 10:55 Foxcroft Road

56:27We respect the city's zoning

56:29regulations, its staff, and the

56:32responsibility entrusted to

56:32this board. For the past 19

56:34months, we have sincerely tried

56:36to do things the right way,

56:38engaging the appropriate

56:39departments following

56:41procedures and responding to

56:41feedback. Having reviewed the

56:43staff recommendation for denial

56:45we respectfully disagree with

56:46several conclusions I would

56:47like to address them directly.

56:49First, regarding the unique

56:52environmental conditions of our

56:52property. Our project began as

56:54a straightforward replacement

56:56of our existing circular

56:58driveway. However,

57:01environmental requirements

57:01identified by city agencies

57:03necessitated a substantial

57:05redesign, resulting in the

57:06center drive before you today.

57:09That redesign removed all

57:10impervious surface from the

57:12protected stream buffer,

57:13preserved existing overstory

57:15trees, eliminated impervious

57:17surface within their critical

57:19root zones and reduce the

57:21property's overall impervious

57:21surface by approximately 75

57:23square feet, all while

57:25addressing stormwater

57:26management concerns. The center

57:28drive preserves the practical

57:30function of our former circular

57:32driveway, providing safe access

57:34to our front door, the only

57:37exterior entrance accommodating

57:37guest arrivals and delivery and

57:39allowing vehicles to circulate

57:42independently of the garage

57:44entrance. Throughout this

57:45process, the configuration has

57:46been characterized as both a

57:48driveway and a parking pad,

57:49creating some uncertainty about

57:51how the applicable zoning

57:53requirements are being

57:55interpreted. Our intent has

57:55consistently been to maintain

57:57functional access through an

57:59environmentally responsible

58:00design. The staff report itself

58:02acknowledges that a portion of

58:04the former circular driveway

58:05could not be replaced because

58:06of the stream buffer. We

58:08believe this demonstrates how

58:09the property's environmental

58:11conditions directly shaped our

58:11design and the relief requested

58:15Second, regarding the

58:15characterization of our

58:17hardship as self-imposed. Our

58:19existing driveway had

58:22deteriorated significantly,

58:22creating hazardous conditions

58:23for our family, particularly

58:24our young children, and

58:26visitors who had experienced

58:27trips and falls on its broken

58:29surface. While replacing the

58:31driveway was ultimately our

58:33decision. It was motivated by a

58:35legitimate safety concern

58:36rather than a desire to alter

58:37the property's configuration.

58:40The configuration before you

58:41was not our original preference

58:44But the product of responding

58:45to the city's environmental

58:46requirements and working

58:47through multiple rounds of

58:49technical review and approval.

58:51We recognize that those

58:51approvals do not replace zoning

58:54relief. However, we asked the

58:55board to consider how this

58:56design evolved when evaluating

58:58whether those circumstances can

59:00be fairly characterized as

59:01entirely self-imposed. Third,

59:04regarding traffic and safety

59:05and the existing curb cuts. The

59:07staff report raises concerns

59:09about potential traffic hazard

59:11and references ATLDOT's curb

59:13cut policy. Importantly, our

59:15property historically had two

59:16curb cuts on Foxcroft Road, and

59:18the current and proposed

59:20configurations maintain two

59:21points of access. We are not

59:22adding a third curb cut or

59:23increasing the number of

59:25ingress or egress points to our

59:27property. Rather, we have

59:28redesigned the internal

59:29driveway configuration while

59:30maintaining the existing number

59:32of street access points. In

59:34April 2026, ATLDOT issued a

59:36permit approving plans that

59:38expressly depicted our driveway

59:39configuration, including the

59:40curb cuts. Copies of that

59:41permit and approved plans are

59:43included in the board's

59:43submission. While we recognize

59:47that HLDOT's approval does not

59:47replace zoning relief. We

59:49respectfully believe this prior

59:50review and approval are

59:51relevant to the staff's

59:53concerns. We do not believe the

59:54revised configurations creates

59:56any additional traffic or

59:58pedestrian safety concerns,

1:00:00adversely affects neighborhood

1:00:01traffic or introduces a new

1:00:03hazard to the surrounding

1:00:04community. Lastly, regarding

1:00:07neighborhood character and

1:00:08public impact. One property in

1:00:10our immediate street with a

1:00:12comparable driveway

1:00:13configuration received a BZA

1:00:14variants. Similar

1:00:17configurations can also be

1:00:18found elsewhere on our street,

1:00:19throughout our neighborhood,

1:00:19and in surrounding communities.

1:00:21We recognize that some of these

1:00:24configurations may predate

1:00:25current zoning requirements.

1:00:26Nevertheless, their prevalence

1:00:28contributed to our

1:00:28understanding that this design

1:00:30was consistent with the

1:00:32established character of our

1:00:33neighborhood. We did not

1:00:35appreciate at the outset that

1:00:35this can be configuration would

1:00:37present a zoning concern. Our

1:00:41neighbors have supported our

1:00:42improvements. Our neighborhood

1:00:43planning unit voted unanimously

1:00:44in favor of our application.

1:00:48The staff report also

1:00:49acknowledges that our proposal

1:00:50is unlikely to adversely affect

1:00:53neighboring properties,

1:00:53emergency access, public health

1:00:55or fire safety. Our project is

1:00:57now substantially complete,

1:00:59with only minor grouting

1:01:00remaining. Once we realized

1:01:02that a variance was required,

1:01:03we stopped work immediately and

1:01:04engaged in this process. We

1:01:06respectfully ask that the board

1:01:08to consider the complete

1:01:10circumstances, our property's

1:01:12environmental constraints, the

1:01:13measurable improvements

1:01:15achieved. The the history of

1:01:15agency review and approval, the

1:01:17established neighborhood

1:01:18character, and the overwhelming

1:01:19support of our neighborhood and

1:01:21our NPU. We care deeply about

1:01:22our home, our neighborhood, and

1:01:24the city of Atlanta. We have

1:01:26genuinely tried to navigate

1:01:27this process responsibly and in

1:01:29good faith, and for those

1:01:29reasons, we respectfully

1:01:31request approval of our

1:01:31variants and special exception.

1:01:33Thank you so much for your

1:01:35consideration. Thank you, Ms.

1:01:37Morell. There's 310 remaining

1:01:42should anyone have any other

1:01:42comments? Name and address for

1:01:47the record. Good afternoon. I

1:01:49am Brinkley Dickerson and I

1:01:51chair Neighborhood planning

1:01:53Unit A, uh, I have for about 15

1:01:55years now. Um, this is an

1:01:57application that is unfortunate

1:02:00Everybody tried to do

1:02:00everything right, and it didn't

1:02:02turn out quite the way that the

1:02:04city and the owners had hoped

1:02:05for. When the MPUA considered

1:02:07it, they unanimously

1:02:09recommended in favor of this

1:02:12application. We think the

1:02:14homeowner has a, a wonderful

1:02:16plan. All the neighbors agree

1:02:18that it's a wonderful plan.

1:02:18It's an asset, not a liability

1:02:20to the community. It would be

1:02:23destructive to not give the

1:02:25approval and require them to

1:02:27remove the work that's already

1:02:28been done and provide no value

1:02:30to anyone, so we hope that you

1:02:32do approve this application.

1:02:34Thank you. Thank you, sir. It's

1:02:392:30 remaining. She had You

1:02:42have any one else that would

1:02:43like to add any additional

1:02:45comments? OK. Is there anyone

1:02:49speaking opposition to this

1:02:51application V 26101 See see no

1:02:56one if you have no additional

1:02:57comments from the applicant

1:02:59we'll go into deliberations.

1:03:01Ask any follow-up questions. I

1:03:04have a question for the

1:03:05homeowner, Miss Murray. She

1:03:07could step forward, please.

1:03:11Good afternoon, ma'am. How are

1:03:12you? Good afternoon. How are

1:03:13you? Um, from my understanding,

1:03:16the chairperson for NPU stated

1:03:19that this project has already

1:03:19been completed. It has. That's

1:03:23correct. Other than some minor

1:03:25grout work that needs to be

1:03:26completed on the border once we

1:03:28realized there was a variance

1:03:30request that needed to move

1:03:31forward. We stopped at that

1:03:31point, but there was a small

1:03:33amount of remaining work

1:03:35completed or to be completed,

1:03:35but the majority of the work is

1:03:37is already finished. And I just

1:03:41finished without a city of

1:03:41Atlanta permit. Well, we'd

1:03:44actually received a permit on

1:03:46February 24th of this year that

1:03:48said that our permit had been

1:03:50reviewed by all agencies. What

1:03:51we later learned was that

1:03:53because we had modifications to

1:03:55the plan that was approved by

1:03:57site development and rerouted

1:03:57those to Isela and uploaded

1:03:59those to the single place where

1:04:00we have the ability to do so.

1:04:03Those plans were not rerouted

1:04:06to other agencies that had

1:04:06previously reviewed. So there

1:04:07were two different plan sets

1:04:08that were being being today,

1:04:11buildings. Site development and

1:04:17uh Arbor have all reviewed this

1:04:18plan and provided approval in

1:04:19Acela, but this is our final

1:04:21step to have the, the permit

1:04:22reissued. OK. Thank you, ma'am.

1:04:24You're welcome. I have no more

1:04:28questions. I have questions, um

1:04:35so if I understand correctly,

1:04:37the new driveway was built in

1:04:40in the. In the storm buffer.

1:04:44And No, the previous driveway,

1:04:48the circular driveway that was

1:04:50existing was encroaching onto

1:04:51the storm buffer. I'm sorry,

1:04:53into the stream buffer, stream

1:04:55buffer, yes, and this one is

1:04:58not or is. It's not. OK. That

1:05:02was the question I had. I don't

1:05:07have a question, but I'd like

1:05:08to make a motion. OK, go for it

1:05:11All right, Mr. Chair, uh, based

1:05:11on the findings of fact of the

1:05:13staff report, but not with the

1:05:15conclusion and recommendation

1:05:16provided by staff. I move to

1:05:18approve case number V-26-101,

1:05:24um, my reasoning is that this

1:05:24is likely not detrimental to

1:05:26the public, so. Kevin Bacon 2nd

1:05:31Motion's been made and properly

1:05:31second with V26101. All those

1:05:37in favor, state your names, say

1:05:37ay nay, Philip Perry, I. Aisha

1:05:40J Thomas, I, Kevin Bacon. I,

1:05:42Michael Williams, I motion

1:05:44passes. Good luck. OK V26-126

1:05:47application of Eli Aubrey for

1:05:50averance to increase the lot

1:05:52coverage from 50% to 62.77% for

1:05:56the construction of a screen

1:05:56porch with a fireplace for

1:05:58property located at 608

1:06:01Harendorf Avenue, Northeast,

1:06:03excuse me. 50.23 ft on the west

1:06:07side of Handorf Avenue and

1:06:09beginning 50 ft from the

1:06:11northwest intersection of Mor

1:06:12Avenue and Harenoff Avenue.

1:06:14Zone R4, single-family

1:06:16residential landline 239 of the

1:06:1815th District of DeKalb County,

1:06:20Georgia. Owners Eli Aubrey and

1:06:23Wren Aubrey, Council District 5

1:06:25MPUN staff recommendation is

1:06:27approval. NPU recommendation is

1:06:29approval conditional. South

1:06:30African president. Hm Name and

1:06:34address for the record. Eli

1:06:36Aubrey, I'm the homeowner, um,

1:06:39at 608 Hardendorff Ave,

1:06:41Northeast. Um, I'll just note

1:06:45that, well, I'll start. My wife

1:06:46and I are hoping to build a

1:06:49screen porch in the rear of our

1:06:50property, uh, approximately. In

1:06:54that location shown there, it's

1:06:56gonna be, or we hope to build

1:06:57it almost entirely on that

1:06:59existing um concrete pad, um,

1:07:03only the uh columns that are

1:07:06necessary to go into the ground

1:07:08and a small portion of it

1:07:10between the back door and the

1:07:12existing concrete pad that's

1:07:15currently mulched. Those are

1:07:15the only, um, parts that will,

1:07:17that Won't be on existing

1:07:21concrete pad right now. Um,

1:07:22I'll also note that today, as

1:07:24it stands, the lock coverage is

1:07:26at 62.3%, and after the project

1:07:30it would be at 62.77, and

1:07:32that's just due to those

1:07:33columns in that area just

1:07:35between the back door and the

1:07:37concrete pad that I mentioned.

1:07:37Um, however, earlier this year,

1:07:41um, and when we, when we bought

1:07:42the house last year, there was

1:07:46a um existing gazebo and some

1:07:47rear pavers. In the back that

1:07:50we removed earlier this year,

1:07:53um, in preparation for this

1:07:53project before those items were

1:07:55removed, the lock coverage was

1:07:57all the way up at um. 68. 49%,

1:08:04so we have, you know, on

1:08:06balance, reduced it, um, by 5

1:08:09or 6% points in preparation for

1:08:13this project. The last thing

1:08:13I'll say is that we've got the

1:08:16support of our neighbors on

1:08:18either side of us, as well as

1:08:20our neighbor, um, directly in

1:08:22the rear of us along with 8

1:08:25other neighbors within the

1:08:26required radius of notification

1:08:28in our neighborhood, um, I

1:08:31would ask that the board, um,

1:08:32just Confirm the recommendation

1:08:34of the staff and the

1:08:35neighborhood. We've not

1:08:38received any opposition or any

1:08:40affirmative opposition Thank

1:08:41you. Thank you, Mr. Aubrey. You

1:08:45have 801 and shit you need it,

1:08:47um, remaining. Is there anyone

1:08:49else speaking support this

1:08:52application V26126. Name and

1:08:56address for the record. Good

1:08:58afternoon. My name is Beth

1:09:00Grassoff. I live at 1696

1:09:02McClendon Avenue Northeast. I'm

1:09:05representing the Lake Claire

1:09:05neighbors and NPUN, um, we put

1:09:09the caveats on the uh based on

1:09:14the site plan that is dated

1:09:16September 17, 2026. We just

1:09:19want to make sure that this, um

1:09:2562.77%. Ends with this project,

1:09:27it does not carry forward, but

1:09:30we are greatly appreciative of

1:09:32the owners who continue to try

1:09:34to reduce the lot coverage, um,

1:09:36that exists at this time, but

1:09:38we are in support. Thank you.

1:09:41Thank you, Ms. Gross. Anyone

1:09:45else speaking support of this

1:09:46application. So wants here to

1:09:50speak in opposition of V26126.

1:09:54Seeing one, what we'll do now

1:09:56unless you have any additional

1:09:58questions, Mr. Arbor. I mean,

1:10:01comments. What we'll do now is

1:10:03go into deliberation, entertain

1:10:04a motion, or ask any follow-up

1:10:06questions. I don't have any

1:10:08questions, sir. I don't have

1:10:11any questions. I have two

1:10:13questions for Mr. Aubrey, uh,

1:10:15just to make sure that we're

1:10:17square on the conditions that

1:10:19the NPU is providing about

1:10:21conditioning it to the site

1:10:22plan. Are you OK with that?

1:10:23We're OK with that. OK. And

1:10:24then the second question, did

1:10:26you do all those hand drawings?

1:10:26You never see those anymore. No

1:10:28I've got an old school

1:10:30contractor. OK, OK, but no, I,

1:10:33I, we thought you were an

1:10:35artist. Yeah, it's nice to see

1:10:37that somebody still draws by

1:10:37hand. Yeah, that, that made me

1:10:39feel better about. Us picking

1:10:41him as the contractor. Now

1:10:42those are good drawings. So

1:10:44yeah, I'll pass that along to

1:10:46him. Well, thank you very much,

1:10:46um. Then with that, uh, Mr.

1:10:50Chair, based on the findings of

1:10:51fact, conclusion,

1:10:52recommendation is found in the

1:10:53staff court. I move to approve

1:10:57case V-26-126, conditioned on

1:10:59the site plan dated, uh, site

1:11:02plan received by Office of

1:11:04Zoning Development on September

1:11:0417, 2026. Phillip Perry's 2nd.

1:11:08Motion's been made and properly

1:11:10second with respect to V26126.

1:11:13some favors, state your name,

1:11:15say Iron A. Philip Perry, I

1:11:17Aisha J. Thomas, Kevin Bacon, I

1:11:20Michael Williams, I motion pass

1:11:22Good luck to you. Case number

1:11:28526-135. Application of Ansley

1:11:30Bright for Vances to reduce the

1:11:31Vances to reduce the front yard

1:11:32setback from 17.5 ft to 7 ft,

1:11:35reduced the rear yard setback

1:11:36from 15 ft to 7 ft and special

1:11:39exceptions to allow active

1:11:40recreational pool and yards

1:11:42adjacent to a street, increased

1:11:44the maximum height of a privacy

1:11:45fence more than 50% opacity in

1:11:47the half-depth front yard from

1:11:494 ft to 8 ft and increased the

1:11:51height of a retaining wall and

1:11:52a half depth front yard. from 3

1:11:54ft to 11 ft for the

1:11:56construction of a new

1:11:58single-family dwelling for

1:11:58property located 811 Ponce de

1:12:01Leon Place Northeast at 50 ft

1:12:03on the east side of Ponce de

1:12:05Leon Place and beginning at the

1:12:07Northeast intersection of

1:12:09Greenwood Avenue and Ponce de

1:12:10Leon Place, Zone R4, single

1:12:13family residential beltline

1:12:14overlaid landlock 17 of the

1:12:1614th District of Fulton County,

1:12:18Georgia. Owners Paul and Penny

1:12:21Gutierrez, Council District 2

1:12:23MPUF. Staff recommendation is

1:12:27approval to the setback

1:12:30variances, special exception to

1:12:34active recreation, and a

1:12:34special exception to the

1:12:37retaining wall, uh, the height

1:12:38increase of the retaining wall.

1:12:40Um, there is a denial without

1:12:43prejudice for the height of the

1:12:45privacy fence. MPU

1:12:47recommendation is deferral.

1:12:50Name and address for the record

1:12:52Good afternoon, Mr. Chair,

1:12:54members of the board. My name

1:12:55is Steve Rothman, 2849 Paces

1:12:58Ferry Road, Atlanta, Georgia,

1:13:0130339. Um, I am representing

1:13:04the owners, Paul and Penny

1:13:06Gutierrez. Um, they're here in

1:13:08the chamber with me and also

1:13:10the architect, Brian Jones. And

1:13:12so, as we go through this, if

1:13:13you've got specific questions,

1:13:15they're available for responses

1:13:17if I can't answer, um. The

1:13:21Gutierrez's bought this house

1:13:22about a year ago, and it's a

1:13:26home that's been there a while.

1:13:28In 2016, 2017, there was a

1:13:30second story addition. It was

1:13:32put on, on top of the house and

1:13:35a porch enclosed, and let's

1:13:37just say between then and now,

1:13:39the addition was. Inexpensive

1:13:41for investment purposes, it

1:13:43appears, and there's been

1:13:44deferred maintenance on the

1:13:46house. They bought the house

1:13:49and in looking at the existing

1:13:50structure, they found that it

1:13:51was, um, cost prohibitive to

1:13:53try to rehab it. And so at this

1:13:55point, they decided to go ahead

1:13:57and, and build a new structure

1:13:59and in the course of that, they

1:14:01would like to get variances and

1:14:04special exceptions. In that

1:14:06process they met with their

1:14:07immediate neighbors. There's no

1:14:09opposition. In fact, the House

1:14:11moves a little further away

1:14:13from the neighbor they're very

1:14:14close to with a similar type of

1:14:17proposed house, and, um, and

1:14:18the Virginia Highland Civic

1:14:22Association recommended

1:14:22approval with certain

1:14:23conditions which we included in

1:14:24our site plan. The NPU did

1:14:27recommend deferral. After tying

1:14:297 to 7, but there was no

1:14:31purpose for the deferral. We

1:14:33didn't, there was nothing to be

1:14:35done. We did hear they're going

1:14:36to reach out to us, the clients

1:14:38but they have not. No one's

1:14:40reached out to us, so we, this

1:14:42is the 2nd deferral here we'd

1:14:43like to go forward and get a

1:14:45decision if we can. I think

1:14:47just in the interest of time,

1:14:49one of the last case on the

1:14:50agenda, what I'll simply say at

1:14:51this point, this is currently,

1:14:53you can see the pictures, it's

1:14:54a house on a hill. We have a

1:14:57topographic issue where You

1:15:00know, at points 20 ft above the

1:15:02street, at the closest point,

1:15:03it's 10 ft and it's very steep

1:15:05hill. I think the photos

1:15:07demonstrate that, um. The staff

1:15:10is thoroughly reviewed this. Uh

1:15:12we agree with the staff's

1:15:14recommendations. I think at

1:15:15this point what I'd like to do

1:15:16is just save the rest of my

1:15:18time for rebuttal to respond to

1:15:20any opposition there may be.

1:15:21Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

1:15:24Rahman. At 7:30 should you need

1:15:28it, and anybody in, uh, else

1:15:30want to speak in support of

1:15:32this application V26135. Seeing

1:15:37no one, Mister Rahma, does that

1:15:39conclude your comments? Your

1:15:43Except for reserving my time

1:15:46for rebuttal, that concludes my

1:15:46presentation. Yeah, there's no

1:15:49opposition, so there's no rebut

1:15:52unless, oh, OK. I'm sorry. I'm

1:15:55sorry. Please state your name

1:15:57and address for the record. Yes

1:15:59my name is Fred Smith. I'm at

1:16:03587 Virginia Avenue Northeast

1:16:0730306. Um, and I have copies of

1:16:12everything I'm going to

1:16:12reference just in case. Is that

1:16:14OK for me to distribute? Did

1:16:17they, were they submitted? They

1:16:19were we have them. I have them,

1:16:21yes. Um, so a few, uh, points

1:16:26here that were made in the

1:16:27letter that I want to reiterate

1:16:28Um, so the first point is that

1:16:32city council voted on Monday.

1:16:35Um, to. Uh, encourage authorize

1:16:42uh apply for a historic

1:16:44preservation of this particular

1:16:46site. So there's a few

1:16:46mechanisms that a site can be

1:16:48designated as historic under

1:16:50the zoning under the zoning

1:16:51code. This is one of them, City

1:16:53council acted at unanimously,

1:16:55well, with everyone present, it

1:16:57was 10 to 0. Um, In in my view,

1:17:01moving forward, uh, in light of

1:17:03that right now seems premature,

1:17:04and I would strongly encourage

1:17:06a. referral, um, within that

1:17:09time for deferral, we'll learn

1:17:12a lot. As of this moment, for

1:17:13example, um, we don't know

1:17:15whether or not the, uh, the

1:17:18director of the UDC has

1:17:20actually issued a letter of

1:17:22intent consistent um with what

1:17:25city council said and

1:17:27authorized on Monday. And if

1:17:29they have, then we are already

1:17:31within a 120 day window for

1:17:33interim protections. That's the

1:17:35that's the important legal

1:17:36point. Um, with respect to uh a

1:17:40uh And designation or a

1:17:44nomination rather from the

1:17:44director of the UDC, which city

1:17:47council has asked for. Um, I

1:17:49would also encourage you to

1:17:51take seriously, um, the NPU FF

1:17:53deferral, um, which was done so

1:17:56that the NPU um could learn

1:18:00more about, uh, the, uh, the

1:18:02historic nature of this

1:18:03particular site. I'll note that

1:18:05um I know that you have an

1:18:06email from a board member of

1:18:09the VHCA who said they were not

1:18:11aware of the historic nature of

1:18:12this site because they were not

1:18:13told. Um, and, uh, who said

1:18:16that they would have considered

1:18:18this differently. If this

1:18:20information had been in front

1:18:20of them, so that's important, I

1:18:23think, to consider. Um,

1:18:27moreover, uh, when it comes to

1:18:29the merits of this particular

1:18:30case. Um, one of the most

1:18:31significant kind of hardships,

1:18:34um, that has been indicated, um

1:18:36is that there's only on on uh

1:18:40street parking. Um, but in

1:18:43reality, um, there is a garage,

1:18:47uh, I took a picture of it this

1:18:48morning, but it's in the, the

1:18:50tax records that you, that I

1:18:51have, uh, submitted, the land

1:18:53boundary records. There there

1:18:54is an existing garage, um, that

1:18:58was not disclosed. And so as

1:19:00you consider the hardship, I

1:19:02would strongly encourage you to

1:19:05consider that particular fact.

1:19:10Um, moreover, in the way of

1:19:11peculiarity. Um, we we that we,

1:19:15uh, this house shares many of

1:19:16the common features of the

1:19:18houses, um, that surround it.

1:19:21Um, there's not, uh, as we note

1:19:23in the letter, uh, in more

1:19:25detail, um, this is, this, this

1:19:27is not a particularly um

1:19:30special site in that way. Um,

1:19:32and peculiarity is one of the

1:19:34components that one has to

1:19:35demonstrate, right? So there's

1:19:37a conjunctive test has to

1:19:39demonstrate in order to move

1:19:41forward, one. also needs to

1:19:44show exceptional and

1:19:46extraordinary circumstances,

1:19:48variances are, are not, uh, as

1:19:50you know, better than anybody,

1:19:52granite willy-nilly, right?

1:19:52Exceptional, uh, and

1:19:55extraordinary circumstances,

1:19:56and in our view, uh, when one

1:19:59takes into account the

1:20:01surrounding areas, that's not

1:20:01the case. Um, finally, the

1:20:04public interest. I strongly

1:20:06encourage you to consider when

1:20:08it comes to the public interest

1:20:10number one, city council acting

1:20:12on Monday, um, and taking

1:20:15seriously uh the highest

1:20:19legislative body of this city.

1:20:21Um, number 2, I encourage you

1:20:23to take into account the over

1:20:2690 signatures, um, that were

1:20:28pinned to a letter from

1:20:30community members, uh, many of

1:20:32whom live in Virginia Highlands

1:20:33some of whom live quite close

1:20:37to this particular site, uh,

1:20:39that's not routine. I, I would

1:20:41also encourage you to consider

1:20:44the over 100 constitutional law

1:20:46professors from across attested

1:20:48to the historic nature of this

1:20:49site. In light of that, uh, my

1:20:53strong recommendation is to

1:20:55defer. By one month, we'll have

1:20:58a much clearer picture of what

1:21:00the UDC has done in a month

1:21:02that we don't, we just don't

1:21:02have at this particular moment.

1:21:05Um, and if you per proceed to

1:21:09the merits, I encourage you to,

1:21:11uh, deny in light of the lack

1:21:13of a demonstration of hardship

1:21:15within the meaning of the code

1:21:17and in light of an absence of

1:21:20peculiarity. There's not, and

1:21:22finally, that there has not

1:21:22been a demonstration of

1:21:24exceptional and extraordinary

1:21:27circumstances. Thank you. Thank

1:21:31you, Ms. Smith. At 4:41, Mr.

1:21:40Rothman remaining. 4:41, you

1:21:42said. No. No. Yes. Uh, my

1:21:49apologies. My apologies. I've

1:21:52looked at the wrong number. You

1:21:55have 7:39 remaining. I need

1:21:56those 3 minutes. Yeah, yeah,

1:21:59attorneys usually do. We build

1:22:01by the word. Thank you very

1:22:03much, um. Um, first of all, on,

1:22:05on behalf of the app uh the

1:22:07owner, we'd appreciate a

1:22:09decision today and not a

1:22:10deferral, especially a one

1:22:12month deferral. The, the, what

1:22:14happened on Monday is city

1:22:17council initiated a resolution

1:22:18to initiate a process. That's

1:22:21what they did. Um, the That

1:22:25process involves going an

1:22:25analysis by the staff of the

1:22:28Urban Design Commission. Um,

1:22:29who I, I believe, uh, well,

1:22:32he's not here. Uh, at this

1:22:34point with, oh, that he is. So

1:22:36the staff is here if you have

1:22:37questions. It goes to the staff

1:22:39It goes to the urban Design

1:22:39commission. For review and then

1:22:43it just goes through the

1:22:45process. It's like legislation.

1:22:46One month, we're not going to

1:22:47know. In fact, one of the

1:22:50things that my clients heard at

1:22:53the NPU was. We'll get in touch

1:22:54with you. And no one has. That

1:22:59board member didn't know it, it

1:22:59was historic. My my clients.

1:23:02didn't know Historic. They did

1:23:05confirm that there are no

1:23:06regulations. And no historic

1:23:10status officially. We heard

1:23:12during the process that there

1:23:14is a history here. But their

1:23:17conclusion, which is something

1:23:19I put into the writing to you

1:23:20is. The the arrest that they

1:23:23refer to that's historic is

1:23:261982, but in 2016. This

1:23:28building was thoroughly altered

1:23:30There's a 2nd story addition.

1:23:32They enclose the front porch.

1:23:33It's gone. It's not the one

1:23:35story bungalow. In 1982,

1:23:37according to their materials,

1:23:39this one-story bungalow was cut

1:23:41up into apartments. There was

1:23:44multiple kitchens in there, I

1:23:44guess. And that's not legal

1:23:48under the zoning, and it's been

1:23:49a single family house. I don't

1:23:52know how that's a landmark, but

1:23:53that's for city council to

1:23:55decide, so I'd ask you not to

1:23:57defer on the fact that there's

1:24:00a, a pending change in the

1:24:01ordinance. In fact, if you

1:24:02follow that logic, I don't know

1:24:04if you've heard, I've been

1:24:04hearing about zoning 2.0. City

1:24:08council's about to change the

1:24:09entire zoning ordinance, maybe.

1:24:11But maybe not. They've

1:24:14initiated a process just like

1:24:15Atlanta 2.0. Um, and so we'd

1:24:19like you to go forward. And

1:24:21just make a decision up or down

1:24:22So let's go to the criteria.

1:24:24What I heard is, first of all,

1:24:26there's not a hardship because

1:24:27of the garage. I don't know

1:24:30that anyone said lack of garage

1:24:31is a hardship, but the garage

1:24:33that's there is right on the

1:24:35sidewalk in the hill. I kind of

1:24:37grew up seeing these things.

1:24:38They're like from the 1930s or

1:24:40something. You couldn't pull a

1:24:42car, a modern day car into that

1:24:44thing, it was meant in a

1:24:45different era. And it's also

1:24:49got major cracks in the wall

1:24:50adjacent to it. They planned to

1:24:52remove that garage. It's not

1:24:54safe. So that's, that's the

1:24:56point of that. Staff thoroughly

1:24:58reviewed that and determined

1:24:58that there was a hardship. They

1:25:00said this house is no different

1:25:01than any other house in the

1:25:03area. And so there's nothing

1:25:05extraordinary or unique. Well,

1:25:07there's a couple of things. One

1:25:08it's a corner lot. You've heard

1:25:09a couple of corner lot cases

1:25:11today, so they've got a a large

1:25:14half depth yard, side yard, but

1:25:18also this house has stairs that

1:25:20when you walk up them, they

1:25:21bounce. They're 10 years old,

1:25:23not structurally done. It was,

1:25:24I'm gonna just say the way I

1:25:25would say it, cheaply done. It

1:25:27was an investor property. There

1:25:29were renters there. Until these

1:25:32good people wanted to move in,

1:25:34not as developers again, but

1:25:36for their home to move in.

1:25:38There's black mold. In the

1:25:39house. Deferred maintenance,

1:25:43those things are unique that

1:25:43present a problem cause it's

1:25:45much easier to renovate a house

1:25:49But because of the, the

1:25:52situation where the existing

1:25:53house is where it is. It had

1:25:54the second story addition put

1:25:56on it, and then I'm gonna segue

1:25:58back to the historic

1:26:00preservation idea that you

1:26:01should consider as a public

1:26:03interest. Obviously, I put

1:26:06pictures in the book. This is

1:26:07not the same house. As it was

1:26:10in 1982 because it's instead of

1:26:12a one story bungalow with an

1:26:15open porch. It's cut up into

1:26:17apartments. And I used to hang

1:26:19out in that neighborhood in '82

1:26:22It was a nice place to be, uh,

1:26:23as a young man. But now it's a

1:26:25two story with no porch, a

1:26:28pediment. Above the entrance

1:26:30And it's a completely different

1:26:33floor plan where the porch was,

1:26:34are these stairs that are

1:26:36spongy when you walk up them.

1:26:39And to say you've got to

1:26:41preserve this house. Because of

1:26:43an event that occurred in a

1:26:46different. Kind of structure

1:26:48here is as silly as saying,

1:26:50well, we've discovered at the

1:26:50Walmart on Howell Mill, there

1:26:52was a Civil War skirmish there,

1:26:54so you got to save the Walmart.

1:26:57It's the historical event. And

1:26:59the, and the thing, the, the,

1:27:02the thing that's there now,

1:27:03there's no relationship. Right?

1:27:06I've been to Ford's Theater.

1:27:08Wow, this is where Lincoln was

1:27:08shot. The past becomes the

1:27:10present. You can see it and

1:27:11feel it. But this place, you

1:27:15don't have that. Why preserve

1:27:17it? Now that's a discussion for

1:27:19whether it should be landmark

1:27:20status or not. But to the

1:27:22extent you think that's

1:27:23relevant. I would say is not

1:27:26relevant because the thing

1:27:28that's there now is not a

1:27:30one-story bungalow cut up into

1:27:31apartments with an open porch.

1:27:34And so we would ask that you

1:27:36make a decision based on the

1:27:38criteria we agree with staff's

1:27:41analysis and just like all your

1:27:44variances with the zoning 2.0,

1:27:45the new zoning ordinance come.

1:27:46There's no reason to defer. And

1:27:49really, if you're going to

1:27:51defer to see the outcome. It's

1:27:53gonna be what, 9 months, a year

1:27:57the process goes for 120 days

1:27:58if it goes smoothly, but no

1:28:00one's talking to us. No one's

1:28:02been inside the house. This is

1:28:05a game is what it really is.

1:28:07And so what we would ask you to

1:28:08do is simply do what you did

1:28:09with all your other variances

1:28:11today. Don't think about future

1:28:13legislation like 2.0 or this.

1:28:16Potential landmark district.

1:28:20Consider what's before you an

1:28:20application under the current

1:28:22zoning for a variance. And do

1:28:25we meet the criteria? You can't

1:28:27go wrong doing that and staff

1:28:27has done excellent evaluation

1:28:30of it, and we'd ask that you

1:28:32approve this variance. Um, just

1:28:35like staff recommends and not

1:28:38defer or deny for that matter.

1:28:39Thank you very much, and we're

1:28:40here available for questions if

1:28:43you have them. Thank you, Mr.

1:28:45Rahman. It's 1:03 remaining. Mr

1:28:54Rothmann's 103 remaining. Would

1:28:54you like to? I, I'm gonna

1:28:58articulate there's an issue of

1:29:00standing, um, Mr. Smith, uh,

1:29:03one of the issues that come

1:29:05before the board is if somebody

1:29:07is complaining. And it's really

1:29:09an issue if there's litigation.

1:29:12Um, do they have standing? To,

1:29:14uh, File an appeal if they

1:29:16disagree with your decision, so

1:29:17I'm just going to raise that

1:29:20issue of what interest that's

1:29:21required to show standing that

1:29:23Mr. Smith has, um, and, um,

1:29:27whether or not there's a

1:29:28detriment to that interest, um,

1:29:30and so I'd like to at least

1:29:32raise that. I've I've raised it

1:29:34in my written material, but I,

1:29:36I'll articulate that also.

1:29:37Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

1:29:38Rothman. Name and address for

1:29:41the record. Lauren Clayton,

1:29:43City of Atlanta Law Department.

1:29:43Um, I also just wanted to put

1:29:45on the record on behalf of the

1:29:47city and the Department of City

1:29:50Planning that's standing is an

1:29:52issue and that I don't think at

1:29:54this time that the party

1:29:56speaking had standing to

1:29:59contest a decision by the board

1:30:01So I do need to put that in the

1:30:01record because we recently had

1:30:03a Court of Appeals decision

1:30:04that said we didn't raise it

1:30:06here and therefore we could not

1:30:08raise it in future litigation.

1:30:10Thank you, Ms. Clayton. But

1:30:13that your time has expired, Mr.

1:30:15Smith, you have 4 minutes, 40

1:30:21No, no, um, my apologies. My

1:30:24apologies, um, so what we'll do

1:30:26now is we'll go into

1:30:29deliberations and And, and we

1:30:31will have some questions for

1:30:32you, for sure, for sure. So

1:30:35what we'll do now is go into

1:30:39deliberations and in those

1:30:40deliberations, we may have

1:30:42questions for Mr. Mr. Rothman,

1:30:44we may have questions for the

1:30:46city. We may have questions for

1:30:48the homeowners, so there'll be

1:30:52opportunity to answer some

1:30:53questions. So with that, we'll

1:30:55enter deliberations and um

1:30:58address any questions, comments

1:30:59that we heard. I have no

1:31:02question, sir. I have no

1:31:04questions. OK I have a few, for

1:31:08sure. Um, we'll start with, um.

1:31:13Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith, would you

1:31:15come forward? I have a few

1:31:17questions. So one thing that's

1:31:22before us today, I just don't

1:31:24want to assume you know this

1:31:24process. There's an issue, on

1:31:29standing and standing is

1:31:31significant for us to evaluate

1:31:33when we evaluate these

1:31:35applications. So, um. Standing

1:31:40in something that you would

1:31:42have to have to bring these.

1:31:44Assertions before us. So can

1:31:47you speak to that? Uh, yes, sir

1:31:49So again, my residence is 587

1:31:53Virginia Avenue, Northeast, um,

1:31:56this, I don't, I couldn't tell

1:31:58you exactly how many miles it

1:31:58is, but I, it, it's, it's one

1:32:02long, long block, uh, and then

1:32:054 short blocks. Um, and I

1:32:07regularly, uh, go by this

1:32:10particular site. And so, I, I

1:32:12do have an, an aesthetic injury

1:32:13Um, and I have uh an injury, as

1:32:16a neighbor. So on both of those

1:32:19scores, I have standing. OK,

1:32:23because I should also note that

1:32:25uh in the uh one of the letter

1:32:27writers. Um, Is someone who's

1:32:30on the VHCA, uh, who's actually

1:32:32on the board. I, I would

1:32:34presume that they would have a

1:32:36different type of standing, and

1:32:38a letter writer is a former

1:32:40executive director of historic

1:32:41Atlanta, uh, who helped to

1:32:43contribute to this particular

1:32:45site, and I actually was a

1:32:47referee, um, when it came to

1:32:49the context statement. So I

1:32:50would want to put that on the

1:32:52record as well in terms of why

1:32:53I would have an injury. OK.

1:32:57That's all the questions I have

1:32:58for you. I understand the UDC

1:33:01is, is present. I just like to

1:33:05understand the timeline that

1:33:07was put before. Please state

1:33:09your name and address for the

1:33:10record. Certainly, and

1:33:12apologies in advance for my

1:33:14voice. Doug Young, I'm the

1:33:14director of the city of

1:33:15Atlanta's Office of Design,

1:33:16which includes the city's

1:33:18historic preservation staff,

1:33:19which staffs the Land, Urban

1:33:21Design Commission, which is a

1:33:21system board just like yourself

1:33:24OK. Um, so Mr. Rothman brought,

1:33:28brought an interesting point

1:33:30where uh deferral would just

1:33:32put the, put you all in a

1:33:34litigation and, and some time

1:33:35would pass as a result of that,

1:33:37can you speak to that a little

1:33:39bit? Well, I can't speak to Mr.

1:33:42Rothman, just the process, just

1:33:43the, just certainly, um. So, uh

1:33:47just very quickly, the city of

1:33:48Atlanta's historic designation

1:33:50process, uh, covers two general

1:33:53um, steps. The first step is to

1:33:55nominate the property for

1:33:57historic protection. That's

1:33:57done via notice of intent to

1:33:59nominate. Um, that note can be

1:34:01sent at, well, it can only be

1:34:02sent out by the executive

1:34:04director of the Urban Zion

1:34:05Commission, who, to be clear

1:34:06for the record, is not myself,

1:34:06but it is one of the people

1:34:08that works on my team. His name

1:34:09is Robert Reed, and that is a,

1:34:12uh, code required position in

1:34:13the city of Atlanta to have

1:34:14that position filled. That note

1:34:17of intent to nominate also

1:34:18allows the city to impose what

1:34:19are called interim controls, um

1:34:22per code, those can last from

1:34:24120 to 180 days. During that

1:34:26time, the property is reviewed

1:34:28as if it were protected

1:34:29underneath the city's

1:34:31preservation ordinance to

1:34:33eliminate the potential for uh

1:34:35Um, Demolition or unsympathetic

1:34:39alterations, uh, trying to, uh,

1:34:41circumspect the designation

1:34:42process. Part of that process

1:34:45is for the Urban Design

1:34:46Commission. Again, a board like

1:34:48yourself that focuses on

1:34:49historic preservation in the

1:34:49city of Atlanta. Uh, that board

1:34:51is charged with, among other

1:34:53things, considering nominations

1:34:54for historic protection in the

1:34:55city of Atlanta. Um, they would

1:34:57uh, hold a public hearing that

1:34:58would be duly advertised for

1:35:00the code, which is chapter 20

1:35:00of the zoning ordinance, and

1:35:02here all the comments and

1:35:05questions and concerns about

1:35:06the proposed designation. Uh,

1:35:09the city of Atlanta code

1:35:10outlines three groups of

1:35:11designation criteria that all

1:35:13properties must meet. Um, they

1:35:15are uni universal and uniform

1:35:16across the city of Atlanta. Um,

1:35:20that's one of the

1:35:21considerations they're resigned

1:35:21commission is charged with

1:35:23making a conclusion about is

1:35:25does the property or or

1:35:27district, if that's the case,

1:35:27meet the criteria for

1:35:29designation underneath the city

1:35:30plant's preservation ordinance.

1:35:32If the commission recommends

1:35:34that it or concludes that it

1:35:36does meet that criteria, that

1:35:38process then moves to the

1:35:41rezoning process, and that

1:35:44would um follow essentially the

1:35:44same steps that normal rezoning

1:35:45would in the city of Atlanta

1:35:46with the exception that it'd be

1:35:46for a very specific zoning

1:35:47category, uh, either designated

1:35:49district or designated building

1:35:50going forward. That of course

1:35:53like any other reasoning

1:35:54legislation goes to the city

1:35:56council and has to be signed

1:35:56into law by the mayor. Along

1:35:58the way, there's a variety of

1:35:59notices that are sent out to

1:36:00the property owners or property

1:36:01owner if it's a singular,

1:36:03singular property. There's also

1:36:04a designation report that's

1:36:05prepared that outlines the

1:36:07criteria, uh, how the criteria

1:36:07is met, and, um, any, um,

1:36:10developmental history about the

1:36:11property or district in

1:36:12question. We also would gather

1:36:16typically with the owner

1:36:18photographs, property

1:36:19information, anything that

1:36:19would help describe the

1:36:20significance of the property

1:36:21going forward, um. I would know

1:36:25for the record that the city of

1:36:26Atlanta did complete a, what's

1:36:28called a historic context

1:36:30statement, uh, several years

1:36:31back that um outlines the

1:36:32history of a variety of LGBTQTQ

1:36:34Plus properties in the city of

1:36:35Atlanta, and this property is

1:36:36included in that, uh. Research

1:36:39report. But as it's been made

1:36:43clear tonight, we have not

1:36:44acted upon that and so we do

1:36:46not have a, a designation uh

1:36:46pending for this property. All

1:36:50told, that process takes

1:36:52between $120 and 180 days. Um,

1:36:54the process would end as soon

1:36:55as the mayor took action on the

1:36:57legislation, so it's up to that

1:36:57amount, but it could be

1:36:59potentially shorter. As for the

1:37:01question of what occurred on

1:37:03Monday, uh, there's 3, parties

1:37:06which can, um, uh, initiate

1:37:10designation underneath the city

1:37:11of Atlanta, but one of those

1:37:12parties has a very specific

1:37:13relationship to the code, I'll,

1:37:15I'll take the first two first.

1:37:17Um, the urban Design mission

1:37:20director, um, which again is

1:37:22that code required position has

1:37:24the unilateral authority to

1:37:26initiate designation underneath

1:37:26the city of Atlanta's

1:37:28preservation ordinance, uh,

1:37:29based on, um, where they think

1:37:29that. Property meets the

1:37:31criteria, etc. all the things I

1:37:33just talked about. The other

1:37:35party that has standing to

1:37:37initiate the process is the

1:37:37property owner or property

1:37:39owners in the case of a

1:37:40district, and there's criteria

1:37:42about how that, that it gets

1:37:42documented and put forward to

1:37:44the city of Atlanta. Those are

1:37:46direct requests to the

1:37:47Department of City Planning or

1:37:49actions by the city planning

1:37:51department. Excuse me, um, the

1:37:543rd, uh, avenue, which is when

1:37:56there was, uh, took place on

1:37:59Monday is a code authorizes the

1:38:00city council to adopt a

1:38:04resolution requesting. But not

1:38:06requiring the city of Atlanta

1:38:07to take up the question of

1:38:08designation of a property or a

1:38:09set of properties. We are aware

1:38:11of that, uh, legislation, and

1:38:13we are taking it under

1:38:16consideration in the department

1:38:16of city planning. Thank you for

1:38:18that overview. It gave me a

1:38:20great opportunity to understand

1:38:22what this, what this looks like

1:38:25for the homeowners, for the. Um

1:38:27so thank you, thank you for

1:38:29that. So that was the questions

1:38:34I had before Mr. Young walks

1:38:35away, could I ask a couple of

1:38:37clarifying questions. Uh I was

1:38:40trying to get in there before

1:38:41he got too far away. I need the

1:38:43exercise. Here we go, get the

1:38:44steps in, um, the, by virtue of

1:38:47the council motion or their,

1:38:49their, um, uh resolution they

1:38:53have requested, but it is, it

1:38:54is under consideration, but it

1:38:56has not been formally initiated

1:38:57and where I'm going with that

1:38:58are interim controls in place

1:39:00at this point in time. I

1:39:01controls are not in place at

1:39:03this time for this property, OK

1:39:05And how, how long does it

1:39:07typically take for UDC staff to

1:39:09make it. Determination based on

1:39:11a council request, not the

1:39:14whole, whole process that you

1:39:14outlined, the, the long one,

1:39:15but Um, it, the initiation of

1:39:19the process can occur while the

1:39:22material is being prepared or

1:39:23researched, so it doesn't

1:39:25nothing have to be sequentially

1:39:25but it's all contingent on the

1:39:29city's staffs work program. As

1:39:30well as the priorities of the

1:39:32department at that time. OK. I

1:39:34have a question about the UDC.

1:39:36Is it true that they meet twice

1:39:37a year? Uh, they made twice a

1:39:40month, twice a month, OK 1st

1:39:43and 3rd Wednesdays. But in this

1:39:46room, or actually upstairs now,

1:39:48but OK, yeah, just want to

1:39:50understand the timeline a

1:39:50little bit. Every, every month

1:39:52except for December, we only

1:39:52have one meeting in December.

1:39:54OK. And. If I heard you

1:39:59correctly, the UDC director can

1:40:03initiate the owner can initiate

1:40:06and the legislation, the city

1:40:08council just passed can request

1:40:10but not require. That is

1:40:12correct. OK. And that's the

1:40:15homeowner have to agree, should

1:40:17should. In either one of

1:40:22designated parties choose to

1:40:24designate this property with a

1:40:25home that's the ownership of

1:40:28the home have any say in this?

1:40:29Uh, the code does allow for the

1:40:32director, um, to unilaterally

1:40:33proceed with the designation

1:40:35process, but I would note that

1:40:35it's in the best interest of

1:40:36the city of Atlanta, when at

1:40:37all possible to work with

1:40:39property owners on designation

1:40:40because of course it affects

1:40:41their property. OK, thank you.

1:40:44Thank you for that clarity. A

1:40:46question for Mr. Rothman, and

1:40:48I'll be done, I think. And it's

1:40:53your. My, my assumption, um, I

1:40:57don't wanna assume, so I'm just

1:40:59gonna ask you, your clients,

1:41:02are they? I opposed to the

1:41:06historic designations or, or

1:41:07not. It's impossible to say

1:41:13cause nobody has told them.

1:41:14What we're talking about here

1:41:17that we don't know if it's

1:41:18gonna be that as, as you may

1:41:20know, some designations say you

1:41:22can't touch a thing. This is,

1:41:23you know, too important. Fine,

1:41:27that's it some designations, as

1:41:27long as it's not visible from

1:41:29the street. You can't change a

1:41:31thing without our approval.

1:41:31When I say you can't change a

1:41:33thing without our approval.

1:41:35Some and so the question

1:41:36becomes, what are they asking

1:41:38for? We've heard a multitude of

1:41:40things through the media, but

1:41:42nobody has reached out. Called

1:41:45the Gutierrez's. Everything

1:41:47that they're learning about,

1:41:49they're learning about from the

1:41:51outside. Coming in. And so I

1:41:53can't say whether they'd oppose

1:41:54it or not. I, I can tell you

1:41:56this, the apparently we've

1:41:58heard some discussion that, you

1:42:00know, they, they, someone wants

1:42:01to put a historical marker in

1:42:02front of it. If if that's what

1:42:05we're talking about, there's

1:42:07not a problem. If someone says,

1:42:09well, we want you to preserve

1:42:10the structure. Well, now we'd

1:42:12like to talk to you because you

1:42:13should know and listen to us

1:42:14and come look at the house,

1:42:16maybe take a look at it. Come

1:42:18inside and look at the mold.

1:42:20Look at the stairs. Nobody has

1:42:23begun any of that process. Got

1:42:25you. In my opinion, this is all

1:42:27Political to satisfy a hobby of

1:42:32someone else, but I don't know

1:42:32that yet. And so I, can't.

1:42:36Thank you. Thank you for your

1:42:38comments. That's the all the

1:42:38questions I had. It just, I

1:42:40just wanted to, I'm sorry it

1:42:41took me a while to arrive at

1:42:43that. That's just have a

1:42:45comment before we entertain the

1:42:47motion that singing would be

1:42:49disingenuous to put the

1:42:51homeowners through something

1:42:52that is. Vague to and, and it

1:42:56may be and it may not be and

1:42:59who knows what the historic

1:43:01destination may, may uncover

1:43:03and that's, that's sometime in

1:43:05the future. That's just my

1:43:05comments. My, my only comment

1:43:09is that from what I understand,

1:43:11what happened Monday was just

1:43:14strictly a resolution asking.

1:43:18UDC in the city to evaluate the

1:43:19home, so, um, And it's not a

1:43:25formal nomination or anything

1:43:26like that. So um I would agree

1:43:29with you in that matter, and

1:43:32does anybody else have any

1:43:32other questions? Otherwise, I

1:43:33want to make a motion. I'd just

1:43:34like to make 11 comment on the

1:43:36record. I, I, you know,

1:43:38typically don't, you know,

1:43:41historical issues lightly, so

1:43:43I'm, I'm sitting here kind of

1:43:44really chewing on this one, but

1:43:46what I, I think I This board is

1:43:48for zoning matters at the end

1:43:50of the day, and so I'm gonna go

1:43:50back to to that. And what I

1:43:52really haven't heard in the

1:43:54discussion today is anything

1:43:55that refutes what the staff has

1:43:57found in the report in terms of

1:43:59of hardships specific to, to

1:44:01this site, and while I would

1:44:02really like to be sensitive to

1:44:04a historic process that needs

1:44:05to play out. I am also seeing a

1:44:06pattern of deferrals here that,

1:44:09that potentially puts uh

1:44:10homeowners on a pathway of, of

1:44:13an indefinite timeline that

1:44:14makes me even feel more

1:44:15uncomfortable where we might

1:44:17ask them to wait. 6 months, a

1:44:19year, and, and be here to say,

1:44:21just kidding, it wasn't

1:44:22actually an apple a candidate

1:44:24for this designation after all,

1:44:28um, so I, I think at the end of

1:44:29the day, I feel comfortable

1:44:31supporting this based on, on

1:44:32purely just what they're

1:44:34requesting and what staff has

1:44:35found in terms of the hardships

1:44:37of the site, it being narrow,

1:44:38the, the half depth front yard

1:44:40taking even more space of the,

1:44:42a lot that's already deficient

1:44:44in size, so you wanted to make

1:44:46a motion, I will cede the floor

1:44:46to you, but that. I wanted to

1:44:48put my thoughts on the record.

1:44:49It's not an easy one, but. Well

1:44:52Mr. Chair, based on the

1:44:53findings of fact of the staff

1:44:55report and an incon conclusion,

1:44:57with the staff recommendations,

1:44:59I recommend that we approve

1:45:04V-26-135, part one, part 2, and

1:45:06part 3. And I recommend a

1:45:10denial without prejudice of the

1:45:13height of the privacy fence.

1:45:16Philip Perry's 2nd. Motion's

1:45:17been made improperly second

1:45:18with respect to V26135. And I,

1:45:23I, I, I'm sorry, I do, I just

1:45:24want to clarify the part 1,

1:45:27part 2, and part 3,

1:45:31recommendations, um, so. You're

1:45:33recommending approval to the

1:45:35setback variances for the half

1:45:36deck front yard, uh, the rear

1:45:39yard set back and the uh

1:45:42special exception for the

1:45:44accurate recreation for the

1:45:45pool adjacent to the street,

1:45:47and the retaining wall height

1:45:49uh to be increased as requested

1:45:52correct? OK. Thank you, Madam

1:45:56Secretary, for that

1:45:58clarification. One second.

1:46:01Emotion's been made and

1:46:02properly seconded with that

1:46:05detailed on what 12, and 3

1:46:07entail. All those in favor,

1:46:09state your name and say ay or

1:46:10nay, Philip Perry, I, Ayesha J.

1:46:12Thomas, I. Kevin Bacon, I

1:46:16Michael Williams, I motion

1:46:18passes and with that we are, J

```*