Johns Creek Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – July 15, 2025
Johns Creek Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – July 15, 2025
The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Tuesday, July 15, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. All members were present, and a quorum was established. The board approved the minutes from the April 22, 2025 meeting and heard two variance cases, both of which were approved unanimously.
Approval of April 22, 2025 Minutes
- Motion to approve the minutes as presented was made by Mr. Chanel, seconded by Mr. Stainer. The motion carried unanimously.
Case V-25-0003: 295 Saint Devon Crossing
- Petitioners: Antwan and Lisa McNary.
- Request: Variance to encroach 48 feet into the 75-foot stream buffer to construct a 660-square-foot stone paver patio and bring the existing house and deck into compliance with the stream buffer ordinance.
- Staff Presentation (Tyler Barron, Planner 3): The property is 2.97 acres, zoned R-4A Conditional. The 75-foot stream buffer covers over half the existing house, the entire rear yard, and existing deck. The proposed encroachment includes 938 square feet of new disturbance and a total of 2,485 square feet of impervious surface (including existing). No disturbance is proposed within the state’s 25-foot buffer. The mitigation plan includes 1,600 square feet of planting (3 large trees, 4 small trees, 320 sq ft shrubs, 280 sq ft ground cover). Staff recommended approval subject to conditions: encroachment limited to 48 linear feet, 938 sq ft new disturbance, 2,485 total impervious, and a vegetative plan consistent with the mitigation plan submitted May 21, 2025.
- Applicant Comments: The McNarys stated that the rear yard is largely unusable due to trees and mosquitoes, and they want to extend the patio for outdoor enjoyment.
- Board Questions: Mr. Chanel expressed concern about runoff from the patio and suggested planting along the slope. The applicants noted they plan to add plants along the back edge of the patio. Staff clarified that mitigation plantings are placed outside the buffer to avoid further disturbance. The applicants confirmed no backfill beyond paver base and that a concrete edge will retain the patio. The sewer easement prohibits a retaining wall, but pavers are allowed with Fulton County approval.
- Vote: Motion to approve with staff recommendations by Mr. Chanel, seconded by Mr. Stainer. Approved unanimously by voice vote.
Case V-25-0004: 1425 Spyglass Hill Drive
- Petitioner: Faysal Kapadia.
- Architect: Steve West.
- Request: Variance to encroach 50 feet into the 75-foot stream buffer to construct a single-family detached home. Proposed improvements: 2,083 square feet of disturbance within the 50-foot undisturbed buffer and 3,642 square feet of impervious surface within the 75-foot buffer. No disturbance is proposed within the state’s 25-foot buffer.
- Staff Presentation (Tyler Barron): The property is 0.72 acres, zoned CUP Conditional, and currently undeveloped. The 75-foot stream buffer covers about 84% of the lot. The lot slopes steeply (45% grade) and was platted in 1991. The variance is necessary to build a home consistent in size and form with the St. Ives neighborhood. The mitigation plan includes 5,268 square feet of planted area (7 large trees, 13 small trees, 81 shrubs, 318 ground cover) and two dry wells to handle stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions: 50-foot linear encroachment, 3,642 sq ft impervious, 2,083 sq ft disturbance in the 50-foot buffer, dry wells retaining the first inch of runoff, and a vegetative plan consistent with the mitigation plan submitted May 12, 2025.
- Applicant Comments (Steve West): The lot has a 45% slope, making construction difficult. The first floor will be set about 4 feet below street level, with an 11-foot basement wall and 16-foot sub-basement wall. A cantilevered covered porch is planned. The mitigation plan required plantings on the other side of the creek (about 600 feet) because the stream buffer is so wide. Georgia DOT took 0.3 acres of the lot for a road widening project, reducing available mitigation area. Three or four prior attempts to buy the lot failed due to parcel boundary issues. Mr. Kapadia stated he currently resides in St. Ives and intends to live in the home.
- Board Questions: A board member asked about the difference between the 2018 approval (45-foot encroachment) and the current 50-foot request. Staff explained the previous approval was for a different house plan and did not include limits of disturbance. The architect noted that moving the house forward would require a front setback variance. Staff confirmed the stream bisects the lot, requiring hand-placed plantings on the opposite side.
- Vote: Motion to approve with staff recommendations as presented by Mr. Chanel, seconded by Mr. Chalapri. Approved unanimously by voice vote.
Departmental Updates
- The next meeting is scheduled for August 19, 2025, with one stream buffer variance case (a deck encroachment) already on the agenda.
- Kyung Soon Wan, a new Planner 2 with a master’s and doctorate in urban and regional planning from Georgia Tech, was introduced. She will gradually take on some of Tyler Barron’s responsibilities and present cases to the board.
Key Outcomes
- V-25-0003: Approved unanimously with staff conditions. The McNarys may proceed with the patio and compliance improvements.
- V-25-0004: Approved unanimously with staff conditions. Mr. Kapadia may proceed with construction of a single-family home on the Spyglass Hill lot.
- The board adjourned the meeting by motion of Mr. Chanel, seconded by Mr. Stainer.
Meeting Transcript
Welcome to the City of John's Creek Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for July. The meeting will now come to order. Let the record show that we have a quorum and all members are present. We have our agenda for the current meeting and minutes from our meeting in April. If all our members have had a chance to review, are there any changes or a motion on the uh agenda and minutes? Make a motion to approve the minutes as second it. Motion by Mr. Chanel and second by uh Mr. Stainer. Um, all in favor of the approving the agenda and minutes uh as presented, please say aye. Aye. Anyone on opposed? Agenda and minutes are approved as presented. We have two cases tonight. Uh for the uh public hearing tonight, each applicant will have 10 minutes to present the case. Any opposition will have a total of 10 minutes. If the applicant does not use the full ten minutes, the demand can be resolved for rebuttal. Anyone that wishes to speak, be uh please step up to the podium and be sure to state your name and address for the uh record. All questions for staff, applicant, and opposition will be after the public hearing is closed. So the first case is um v-25-0003. Uh we'll start with the uh staff's presentation of the request. Good evening, board. I'm Tyler Barron, Planner 3. Uh today we'll be uh going over V-25003 295 St. Devin Crossing. Uh these are the existing conditions of the property. Located in Devon Hall neighborhood, the parcel is about 2.97 acres. It's zoned R4A conditional. Uh the subject property was platted in 1993 by Fulton County and showed a hundred-year floodplain with a 35-foot tributary buffer. Uh now the 75-foot stream buffer encompasses over half the existing house and the entire rear yard and existing deck. These are the existing conditions in the property. Uh major to highlight is the pine strout area there is the flattest area on the property, and then it slowly falls to the photo on the bottom left, which is a slope towards the creek on the photo on the bottom right. These are the applicable code requirements. Uh Chapter 109, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Article 5, Stream Buffer Protection, Section 109-118 land development requirements, uh, buffer and setback requirements, an undisturbed natural vegetative buffer shall be maintained for 50 feet, measured horizontally on both banks as applicable, of the stream as measured from the point of rested vegetation, and two, an additional setback shall be maintained for 25 feet measured horizontally beyond the undisturbed natural vegetative buffer, in which all impervious cover shall be prohibited. Grading, filling, and earth moving shall be minimized within that setback. Uh this is the variance request uh to encroach 48 feet into the city's 75 foot stream buffer to construct an outdoor stone paver patio area as shown in purple. Uh to bring bringing the existing home and deck, shown in green, into compliance with the stream buffer. Uh the installation of 660 square feet of impervious surface with 938 square feet of disturbance. Uh that total is 200 or 2,485 square feet of total impervious surface, which includes 1,825 square feet of existing home and deck within that buffer. The applicant has not proposed any disturbance within the state's 25 foot stream buffer. The following is the mitigation plan to offset stormwater and viral impacts within the requested stream buffer encroachment. The applicant has proposed 1600 square feet of planting area. Uh you'll see the breakdown of the planting area there, three large trees, four small trees, three hundred twenty square feet of shrubs, two hundred eighty square feet of ground cover, with the quantities broken down in the table on your right. This is the criterion by which stream uh buffer variances are reviewed. According to City Code section 109-118B2, listing the following considerations for stream buffer variances. When a property shape, topography, or other physical conditions existing at the time of the adoption of the article prevents land development unless a buffer variance is granted, or B unusual circumstances, circumstances when strict adherence to the minimal buffer requirements in the article would create an extreme hardship. Following a staff analysis, the survey identifies a creek with rested vegetation meandering across along the east property line. The application of the 50-foot undisturbed buffer with an additional 25-foot impervious setback extends the buffers into the rear yard, existing deck, and a significant portion of the home. This is creating a hardship for the homeowner as 70% of the subject property, including existing and proposed improvements, fall within the 75-foot stream buffer. Should not be permitted today without seeking a variance.
openpublica.com