License and Variance Board Meeting - A. MAX BACON CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS — Minutes
Open official source ↗ · Source page 11
December 10, 2025 10:00 AM City of Smyrna License and Variance Board Meeting 2800 King Street SE Council Chambers Page 11 of 20 The property is currently occupied by a one-story single-family home and a 124 square foot shed in the rear of the property; Per the Historic Aerials website, the shed has existed on the property at least since 1999. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 617 square foot in-ground swimming pool and accompanying concrete deck to be situated directly behind the existing home. Since the accessory structure ordinance allows one accessory structure or use per lot, a variance is required to have the second structure. The applicant is proposing to retain the shed to continue storing yard tools; since the swimming pool and shed offer different uses for the property, the variance is not self- created. Due to the location of the pool and shed in the rear yard, Community Development believes the proposal will not adversely impact adjacent properties. Additionally, once the pool is completed, a 6-foot wooden fence will be installed in the rear yard, further blocking the shed from view. If it were not for the second accessory structure, no other variances would be required. Strict application of the ordinance would deny the applicant any ability to have any detached structure or use on the property due to the existing shed. At the time of this report, Community Development has not received any opposition to the variance request. The applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the City for the maximum number of accessory structures. According to Section 1403 of the Zoning Ordinance, variances must be reviewed under the following standards: (1) Whether there are unique and special or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property; (2) Whether any alleged hardship is self-created by any person having an interest in the property; (3) Whether strict application of the relevant provisions of the code would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property; and (4) Whether the variance proposed is the minimum variance needed. After a review of the standards above, Community Development believes that the variance will not adversely affect surrounding residents; therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested variance with the following condition: 1. Approval of the requested variance is conditioned upon substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with the variance application. Jacob King, representative of Peter Mokan’s company, came forward and stated that drainage is included to make sure stormwater is managed properly. Mrs. Crowe explained that there was no mitigation plan required, but that the contractors are adding it out of caution. Mr. King stated he is in Sales and Design and that he understands and agrees to the stipulation read into record. A public hearing was called, and no one came forward in favor of or in opposition to this item. Board Member Andrea Worthy made a motion to approve item V25-113; seconded by Board Member Eric Randall. The motion to approve carried with the following vote: Aye: 3 – Chairperson Garland, Board Member Worthy, Board Member Randall Nay: 0 – None Recuse: 0 – None