GovernSmyrna.

License and Variance Board Meeting - A. MAX BACON CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS — Minutes

Open official source ↗ · Source page 2

SHA-256 eca22ad98fb5b6c2ad6786b14eee8e2645b9dbaccc73694b59b6e32fbe95ba95 · Captured source extract

 
January 22, 2025 
10:00 AM 
 
City of Smyrna 
License and Variance Board Meeting 
2800 King Street SE 
Council Chambers 
 
Page 2 of 11 
 
to the impervious surface area if the rear patio were to be erected at a later date as per 
their submitted site plan. 
  
Since the Stormwater Ordinance does not differentiate between replaced and new 
impervious area, a variance is required for the existing nonconforming impervious area. 
Additionally, per Section 1102, “no nonconforming building, structure or use shall be 
extended, nor shall its total value be enhanced, unless such extensions or alterations 
conform with the provisions of this ordinance.” With the addition of the roof, the property 
no longer becomes legally nonconforming. However, since the existing single-family home 
was already non-conforming, the hardship is not self-created. 
  
Since the increase in impervious surface area occurred at least prior to 2003 and there is 
no addition of land disturbing activities or stormwater runoff, the Engineering Department 
has determined that no remediation is required in order to support the variance. 
  
Community Development believes the variance is the minimum variance needed to 
expand the existing front porch on the property. Strict application of the ordinance would 
deny the applicant any ability to modify any portion of the property since the existing 
impervious area is already over the allowable maximum impervious coverage. At the time 
of this report, Community Development has not received any calls in opposition to the 
request. 
  
The applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the 
City for the R-20 zoning district, which requires a maximum impervious area of 35%. 
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 impervious 
surface increase will not adversely affect surrounding residents; therefore, staff 
recommends approval of the requested variance with the following stipulation:  
 
1. Approval of the requested variance is conditioned upon substantial compliance 
with the site plan submitted with the variance application. 
 
Karen Walters, applicant, came forward and stated she 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 V25-003; 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