[0:05] All right, go ahead and give us I should
have it in my heart, shouldn't I?
[0:09] [gasps]
Uh, I'm going to go ahead and state our
[0:12] statement of powers. Uh, the Augusta
Board of Zoning Appeals hears and makes
[0:16] decisions on applications for variances
in accordance with the powers granted
[0:20] under section 1-4-88
of the Augusta, Georgia Code. The
[0:25] applicant must provide any scale
drawings or plot plans, including all
[0:29] dimensions, pictures, and other
supporting information at this meeting.
[0:33] Only information presented at this
meeting may be used in any future
[0:37] hearings regarding this petition. Any
person affected by the board's decision
[0:42] may file an appeal with the Superior
Court of Richmond County, Georgia,
[0:45] within 30 days of the decision of this
board. The meeting will be conducted in
[0:50] accordance with the board's bylaws and
the rules of procedure and the latest
[0:53] edition of Robert's rules of order
unless otherwise directed by the
[0:57] majority of the board in session at the
time. A minimum of 10 minutes shall be
[1:01] afforded for the presentation of data,
evidence, and opinions on each side of
[1:06] the petition. If more than 10 minutes is
afforded to one side, then an equal
[1:09] amount of time shall be afforded to the
other side. The board encourages
[1:14] participation in this hearing and there
is no restriction on who may address the
[1:18] board within the allotted time. But the
board does ask that the public comments
[1:22] be brief on subject and directed to the
board, not to any individual or group.
[1:29] All right.
[1:33] So we will move right into BZA 2618.
If staff will go ahead and report.
[1:49] All right. Good afternoon.
[clears throat and cough]
[1:52] Excuse me. Sorry about that, Mr. Chair.
Uh members of the comm uh the board and
[1:56] ladies and gentlemen. Um Todd Kennedy
with planning and development staff here
[2:00] to present this case. I'll be presenting
this case and the next two cases on your
[2:04] agenda. The first case, BCA26-18.
It's a petition by u uh by Expedite the
[2:12] Deal LLC on behalf of B uh BVC Colony
Plaza LLC requesting a variance from
[2:19] section 28-B-9A,
the comprehensive zoning ordinance to
[2:24] increase maximum square footage
permitted for signage from 200 ft to 397
[2:29] square ft on a property located at 2121
Windsor Spring Road. Parcel number
[2:35] 121-2-188
[2:38] uh- 00-0.
Property is in the zoning district of
[2:42] B2, General Business, District 5, uh
under uh Commissioner Don Clark. I'm
[2:47] going to go ahead and dive right on in.
Uh we're doing something a little
[2:50] different than PowerPoint this time. I'm
just pulling up the staff report memos
[2:54] one by one and we'll just go through the
information.
[2:59] Okay, I'm going to go ahead and begin
with the background and then we'll move
[3:02] into the findings. I'll move through it
as quickly as I can. Okay, back around
[3:06] the case. This petition requests
variance to increase the maximum allow
[3:09] allowable sign area from uh for the
commercial property located at 2121
[3:15] Windsor Spring Road identified as the
parcel as previously stated. The
[3:20] property is zone B2 general business
with stipulations and is uh developed um
[3:25] as an existing multi-tenant commercial
shopping center. Uh the uh the applicant
[3:29] requests relief from the section 28-B
uh 9A of the uh of the um comprehensive
[3:36] zoning ordinance to increase the maximum
permitted sign area from 200 ft to 397
[3:42] ft. Uh the proposed variance would allow
an installation of a larger sign intend
[3:47] to approve a visibility and
identification of the business within
[3:51] the shopping center known as Colony
Plaza. Mr. chair, members of the comm um
[3:56] the board. We have a total let me just
go pass right by here. We have a total
[4:01] of eight findings. Uh there um you want
me to go um what I was going to do is
[4:05] just I'll let let you know they're in
the in your packet rather than you know
[4:08] read them um you know perbatim. So what
I'll do is I'll go ahead and move
[4:13] forward. Um there's a total of four
criteria uh here. As you can see that's
[4:18] another area. uh all the criteria has
been answered. It looks um I'll just
[4:23] move forward real quickly very briefly
on this.
[4:28] Uh the um the the granting of a variance
um is subject to a finding by the board
[4:33] of appeals. Uh the petition meets all
four criteria uh for unnecessary
[4:37] hardship and it's one through four. And
each one of these criteria uh that's
[4:42] indicated in your packets. Uh the answer
is yes to pretty much all of them. Uh
[4:46] let me just go through and I'll just
double check. So, um, uh, that, um, so
[4:51] anyway, just leads us right back to our,
uh, down to the recommendation. Uh, I'm
[4:55] going to go ahead and conclude my
presentation. Mr. Chair, u myself, um,
[4:59] and our staff and the applicants role
here to answer any questions you might
[5:02] have today.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy. Is the
[5:05] applicant uh, or a representative from
Expedite the Deal present today?
[5:10] Awesome. Uh, if you wouldn't mind, uh,
we just have you over at this podium
[5:13] over here. Uh, and if you would just
provide your name, your zip code, and
[5:18] that you have authority to speak on
behalf of the application.
[5:22] » Yes. My name is Pete Hatcher, and my
address is 6487 Hillyard Drive, Canal
[5:27] Winchester, Ohio, 43110.
And I do have authorization to speak on
[5:32] the case.
>> Thank you very much. Uh, you have a
[5:34] minimum of 10 minutes if you'd like to
add anything.
[5:37] » Um, actually there's nothing I'd like to
add. Uh, I'll just say that I uh concur
[5:41] with staff the staff reports
recommendation for approval and I'll
[5:44] answer any questions you might have for
me.
[5:45] » Thank you very much. If you wouldn't
mind just hanging out there for a
[5:47] moment. Is there anyone in opposition of
the application today?
[5:51] Seeing none, I'll ask staff did we
receive any?
[5:56] » We have not.
>> Excellent. Thank you very much. U I'll
[5:59] go ahead and ask staff to provide the uh
staff's recommendation.
[6:06] » All right. Uh planning and development
staff recommends approval of the
[6:09] variance request to increase the maximum
allowable building mounted sign area
[6:15] from 200 square ft to 3u 97.35
square ft subject to the following
[6:22] conditions and we have a total of five
conditions.
[6:26] Condition number one is approval shall
apply only to the building mounted sign
[6:32] as shown on the plan submitted with the
variance application.
[6:37] Number two, the proposed sign shall
comply with all applicable all other
[6:42] applicable provisions of section 28B
signs of the Augusta comprehensive
[6:48] zoning ordinance including permitting,
structural uh design uh illumination,
[6:54] maintenance, and other and uh placement
requirements. Number three,
[7:00] the applicant shall attain all required
sign permits and any other applicable
[7:05] approvals uh with the planning and
development department prior to
[7:09] installation. Number four, approval of
this variance shall not wave uh
[7:14] compliance of any other applicable
federal, state or local uh regulations.
[7:20] And finally, number five, uh any future
development or land disturbing uh
[7:26] activity uh on the property shall comply
with the applicable provisions of the
[7:30] Augusta tree ordinance, including the
tree protection and tree establishment
[7:34] plan requirements and minimum tree
company
[7:39] standards where applicable. And that
concludes staff's recommendation.
[7:42] » Thank you very much, Kevin. And sir, I
saw a lot of nodding. Are you agreeable
[7:45] to those terms? Should we move forward
with approval?
[7:48] » Yes.
>> Thank you very much. I'll turn it over
[7:49] to this board if there's any questions.
Miss Williams.
[7:52] » I make a motion to approve with staff's
recommendations.
[7:56] » Second.
>> All right. We have a motion by Miss
[7:58] Williams and a second by uh Mr.
Trullock. All in favor of approval of
[8:04] this with staff's recommendation by show
of hands, please.
[8:09] I see everyone. That's a unanimous vote.
Thank you very much, sir. You'll have
[8:13] your letter in the mail.
>> Thank you.
[8:15] » Yes, Mr. Dalton.
>> May I ask a question? May I ask a
[8:18] question to the staff?
>> Yes, sir.
[8:20] » Um, under criteria for granting variance
item number three talks about hardship
[8:26] results, there's a reference to internal
circulation network. Could someone tell
[8:31] me what that is?
[8:35] Uh so given the overall plaza and you
may be familiar with this location here
[8:41] off of uh Peach Orchard um in Windsor
Spring, how the it's a pretty expansive
[8:47] uh surface parking area and it it has an
internal network of uh drives and you
[8:53] know
>> it's the layout of the parking lot.
[8:56] » Say that again.
>> It's the layout of the parking lot.
[8:59] Yeah. Okay. Fine. Thanks.
>> The complexity and the scale of that.
[9:02] Yes, sir. Thank you, Dr. Brandon. Thank
you, Kevin. We'll move on to the next
[9:06] item on the agenda, noting that 2619 has
been postponed until September. We'll
[9:12] pick up 26-20.
[9:16] » Give me just a second here, Mr. Chair.
>> That's perfectly fine.
[9:19] » Okay. Actually, I think I just skipped
right by it. I apologize.
[9:39] » [snorts]
>> Oh, yeah.
[9:41] » Great. Okay.
[9:45] Make sure I'm in the right spot. Ah,
here I am. Instead of the entire packet,
[9:49] it's just the staff report memos. So, I
apologize for that, Mr. Chair. Okay.
[9:53] Next case before you is uh BZA-26-20.
It's a petition by Augusta/CSRA,
[10:01] Habitat for Humanities, requesting
variances from sections 11-1A,
[10:07] 88A, and 111B of the comprehensive
zoning ordinance to reduce the minimum
[10:13] lot area from 6,000 square ft to uh
5,000 uh 5,372
[10:21] uh square ft and to reduce uh the
required front setback from 30 ft to 10
[10:26] ft to constru Construct a new home on
property located at um 1851 Wilhelm
[10:31] Lane. Uh tax parcel number
035-2562-00-0.
[10:38] The property is in zoning district R1C
one family residential district 1 under
[10:43] Commissioner Jordan Johnson. Okay,
moving into the background of the case
[10:47] here. Have it pulled up right here. Yep.
2620. subject site is an established
[10:53] residential um neighborhood um along
Wilhelm Lane in the National Register
[10:59] historic Harrisburg neighborhood. The
parcel is approximately 5,372
[11:05] square ft and does not meet the zoning
district's um minimum lot area
[11:10] requirement. The parcel is a is a
separate lot measured approximately 78
[11:14] ft w um uh 78 ft in width and 676 ft in
depth. And um it is a vacant lot uh
[11:22] vacant lot and is served by public water
and sanitary sewer. The site level uh wi
[11:28] with no significant changes in elevation
or unusual topographic features that
[11:33] would substantially restrict u uh
development. Surface drainage appears to
[11:38] follow the natural grade toward uh the
adjacent uh public rideway and is uh in
[11:43] existing storm water infrastructure.
Staff observed no pronounced slopes,
[11:48] ravines, or other physical land forms uh
that would constitute an extraordinary
[11:53] topographic hardship affecting the
property. Uh the surrounding area
[11:57] consists of primarily single family
residential development. [clears throat]
[12:01] Adjacent zoning and land uses uh are uh
zoned R1C uh with single family and
[12:07] multifamily uses.
The R1C one family residential district
[12:12] is intended to accommodate moderately
dense single family residential
[12:16] development while preserving
neighborhood stability and residential
[12:20] character. The district uh generally
requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
[12:25] square ft and a minimum lot of lot width
of 78 ft. Now, moving ahead with our
[12:30] findings, just like before,
go and pull them up. There's a total of
[12:35] six findings. They're all indicated in
the staff report as you can see. and
[12:39] I'll just have them pulled up and there
is a total of four criteria as stated
[12:44] before pretty much the answer is yes to
all the criteria um with the with the uh
[12:50] the um you know with some information as
you can see in number four. So with all
[12:55] that information that concludes my
presentation Mr. Chair um myself staff
[12:59] and the applicant role here to try to
answer any questions you might have.
[13:02] » Thank you very much Mr. Kennedy. Is the
applicant present today?
[13:07] Excellent. if you wouldn't mind just
addressing the podium again, just name,
[13:10] zip code, and that you have the
authority to speak on behalf of the
[13:13] application.
[13:16] » Good afternoon, board members. Uh my
name is Gary Arnett. Uh address will be
[13:21] 1301 Green Street, Augusta, Georgia, and
I do have the authority to speak behind
[13:26] the CSR Habitat of Augusta.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Arnett. You
[13:30] have a minimum of 10 minutes that you'd
like to add anything to this
[13:33] application. I know we've got quite a
few of them to go through for you. So
[13:36] » it'll basically be the same presence of
me putting down uh the same information
[13:41] throughout each one of them. Um so I
will state that our mission is to bring
[13:45] together to build homes, communities and
hope providing families with safe,
[13:49] decent and affordable housing. Um today
we are requesting variances for five
[13:53] items actually to allow for the
construction of five single family homes
[13:57] on the existing lots. The properties
face unique challenges including
[14:01] irregular shape limit limited dimensions
and hinder conventional development.
[14:06] Strict enforcement of the zoning
ordinance would impose unnecessary
[14:09] hardship and limit the practical use of
the property. We believe that granting
[14:13] these variances would not only serve the
public good but also support the
[14:16] community's development goals. I trust
that the board will make a fair and
[14:20] great decision. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Arnett. Is there anyone
[14:23] present today in opposition of this
application?
[14:27] Seeing none, I'll turn to staff and just
double check that we did not receive any
[14:30] emails.
>> No opposition.
[14:32] » Excellent. Can we go ahead and get
staff's recommendation on this item?
[14:36] » All right. So, planning and development
staff recommends approval of this
[14:39] variance request with the following
conditions. Uh number one, uh
[14:44] development shall substantially conform
uh to the site plan submitted with this
[14:49] variance application. Number two,
approval of variances shall apply only
[14:53] to the requested reduction in the
minimum front yard setback and minimum
[14:58] lot area. All other applicable
development standards of the Augusta
[15:02] comprehensive zoning ordinance shall
remain in effect. Number three,
[15:08] uh prior to issuance of any uh building
permits, the uh applicant shall obtain
[15:14] all applicable approvals from the
planning and development uh engineering,
[15:18] utilities, building inspection and any
other reviewing agencies. Uh number
[15:23] four, development of the property shall
conf uh comply with the requirements of
[15:29] the August tree ordinance, including
submission of a tree protection, tree
[15:33] establishment plan, and satisfaction of
um applicable tree canopy requirements.
[15:39] And number five, approval of this
variant shall not wave uh compliance
[15:43] with any applicable federal, state, uh
local regulations. That concludes
[15:48] staff's recommendation.
>> Thank you very much, Kevin. Mr. Arnette,
[15:51] uh, if we were to move forward with this
approval, would you be approval to those
[15:54] five conditions?
>> Yes, sir.
[15:55] » Thank you very much. I'll turn it over
to this board for any questions. Yes,
[15:59] Mr. Chippers.
>> Uh, Mr. Chairman, if there are no other
[16:03] further discussion and if, like the
applicant says, he accept the condition
[16:08] that the staff laid out. I motion
approval.
[16:11] » Have a motion on the floor for Miss
Chair. Can I
[16:14] » with conditions?
>> With conditions.
[16:16] » Second.
>> All right. We have a motion on the floor
[16:19] to approve with conditions stated by
staff by Miss Chivers, seconded by Mr.
[16:23] Trulock. And I see a show of hands. All
in favor for this approval.
[16:28] All right, that's unanimous. Thank you
very much. We'll have your letter for
[16:31] that one. Mr. Kenny, you want to go
ahead and take us to the next one?
[16:34] Number 21.
>> Yes, sir.
[16:38] » Okay. All right. All right. The next
item before you is um a petition once
[16:42] again by the Augusta CSR, Habitat for
Humanity, requesting variances from
[16:46] section 11-1A 11-1B
88A of the comprehensive zoning
[16:52] ordinance to reduce the um reduce the
required minimum lot area from 6,000 ft
[16:58] to 5,236
ft and to reduce the the required front
[17:03] setback on Walker Street from 30 ft to
25 ft and the required front setback
[17:08] from 30 ft to 10 ft on Eve Street to
construct a new residence located at
[17:12] 1858 Walker Street, better known as tax
parcel uh parcel map uh 035-2-560-2
[17:21] 00-
properties in the R1C uh zoning district
[17:25] one family residential district 1 under
Commissioner Jordan Johnson. Moving
[17:30] ahead with our background.
There we go. All right, background is as
[17:36] follows. Subject property is a
rectangular uh lot uh with a uh with
[17:40] frontage along two local roads. It's a
dual uh dual road frontage provides
[17:45] access and visibility from both streets
and uh subjects um and subjects of the
[17:50] property to additional setback
requirements that affect the available
[17:53] buildable area. Uh the parcel is
approximately um is approximately 5,236
[17:59] ft and does not meet zoning district's
minimum lot area requirement. The
[18:04] subject site is an established
residential neighborhood along Walker
[18:07] Street in National Registered Historic
um Harrisburg neighborhood. The parcel
[18:12] is approximately 44 ft in width and 118
ft.33 ft in depth. The subject site is
[18:20] vacant lot and is served by public water
and sanitary sewer. The site appears at
[18:26] level with no significant changes in
elevation or unusual topographic
[18:30] features that would substantially
restrict uh development. The surface
[18:35] drainage seems to follow the natural
grade toward the adjacent public rideway
[18:40] and existing storm water infrastructure.
Staff observed no profound slopes,
[18:44] ravines, or other physical land forms
that would constitute extraordinary
[18:49] topographic hardship affecting the
property. The subject area consists of
[18:53] primarily of single family residential
uh development adjacent zoning and land
[18:59] uses are R1C with uh with single family
and multifamily uses. The R1C or one
[19:04] family residential district is intended
to accommodate moderately dense single
[19:09] family residential development while
preserving neighborhood stability and
[19:13] residential character. The district
generally requires a minimum lot area of
[19:17] 6,000 square ft and a minimum lot width
of 44 um u 44 ft. The findings uh once
[19:25] again are six findings uh for the for
this variance as you can see here in the
[19:30] in the staff report packet and then
criteria is a total of four criteria and
[19:36] it's just the same as before of the last
case pretty much yes to all of them and
[19:40] some information in um criteria number
four. That concludes my presentation,
[19:44] Mr. Chair, members of the board, myself,
staff, and the applicant. We're here to
[19:47] answer any questions.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
[19:50] Arnette. I imagine you don't have much
else to add on this one.
[19:54] » No, sir. It's being pretty much the
same. We're just asking for the the
[19:58] zoning to be pressed into so that we
could have that hardship.
[20:00] » Thank you very much. Is there any
opposition for this application?
[20:03] » Seeing none and hearing none from email,
let's go ahead and get staff's
[20:07] recommendation, please.
>> All right. And it's the same as the
[20:09] previous um the planning and development
staff recommends approval of this
[20:14] variance uh request with the following
conditions. Number one, development
[20:18] shall substantially conform to the site
plan submitted with the variance
[20:22] application. Number two, approval of the
varianes shall apply only to the
[20:28] requested reduction front setback and
minimum lot area. All other applicable
[20:33] development standards of the Augusta
comprehensive ordinance zoning ordinance
[20:37] shall remain in effect. Uh number three,
prior to issuance of any building
[20:43] permits, the applicant shall obtain all
applicable approvals from the planning
[20:47] and development, engineering, utilities,
building inspection, and other reviewing
[20:52] agencies. Number four, development of
the property shall uh comply with all
[20:58] I'm sorry, comply with uh requirements
of the Augusta tree ordinance, including
[21:02] submission of a tree protection, tree
establishment plan, and satisfaction of
[21:07] applicable tree canopy requirements. And
finally, number five, approval of this
[21:12] variance shall not wave compliance with
any applicable federal, state, or local
[21:17] regulations. And that is staff's
recommendation.
[21:20] » Thank you very much, Kevin. Mr. Arnett,
I imagine you are again in agreeance
[21:23] with those. Should we move forward?
>> Yes, I am, sir.
[21:25] » Thank you very much. I'll turn it to
this board for any questions.
[21:28] » Mr. Truck,
>> I'll make a motion to approve subject to
[21:31] conditions.
>> Second.
[21:32] » All right. We have a motion and a second
to approve subject to the staff's
[21:36] conditions for the recommended approval.
All in favor by show of hands.
[21:40] Any in opposition? None. You'll have
your letter in the mail for that one as
[21:44] well. We can go ahead and hop over now
to 21.
[21:50] Nope. Sorry.
>> 22
[21:53] » 22.
[21:58] » All right.
So BZA 2622
[22:02] a petition by uh Augusta CSR Habitat uh
for is requesting a uh variances from
[22:10] sections uh 11-1A
8-8A
[22:15] um and 11-1B
of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to
[22:19] reduce the minimum lot area from 6,000
ft to 3360 ft and to reduce the front
[22:26] setback on Tailair Street from 30 ft to
10 ft to construct a new home on
[22:32] property located at 1847
uh Telair Street. And this is uh zone
[22:39] R1C and District 1, Commissioner uh
Jordan Johnson.
[22:50] So, uh the request is for two variances.
The very first is a reduction of front
[22:55] uh setback off of Telair Street from the
required uh 30 ft to 10 ft. And that
[23:02] relates to sections uh 11-1A
and 8-8 of the comprehensive zoning
[23:08] ordinance. And then secondly, uh a
variance on the permitted use um from
[23:15] 6,000 ft of what standard um to 3360
ft. And that is referenced in section
[23:22] 11-1B
of the zoning ordinance. A little
[23:26] background, this request, this petition
uh request variances for a vacant lot
[23:32] located at 1847 uh Telare Street. The
applicant seeks relief from the minimum
[23:38] front setback requirement along Telair
Street and the minimum lot area
[23:42] requirement of the R1C one family
residential zoning district. And this is
[23:47] to facilitate construction of a new
single family residence on the property.
[23:52] The sub property consists of
approximately 0.06 06 acres or 3360
[23:59] square ft and is identified as tax
parcel 035-2-
[24:05] uh 481-00-0.
The parcel is located at an intersection
[24:09] of uh Telare Street and Eve Street and
is located in the National Register um
[24:16] historic uh Harrisburg neighborhood. And
that's the national district is not
[24:21] locally um in a historic district.
So we will roll scroll down here and
[24:30] there are findings which emulates what
was uh presented in the previous
[24:36] application and moving down to the
criteria. There are four and these uh
[24:43] this these uh requests satisfy um the
criteria. So we uh notated a yes for
[24:50] each.
That concludes staff's presentation.
[24:54] » Thank you very much, Kevin. Mr. Arnett,
you are in favor of the application.
[24:59] Anything to add?
>> Nothing to add, sir.
[25:03] » Thank you. Any opposition for this
particular application?
[25:06] » I've not received any opposition or
favor um um requests in favor for this.
[25:11] » Thank you. And seeing none here, I'll
ask for staff's recommendation.
[25:15] » All right. And I could do that here
since I have the next case. They're the
[25:19] same uh conditions. So it's uh
recommendation of approval um of the
[25:25] variance with uh five conditions. The
very first is and if you if I have to
[25:32] read them, I don't know if it's
necessary.
[25:33] » I don't think so. We can just say that
it's approval with the following
[25:36] conditions.
>> Okay.
[25:38] » So the is uh approval with the following
conditions relating to the previous uh
[25:43] application. Thank you very much. I
imagine you're in agreeance again.
[25:47] » Yes, sir. I am.
>> Thank you very much. [clears throat]
[25:49] Turn it over to the board for any
questions. Miss Williams.
[25:51] » I make a motion to approve with staff
recommendations.
[25:55] » Here's a motion from Miss Williams and a
second from Dr. Brandon. All in favor
[25:59] for approval with staff's recommendation
by show of hands, please.
[26:05] It's a unanimous vote. Thank you very
much. We'll move on to the next item on
[26:08] the list, which is BZA 26-23.
right along here.
[26:13] » You're you're welcome to have a seat if
you want.
[26:15] » Awesome. Thank you, board.
>> All right. Next item on the agenda is
[26:20] BZA 2623. This is a petition by Augusta
CSR. Um, Habitat Humanity is requesting
[26:28] variances from section 8-1A,
8-8A,
[26:32] um, and 11-1B of the comprehensive
zoning ordinance to reduce the minimum,
[26:37] uh, lot area from 6,000 square ft to
3,360
[26:43] ft and to reduce the required front
setback on Telare Street from 30 ft to
[26:48] 10 ft to construct a new home on a
property located at 1843 Telair Street.
[26:54] This property is located in the R1C zone
in district one commissioner district
[27:01] I'm sorry commissioner Jordan Johnson.
[27:05] [snorts]
Uh general background for this one is
[27:09] that the sub property is uh in a in an
established residential neighborhood
[27:14] along Telfair Street in the Harrisburg
Oldtown and medical district areas. The
[27:21] parcel is a square lot measuring
approximately 60 uh feet in width and 56
[27:27] feet in depth.
Is a vacant lot and is serviced by
[27:32] public water and sewer. The site is uh
level with no significant changes in
[27:38] elevation or unusual topographic
features that would substantially
[27:43] restrict development.
uh surface drainage appears to follow
[27:47] the natural grade uh toward adjacent
public rightway and existing stone water
[27:53] infrastructure.
Staff observe no pronounced slopes,
[27:58] ravines or other physical landforms that
would constitute an extraordinary
[28:02] topographic hardship affecting the
property.
[28:07] The surrounding area consists primarily
of single family residential
[28:10] development. Adjacent zoning and land
uses are R1C and R2 with single family
[28:17] and multifamily uses.
The R1C one family residential district
[28:23] is intended to accomp accommodate
moderately dense single family
[28:28] residential development while preserving
residential stability and residential
[28:32] character. And the district generally
requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
[28:38] square ft and a minimum lot width of 60
ft. And we have staff findings which
[28:45] mirrors the previous two and are shown
here total of six findings in your
[28:54] report. Mhm.
>> And then the criteria for approving the
[28:58] variance
in consistent uh order to what was
[29:02] previously uh notated. And that
concludes staff's presentation.
[29:07] » Thank you very much, Kevin. Again, Mr.
Arnett, I imagine you're in agreeance or
[29:11] anything you'd like to add.
>> Nothing to add.
[29:15] » Thank you very much. Any opposition to
this application? Seeing none and having
[29:20] heard none from staff, we'll go ahead
and ask for staff's recommendation.
[29:25] » Staff is in uh in approval of this
request with the same conditions of the
[29:32] previous u those five conditions as
previously stated.
[29:35] » Thank you very much. And Mr. Arnetta, I
imagine you're in agreeance again.
[29:38] » Yes, sir.
>> Thank you very much. I'll turn it over
[29:40] to this uh board here for any questions,
>> Mr. Chair.
[29:45] » Okay. A motion approval with staff
recommendation.
[29:50] » Second.
>> We have a motion for Miss Chivers and a
[29:52] second for Mr. True. All in favor for
approval with staff's recommendation by
[29:55] show of hands.
It's unanimous. Thank you very much. I
[29:59] have your letter in the mail for that
one. And we'll go ahead and hop to the
[30:02] next one. BZA 2624, please.
>> Afternoon.
[30:08] My name is Ebony Dobson and I'll be
presenting the next last few cases that
[30:13] we have here. So for 26
24 again it's another application for
[30:20] Habitat for Humanity uh asking for on
two lots at 1850 and 1852 Hicks Street.
[30:27] Um parcel numbers are 0352-2-498-0000-
[30:36] parcel is 035-2-499-0000-
[30:42] current zoning is R1C one family
residential uh commissioner district 1
[30:48] um commissioner Jordan uh Jordan Johnson
uh the variance request is to reduce
[30:53] front setbacks on both of those lots
from 30 ft feet um to 10 square ft that
[31:00] affects sections 111 11-1A
and section 88 of the zoning ordinance.
[31:07] Uh the second request requires a
permitted use for the co lot coverage
[31:12] from a minimum of 6,000 ft to 1,680
ft um affecting sections 11-1B of the
[31:21] zoning ordinance. Background on this on
these lots um include the subject
[31:27] property is a square shaped lot with
frontage along hick streets. Combining
[31:32] the subject lots with the adjoining
parcel would create a unified
[31:35] development site with sufficient lot
area and dimensions to satisfy
[31:41] applicable zoning requirements and
provide an adequate buildable area for
[31:46] the proposed development. Thank you sir.
The combined parcels create a lot
[31:52] measuring approximately 56 square feet
in width and 60 ft and 60 square feet in
[31:57] depth, approximately 30300
3,360
[32:02] ft and does not meet the zoning
district's minimum lot area requirement.
[32:06] The subject site is an established
residential neighborhood along Walker
[32:11] Street in the National Registered
Historical Harrisburg neighborhood. The
[32:15] subject site is a vacant lot and is they
are vacant lots and is served by public
[32:21] water and sanitary sewer. The site
appears at a level with no significant
[32:25] changes in elevation or unusual
topography features that would
[32:29] substantially restrict development.
Service drainage seems to follow the
[32:33] natural grade toward the adjacent public
rightway and existing storm water
[32:36] infrastructure. Staff observed no
pronounced slopes, ravines, or other
[32:41] physical land forms that would
constitute an extraordinary uh topog
[32:46] topographic.
>> Thank you. [laughter]
[32:51] » Hardship affecting the property. The
surrounding area consists primarily of
[32:56] single family residential development.
Adjacent zoning and land uses are R1C
[33:02] with single family and multi-use and
multif family uses. The R1C1 family
[33:07] residential district is intended to
accommodate moderately dense single
[33:11] family residential development while
preserving the neighborhood stability
[33:15] and residential character. The district
generally requires a minimum lot of area
[33:20] of 6,000 square ft and a minimum lot
width of 60 square ft. That being
[33:26] stated, staff does have uh the following
findings. Um there were six findings
[33:32] same as the previous um applications. We
have the criteria for granting the
[33:38] variance. The four um hardships that
were shown which again were met by the
[33:45] applicant. Um and that concludes staff's
report.
[33:49] » Thank you very much. All right. Uh
anything to add, Mr. Arnette?
[33:54] » No, sir.
>> All right. Is there any opposition to
[33:56] this application present?
>> Seeing none, was there any from staff?
[34:00] Nothing.
>> Also none. All right, we'll go ahead and
[34:02] turn this over to staff's
recommendation, please.
[34:05] » And staff is recommending approval with
this one as well with the same
[34:08] conditions as outlined previously.
>> Thank you very much. I imagine you are
[34:12] in agreeance again with that. Should we
move with approval?
[34:15] » Yes, sir.
>> All right. I'll turn it over to the
[34:17] board
for any questions or motions.
[34:21] » I make a motion to approve subject to
condition.
[34:25] » Mr. Trullock has a motion to approve
subject staff's recommendations. Second.
[34:29] » M. Chver is second. All in favor by show
of hands for approval. That's unanimous
[34:34] as well. Thank you very much, sir. We
really appreciate your time today.
[34:38] » Awesome. Thank y'all. I appreciate your
board.
[34:40] » Thank you. All right. Ba 26-25, please.
[34:50] 425.
[34:55] This is for applicant
uh sorry this is for a property address
[35:00] at 3021 Washington Road. Um parcel
number is 012- 0-00008-
[35:09] 03- 0. The current zoning is B2 general
business commissioner district 7.
[35:17] Sorry.
[35:25] » Just a second here.
[35:29] » Was that you had already put it on?
>> No,
[35:34] » you have to uh you have to read.
>> No, no, no, no. I got I got Thank you.
[35:42] A petition by Hullberry Barrett PC on
behalf of Racetrack Incorporated
[35:47] requesting a variance from section 224
and 21-6A
[35:52] of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to
reduce the required front setback on
[35:55] Stevens Creek Road from 40 ft to 15 ft
for reconstruction of Riceway gas
[36:00] station on property located at 3021
Washington Road. Tax map parcel number
[36:07] is 012-
0-00008-
[36:12] 03- 0. The property is in zoning
district B2, general business, district
[36:18] number seven for Commissioner Tina
Sundec.
[36:22] Uh the petition was for a reduced front
setback on Stevens Creek Road. The
[36:30] permitted use right now is 40 square
feet. Uh the proposed use is 15 square
[36:35] ft. This affects our sections 22-4 and
sections 21-6A
[36:40] of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.
The background is as follows. This
[36:45] petition request the variance for the
property located at 3021 Washington
[36:50] Road. The subject property consists of
approximately 0.54 acres which is
[36:55] 23,455.4
4 square ft and it is identified as tax
[37:00] parcel 012-00008-03-0
[37:06] in zone B2 general business. The
property is currently developed as an
[37:10] existing racetrack convenience store and
fueling station situated on the corner
[37:15] of Washington Road and Stevens Creek.
The applicant requests relief from the
[37:19] front setback requirements of the
Augusta Richmond County comprehensive
[37:22] zoning ordinance to reduce the required
front setback along Stevens Creek Road
[37:27] from 40 ft to 15 ft to facilitate
demolition and reconstruction of the
[37:32] existing convenience store and refueling
station. According to the applicant, the
[37:37] redevelopment would modernize the
existing facility, improve vehicular
[37:41] circulation, enhance customer safety,
and provide updated site amenities while
[37:47] continuing the existing commercial use
of the property. The applicant further
[37:51] states that the property is constrained
by its corner configuration, limited
[37:55] site area, and the inability to acquire
adjacent property needed to expand the
[37:59] site. The request of variance is
intended to allow redevelopment of the
[38:03] existing commercial site while
maintaining operational efficiency and
[38:07] improving overall site designs.
Staff report concludes uh includes
[38:13] findings of eight
which is in your report there. We have
[38:18] the four criterias for the
granting of the variance
[38:25] and the applicant has um satisfied those
hardships according to staff and that is
[38:32] the conclusion of staff report.
>> Thank you very much as a representative
[38:37] for the applicant present today. Thank
you very much. And once you address the
[38:42] podium, would you please state your
name, your zip code, and that you have
[38:45] the authority to speak on behalf of the
applicant.
[38:49] Good afternoon. My name is Darren
Meadows. I'm a partner in the Hol
[38:53] Barrett Law Firm located at 801 Broad
Street, 7th floor here in Augusta,
[38:56] 30901.
>> All right. You have a minimum of 10
[38:59] minutes to add anything you'd like.
>> I submitted the application before you
[39:03] on behalf of my clients, Racetrack,
Inc., which owns over 600 racetrack and
[39:08] raceway gas stations across the southern
and central United States. This Raceway
[39:13] branded location has been a gas station
for well over 30 years. So, it's a
[39:17] non-conforming use as to the current
setbacks.
[39:21] Racetrack wants to completely demolish
the entire facility, including removal
[39:25] of the existing underground storage
tanks to be replaced with all new
[39:28] up-to-date equipment and replacement of
the very old style of building and
[39:33] canopy with racetrack and raceways
modern design and layout. In order to
[39:38] make these needed updates, we need to
obtain the requested variance from the
[39:41] setback requirements. With dual frontage
and a relatively small parcel, we cannot
[39:47] fit [snorts] the upgraded storing canopy
with the required loading and access
[39:52] ways on this lot with the 40ft setbacks
from both roads. My client tried to
[39:57] acquire additional land from neighboring
owners, but none of them wanted to sell.
[40:02] While we were able to design the layout
in compliance with the 40-foot setback
[40:06] from the very busy Washington Road, we
are requesting the setback on the
[40:10] Stevens Creek roadside be reduced to 15
ft. I note that this would actually
[40:14] result in an improvement over the
current situation. At present, the
[40:19] canopy roof is only 9.8 ft from the
Stevens Creek Road rightway. The new
[40:25] canopy will be just over 15 feet, so
over 5t further back. Currently, there
[40:30] is a dispenser just over 19 feet from
the right ofway. The new layout will
[40:36] move the closest dispenser over 10t
deeper into the property at 30.2 ft. In
[40:42] keeping with modern trends, the store
will no longer be in the middle of the
[40:46] dispenser canopy. It will be set to the
rear of the property, so those who wish
[40:50] to pay at the pump can do so, and those
who wish to come into the store without
[40:55] parking at the pumps can have that
option. This design allows the facility
[40:59] to serve more customers safely and
efficiently, hopefully leading to higher
[41:03] sales, which leads to more tax revenue
for the city. Um, a racetrack executive
[41:09] visited Augusta recently and recognized
that this store is in serious need of
[41:12] modernization.
Because of the small size and the odd
[41:16] shape, the store building had to be
specially designed. The normal store
[41:20] size and shape for raceway wouldn't fit
into the space that we have available
[41:25] here. But Racetrack recognizes that th
this location at I20 and Washington Road
[41:31] is an important travel corridor and they
want their brand to be better
[41:34] represented in this space. We hope you
will grant us the requested variant so
[41:38] we can move forward with the renovation.
I do have Kirk Ellis from Racetrack Inc.
[41:43] and Nan Wilcox from Carter Harkle Road
Engineers here with me today. If there's
[41:47] any questions, we will be glad to answer
them.
[41:49] » Thank you very much, Mr. Meadows. I
appreciate that. Is there anyone here
[41:53] present today in opposition of this
application?
[41:56] Seeing none, I'll turn to staff and ask
staff, did we receive any opposition
[42:00] through email?
>> We have not.
[42:02] » Thank you very much. Uh at this time,
I'll ask staff to uh go ahead and give
[42:07] us their recommendation.
>> All right. Planning and development
[42:10] staff recommends approval of the
requested variance um for the required
[42:15] uh reduction along Stevens Creek from 40
feet to 15 feet. And this also
[42:21] represents an improved condition of um
existing conditions. Uh so to the
[42:26] following um there are a total of four
conditions. The very first is approval
[42:32] shall apply to only the front setback
reduction along Stevens Creek. A road as
[42:37] depicted on a plan submitted with the
variance application. Number two, the
[42:42] development a redevelopment shall uh
substantially conform to the site plan
[42:46] submitted with the application.
Number three, that the
[42:52] uh applicant shall obtain all required
site plan approvals, building permits,
[42:57] land disturbance permits, and any other
applicable approvals from planning and
[43:02] development, engineering, traffic
engineering, utilities, and other
[43:06] reviewing agencies prior to commencement
of construction. And then finally,
[43:10] number four, the redevelopment shall
comply with all applicable provisions of
[43:15] the Augusta tree ordinance and the
illustrated guide, including submission
[43:21] of a tree and protection, tree
protection, tree establishment plan,
[43:26] preservation of protected trees where
feasible, and a compliance with um the
[43:31] minimum tree canopy requirements. And
that concludes staff's recommendation.
[43:35] » Thank you very much, Kevin. Mr. Meadows,
should this board move forward with an
[43:39] approval? Would you be agreeable to the
four conditions stated by staff?
[43:43] » Uh just one question for clarification.
Uh on the condition number four, the
[43:49] tree ordinance, we do anticipate uh
seeking a variance from the tree
[43:53] commission. Uh but you know, presuming
that that's not in conflict with that
[43:58] language, we will be fine.
>> It won't it won't be. Yeah. So that body
[44:02] would have the authority and Yeah.
you'll be in alignment with the
[44:06] condition.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Meadows. I turn
[44:09] this over to the board for any
questions. Miss Williams.
[44:12] » I make a motion to approve with staff's
recommendation.
[44:14] » Second.
>> We have a motion from Miss Williams, a
[44:16] second from Mr. Trullock. All in favor
for approval of this variance with
[44:20] staff's recommendation. Show of hands.
[44:26] Okay, I see all in approval. Any
opposition? Are you abstaining? I didn't
[44:30] see a vote.
[44:34] didn't see. I was looking the other
direction. All right, that's unanimous,
[44:37] Mr. Mr. Vettos. Thank you. It's
unanimous.
[44:40] » Thank you.
>> Sorry, Miss Pascal. I didn't see you
[44:42] down that. I looked that way first.
All right,
[44:46] » we will go ahead and turn to BCA 2626,
please.
[44:50] » Yes. And for our last case of the day, a
petition by Aziz Redani on behalf of
[44:58] Real Fortune 7 Incorporated is
requesting a variance from section 224
[45:03] and 21-6A
of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to
[45:08] reduce the required front setback on
Gordon Highway from 40 ft to 11 ft for
[45:12] an addition to an existing gas station
located at 2078 Oat Savannah Road. Tax
[45:19] map parcel number is 087-2-012-01-0.
[45:27] The property is in zoning districts B2
B2 general business and HI heavy
[45:34] industrial district 2 um for
Commissioner Stacy Polium.
[45:40] The request of variance again is reduce
front setback off of Gordon Highway from
[45:45] 40T to 15 ft. Um the background is as
follows. This petition requests a
[45:52] variance for the property located at 278
Old Savannah Road. The property contains
[45:57] approximately 460 acres, which is 20,62
ft and is identified as tax parcel
[46:05] 087-2-012-01-0
[46:10] and zoned B2 general business and HI
heavy industrial. The property is
[46:15] currently developed with an existing
commercial building situated on a
[46:19] triangular corner parcel at the
intersection of Gordon Highway and Old
[46:24] Savannah Road. The applicant requests
the variance to reduce the required
[46:27] front setback along Gordon Highway from
40 ft to 15 ft to allow an expansion to
[46:33] the existing commercial building.
According to the applicant's letter of
[46:37] intent, the existing sideyard
limitations request restrict expansion
[46:41] toward the eastern property line, making
it the proposed addition toward Gordon
[46:46] Highway the most practical location for
expansion. The applicant further states
[46:50] that the property size and configuration
create an unnecessary hardship and the
[46:55] granting variance will not adversely
affect public health, safety or welfare.
[47:02] For this particular case, we had a total
of 22 findings.
[47:07] I'm hoping you guys all got to read
that. [laughter]
[47:10] Um, that being stated again with the
criteria for the granting variance, we
[47:14] have four unnecessary hardships. Again,
the applicant did uh meet all four
[47:19] unnecessary hardships. And that
concludes the staff's report.
[47:24] » Thank you so much. Is a representative
of the applicant present today? Thank
[47:28] you if you wouldn't mind.
And once again, just like everyone
[47:32] before you, if you wouldn't mind stating
your name, your zip code, and that you
[47:36] have the authority to speak on behalf of
the application.
[47:39] » Good afternoon, staff. My name is Alfred
White. Um, I'm representing Aziz Ratini.
[47:44] Um, and yes, um, I have permission to,
uh, speak on behalf.
[47:47] » Thank you so much. You have a minimum of
10 minutes to add anything that you may
[47:50] like.
>> Um, I do not have anything to add.
[47:53] » That's all right. We'll just have you
stand in there just in case we have any
[47:57] questions, please. All right. Is there
any opposition present today?
[48:01] Seeing none, I'll turn to staff. Did we
receive any via email or phone call?
[48:04] » We have not received anything.
>> All right. Would you mind go ahead and
[48:07] presenting us with staff's
recommendation?
[48:11] » All right. The planning and development
staff recommends approval of the
[48:15] variance to reduce the required front
setback along Gordon Highway from 40
[48:20] feet to 15 feet subject to the following
conditions. There are a total of five in
[48:25] this case very similar to the previous
ones. Uh the first is approval shall
[48:32] apply only to the reduction required
front setback along Gordon Highway as
[48:36] shown on the conceptual site plan.
Number two, the proposed building
[48:41] addition shall substantially conform to
the conceptual site plan submitted with
[48:45] the variance application. Number three,
all remaining provisions of the Augusta
[48:51] comprehensive zoning ordinance
applicable to B2 and H NHI heavy
[48:56] industrial zoning district shall remain
in uh full remain in full of force and
[49:03] effect. Uh number four, applicant shall
obtain all required site plan approvals,
[49:08] building permits, land disturbance
permits, and any other approvals
[49:12] required by planning and development,
engineering, utilities, building
[49:17] inspection, and prior to commencement of
construction. And finally, the
[49:22] development shall comply with all
applicable provisions of the Augusta
[49:26] tree ordinance and the illustrated
guide, including submission of a tree
[49:32] protection, tree establishment plan, if
required, and compliance with uh
[49:38] applicable tree provision and tree
canopy standards. And that concludes
[49:41] staff's recommendation.
>> Thank you very much, Kevin. Mr. White,
[49:45] should this board move forward with
approval? Do you agree to those
[49:47] conditions as stated?
>> Absolutely.
[49:50] » Thank you so much. Before I turn to the
board, I did want to make a note on in
[49:54] findings. Number 10 does reference
Writesboro Road and Pennsylvania Avenue,
[49:59] which we believe is just a leftover from
last month's. So, just for the record,
[50:03] we're going to make sure that that's
stricken from the findings for them.
[50:07] » Uh I'mma add to that. I did get uh we
did receive correspondence from
[50:12] individual on the on the board and it's
uh it's 10, 11, and 12. So those need to
[50:18] be stricken and apologize for that
inconvenience.
[50:22] » Yeah. 10, 11, and 12 uh relates relate
to a separate uh uh report. So those are
[50:29] not applicable in this case. Thank you
very much. And I'm going to turn now to
[50:32] Dr. Brandon.
>> Mr. Chairman, I think item number 13
[50:36] also refers to
>> It does. It's number 13 as well.
[50:41] » It actually might be pretty much the
rest of them. Yeah, it is the rest of
[50:45] them.
[50:48] I think that's why there's 22 findings
is that there were actually only nine.
[50:52] They just didn't quite make it out of
there. So, let's indicate [snorts] on
[50:57] the record that we are striking all
findings 10 through 22.
[51:02] » Okay.
All right. But you did hear the
[51:06] conditions that we may consider approval
for and you are in agreement with or
[51:10] agreement with those.
>> I did. Yes.
[51:11] » Thank you very much. All right. I'll
open it up for any questions from the
[51:14] board.
Mr. Trlock.
[51:17] » I make You got a question? Go ahead.
>> Sorry.
[51:21] » Go ahead.
>> I make a motion to approve subject to
[51:23] conditions.
>> Second.
[51:25] » We have a motion from Mr. Trlog and a
second. Was I'm gonna throw it over to
[51:29] Mr. Forest. He was in my ear about it.
[laughter]
[51:31] » So, we have a motion and a second for
approval u based on staff's
[51:35] recommendations. All in favor by a show
of hands.
[51:40] » Awesome. That's unanimous. Thank you
very much, Mr. White. You'll have your
[51:43] letter in the mail.
>> Thank you. All right, I'm going to turn
[51:45] this over now to the next item on the
agenda, which is number 13, legal
[51:49] issues.
>> Oh, okay. We said the end, so I can kind
[51:54] of come to that. It can be the next one.
Anything from legal?
[51:59] » No, sir. I'm not aware of anything.
>> All right. I'll ask the board to take a
[52:02] moment just to look at the minutes from
our July meeting.
[52:07] And once you've had time to review them,
I'll entertain a motion for approval.
[52:21] Thank you.
[52:28] Anyone want to entertain a motion for
approval?
[52:33] Dr. Brandon has motioned and do Miss
Williams has made a second. All in favor
[52:37] for approval of the minutes by show of
hands, please.
[52:41] And it's unanimous. All right. Motion.
Can I entertain a motion for
[52:46] adjournment, please?
>> Move.
[52:48] » And can I get a second?
>> Second.
[52:50] » All right. All in favor?
>> Any opposed? Didn't think so. Thank you
[52:55] all so much for me coming out.
[53:04] » Big at home.