License and Variance Board Meeting — Minutes
Open official source ↗ · Source page 6
March 25, 2026 10:00 AM City of Smyrna License and Variance Board Meeting 2800 King Street SE Council Chambers Page 6 of 8 The applicant is requesting to deviate from the City’s minimum lot area, front setback, and rear setback requirements established for the R-15 Zoning District. 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. Community Development has reviewed the request and believes that the variances will not adversely affect surrounding residents since a house previously occupied the property. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the requested variances shall be conditioned upon substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted with the variance application. 2. A plat to confirm the property lines must be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the building permit. Once approved and signed by the City, the plat shall be recorded with the Cobb County Superior Court prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 3. An as-built survey shall be submitted prior to foundation pour due to the proximity to the setbacks. 4. All existing rollback curb and gutter shall be replaced with high back curb and gutter along the length of the property prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. If the existing driveway apron is not used for the new driveway location, the former apron must be replaced with high back curb and gutter. Chairperson Jones asked the following questions: • Regarding the home that was torn down, is that why there is no storm water mitigation requirement? Ms. Crowe stated that they are under 35% for impervious coverage, and they are beneath 5, 000 sq. ft of imperious being replaced or new, so storm water mitigation was not required. However, all new houses are reviewed by the engineering plan reviewer. • Based on the data that is currently available, and if this board chooses to approve these variances but the property lines do not match the available date, what is the procedure? Ms. Crowe stated that when submitting for variances, they operate off of a conceptual plan. If there is no match of boundary lines after a survey is completed, then they would need to come before the board again to adjust the variances unless there is a reduction or if the house is maneuvered in such a way to not affect setbacks. Mr. Jones stated that he would like to add that as a fifth stipulation. Roan Brown, applicant, came forward and stated he understands and agrees to the four stipulations read into record and to the added fifth stipulation for items V26-024, V26-025, and V26-026. A public hearing was called for items V26-024, V26-025, and V26-026. No one came forward in favor of or in opposition to these items. The public hearing was closed. Board Member Richard Garland made a motion to approve item V26-024 with the added fifth stipulation that if the property lines change per stipulation #2, and further variances are required, the applicant shall come back for an additional Variance Amendment; seconded by Board Member Carson Haynie. The motion to approve carried with the following vote: