The most notable issue of the meeting centered around Miss Morris’s property, where a large shed and a concrete structure were identified as encroaching on property lines. The shed was constructed without a permit and was situated 6.4 feet from the property line, infringing on the required 7.5-foot setback. The concrete, laid out by Sam’s Concrete, was reported to extend into an easement and potentially onto neighboring land. Miss Morris’s representatives argued for leniency, citing her lack of awareness of the permit requirements and her intention to rectify the situation. They explained that the shed was for personal use and emphasized Miss Morris’s intention to comply with local regulations by removing the problematic concrete and a smaller shed also in violation.

Public opposition emerged from neighbors Kevin Lathrop and David Duncan, who voiced concerns about the shed’s impact on property lines and compliance with building codes. Lathrop presented photographs showing the proximity of the shed’s concrete pad to his property, arguing that the construction posed potential hazards, especially during storms. Duncan questioned the necessity of the variance, asserting that the shed did not meet the criteria and could worsen drainage issues in the area.

Despite attempts from the applicant’s representatives to address the concerns and clarify that the concrete pad did not encroach on Duncan’s property, the board decided to deny the variance request. The decision was influenced by the incomplete nature of the application and insufficient information provided to justify the variance. The board’s denial underscored the importance of adherence to zoning regulations and the impact of such constructions on neighboring properties.

The meeting also addressed several other variance requests. One notable approval involved a setback adjustment for a property on Benell Road, where the applicant sought to reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to 38 feet to accommodate a six-foot privacy fence. This request was linked to a previous eminent domain action that altered the property’s boundaries. With no opposition from the community, the board approved the variance.

Another approved variance concerned a property on Druid Drive in the Druid Hills State subdivision. The applicant requested reductions in side and rear yard setbacks to build an addition that included a bedroom, bathroom, and covered porch. Supported by letters from adjacent neighbors and lacking any opposition, the board passed the request unanimously.

Similarly, a variance request for a screen enclosure on Wood Fireway in the Deer Run subdivision was approved after the applicant highlighted that neighboring properties had similar structures without the need for variances. The board discussed the historical context of setback regulations before passing the variance.

A final approved variance request involved a proposed addition on Brown Drive, seeking a reduction in the rear yard setback. The board approved this after confirming no prior variances were needed for the property and hearing no opposition.