Johns Creek Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - July 21, 2026
Johns Creek Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - July 21, 2026
The Johns Creek Board of Zoning Appeals met on July 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. to consider two cases: a variance request for a detached garage and pool house at 145 East Meadows Court, and an appeal challenging the Community Development Director's interpretation that the conversion of a tennis court to pickleball courts in the Queensbury subdivision remained consistent with the city code. The board approved the June 16, 2026 minutes, deferred the variance case for 30 days, and affirmed the director's decision on the appeal.
Consent Calendar
- The board approved the minutes from the June 16, 2026 meeting as presented.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Case V-26-0008 (Variance): Neighbor Ron Bailey (155 East Meadows Court) opposed the variance, stating it would lower neighborhood standards, negatively impact his property value by an estimated $50,000–$100,000, and that the proposed structures would be visible from his front yard. He noted that existing evergreen trees planted there had died and were removed. No other neighbors spoke in opposition; one neighbor supported the request.
- Case V-26-0009 (Appeal): Several residents from the Ridge subdivision (adjacent to the Queensbury courts) testified as aggrieved parties, describing intrusive pickleball noise as late as 11:30 p.m. that affected sleep, work, and a resident with Parkinson's disease. They submitted video evidence of noise at 10 p.m. and expressed frustration with the late-night play.
Discussion Items
- Case V-26-0008 (Variance): Petitioner John Stanforth requested a rear yard setback reduction from 25 feet to 11 feet (revised from an initial 7-foot request) to build a detached garage and pool house. Staff (Ruchi Agarwal) recommended approval, citing site constraints (lot narrowing, topography) and proposed mitigation (evergreen planting). The applicant's landscape architect, Sam Sampson, emphasized professional design and ability to screen structures with appropriate trees. Board members questioned building height (approximately 20 feet at peak) and planting feasibility. The opposing neighbor reiterated concerns about property value and visual impact. After discussion, the board moved to defer the case for 30 days to allow the applicant and neighbor to work out a compromise.
- Case V-26-0009 (Appeal): Appellant Joel Schoenblum argued that the conversion of one tennis court to two pickleball courts violated the city's noise ordinance (exceeding 75 dB at 28 feet) and that a 1993 Fulton County variance only permitted a tennis court, not a broader 'recreational court.' He presented noise measurements and a technical analysis. The city (represented by Ben) countered that the appeal was about land use, not noise; that the 'recreational court' definition is intentionally broad; that the footprint did not change; and that the 1993 variance referenced 'private recreational court,' consistent with current use. The Queensbury HOA board member, Bob Harold, stated the resurfacing was to accommodate both tennis and pickleball within the same footprint and that the appellant lived 200 yards away. The board asked clarifying questions about the 1993 variance and setback compliance.
Key Outcomes
- Case V-26-0008: The board voted unanimously (with no opposition noted) to defer the variance request for 30 days to the next regular meeting, directing the applicant and the neighboring objector to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution.
- Case V-26-0009: The board voted to affirm the Community Development Director's decision, finding that the conversion of one tennis court to two pickleball courts did not constitute a prohibited change in land use under Section 4.3.1B of the zoning ordinance. The board clarified that noise complaints are a separate administrative enforcement matter not before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Meeting Transcript
Welcome to the City of John's Creek Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for July 2026. The meeting will now come to order. Let the record show that we have a quorum. Mr. Green and Mr. E are absent. We have our agenda for the current meeting and minutes from our meeting in June. If all members have had a chance to review, are there any changes to the motion on the agenda or the minutes? If not any. I make a motion to approve the last meeting minutes. Vice Chair Stainer is seconded. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? The minutes agenda and minutes are approved as presented. For the public hearing portion tonight, we have two cases. For the first variance case, the staff will present the case after the presentation. The applicant will have 10 minutes to present their case. Any opposition will have a total of 10 minutes. If the applicant does not use their full 10 minutes, the remainder can be reserved for rebuttal. Anyone that wishes to speak should step up to the podium, uh, state your name and address for record. All questions for staff, applicant, and opposition will be held after the public hearing is closed. Um case today is uh V-26-0008. Um Rachit, please Good evening, board members. Uh, my name is Ruchi Agarwal. I am the planning and zoning manager, and I'll be presenting you the first case tonight, the variance case V-26-0008. The subject property is located at 145 East Meadows Court. In the graphic here, you can see uh the corner lot, which is right here, is the subject property. And the it is in seven oak subdivision. It is approximately 0.507 acres. The current zoning of the subdivision is R 4A single family dwelling district, uh, which was approved in 1987 by Fulton County. Um the corner lot minimum building setbacks or front setback is 35 feet along Meadows Lane, which uh just to orient you all. This is Meadows Lane, and this corner lot is the front, just a little bit extra, is the shorter side of the property, uh governs what the front it would be. So Meadows Lane is the front, and this is the side corner, so which is East Meadows Court. So side interior is seven feet, side corner, so along East Meadows Court is 20 feet, and the rear setback is 25 feet, which is um towards the neighbor parallel with the meadows lane. The applicable code requirements here are um through city zoning ordinance, article six, single family dwelling districts, section 6.7 for R-4A. The development standard for minimum rear yard is 25 feet. The variance request is to reduce the required 25 foot rear yard setback, uh which is shown in the red dashed line on the graphic here to 11 feet, which is shown as red solid line to allow the construction of a detached garage in pool house. Um I would just like to make a slight comment. Um the sign and the legal ad was originally um requesting the applicant was requesting seven feet of reduction, but it has staff has worked with the applicant and increased it to um 11 feet from seven feet to eleven feet of reduction. Proposed garage, which is shown is uh in green. Green is the encroachment area. There is a rectangle that shows the garage. Um and the pool house encroachment as shown in blue would each extend 14 feet into the rear yard setback, resulting in a combined encroachment of 671.84 square feet within the rear uh rear yard setback area. The zoning ordinance um section 22.3.1 lists the following considerations for granting a variance. Relief, if granted, would be in harmony with or could be made in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, or the application of the particular provisions of the zoning ordinance to a particular piece of property due to extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to that property because of its size, shape, or topography would create an unnecessary hardship for the owner while causing no detriment to the public. Next, we'll look into the staff analysis. The intent of the Rio Yard setback is to provide adequate separation between structures and to minimize potential visual and noise impacts on adjacent properties. On the graphic here, it shows the recorded final plaque for Seven Oak Subdivision, which shows the 35-foot front yard setback along Meadows Lane, and 25 foot rear yard setback along the northeast property line. Northeast property line of the subject property.
openpublica.com