Johns Creek Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Summary – August 18, 2026

The Johns Creek Board of Zoning Appeals met on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers, 11360 Lakefield Drive, Johns Creek, Georgia. The Board unanimously approved the July 21, 2026 minutes and three variance requests, including one case deferred from the previous meeting. Staff presentations, public testimony, board questions, and staff recommendations preceded each vote.

Meeting Opening and Approval of Minutes

• The meeting was called to order and the Board took up approval of the July 21, 2026 minutes.
• Mr. Stainer moved to approve the minutes as submitted; the motion was seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote.

Old Business: V-26-0008 – 145 East Meadows Court

• This case was deferred from the July 21, 2026 meeting so the applicant could explore alternative designs and reduce impacts on the adjacent property at 155 East Meadows Court.
• The 0.507-acre corner lot is zoned R-4A (Single-Family Dwelling District). Required setbacks include a 35-foot front yard, 7-foot interior side, 20-foot corner side, and 25-foot rear yard. The existing house sits diagonally on the lot, with the front of the home set back 50 feet from the front property line and 78 feet from the front corner.
• The applicant originally proposed a 14-foot rear setback encroachment. The revised plan reduced the garage encroachment to 12.5 linear feet and the pool house to 11 linear feet, with total encroachment area reduced from 672 square feet to 565 square feet. The plan added dense evergreen plantings along the rear property line with a minimum planting height of 10 feet.
• John Stanforth, the resident and applicant at 145 East Meadows Court, thanked the Board for the deferral, stated that he had compromised with Ron and Debbie Bailey, and said most evergreens would be planted at 12 feet, with some at 10 feet.
• Ron Bailey, neighbor at 155 East Meadows Court, said he and his wife had opposed the request previously but thanked the Board for allowing the parties to work out a compromise. No opposition was heard.
• Staff recommended approval with conditions limiting the encroachments, requiring permits and inspections, requiring an as-built survey, and requiring evergreen trees at least 10 feet tall at planting along the rear property line.
• Mr. Stainer moved to approve the case as submitted by staff; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

New Business: V-26-0010 – 160 Morton Manor Court

• Staff presented the request by the Morton Reserve Homeowner Association to construct a 450-square-foot community pavilion within the required 100-foot setback from adjoining property lines on the 0.507-acre Community Unit Plan District-zoned common recreation area. The property is bounded by single-family residential properties to the north and east, AG1 agricultural/floodplain areas to the south and southeast, and Morton Manor Court to the west. It is already developed with two tennis courts, a swimming pool, a community building, and parking.
• The HOA representative, whose name was not identified in the transcript, argued that the irregular property configuration and existing recreation layout made the full 100-foot setback impractical, that the pavilion had strong homeowner support, and that it would provide a shaded gathering place for residents and their guests only, not for commercial rentals or public events.
• In opposition, Joseph Zazor, who lives across from the proposed pavilion and identified himself as the original owner, said he was not against the pavilion but wanted to protect the quiet character of his home. Elise Gifford of Cameron Forest, a Johns Creek resident for 37 years, said she had experienced flooding since Morton Reserve was built and a cinder block wall was constructed on the Johnscreek tributary, and she was concerned about further flood risk. Mary Lynn Sobel, who lives next to Ms. Gifford, also raised flooding and debris concerns and mentioned fireworks noise in the neighborhood.
• In rebuttal, the HOA representative said the pavilion would be close to existing amenities, would follow posted hours coinciding with pool hours, and was intended only for residents, including HOA annual meetings. The representative said flooding issues were longstanding and not related to the pavilion and that fireworks noise is governed by city ordinance.
• Board questions covered the pavilion’s use, pool hours from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the fact that no trees would be removed, the open beam-over-concrete-pad construction, ceiling fans requiring electrical service, drainage, and compliance with city runoff requirements during permitting.
• Staff clarified that the opposing homeowners’ properties were about 250 and 270 feet from the proposed pavilion on the other side of the creek; part of their properties lies in the floodplain; the pavilion site is already cleared and is not in the floodplain; and the building permit process would address any applicable runoff-reduction obligations, including the city’s 4,000-square-foot threshold.
• Staff recommended approval with three conditions: locating the pavilion at least 94 feet from the north property line, 7.5 feet from the west property line, and 2.5 feet from the south property line; obtaining a building permit; and submitting an as-built survey before final inspection.
• The Board approved V-26-0010 as recommended by staff; the motion received multiple seconds and passed unanimously.

New Business: V-26-0011 – 410 Crepe Myrtle Terrace

• GP Hardscape, representing the homeowners at 410 Crepe Myrtle Terrace, requested a variance to encroach into the 75-foot stream buffer, consisting of a 50-foot undisturbed buffer plus a 25-foot impervious surface setback, to construct a swimming pool and retaining wall on this 0.414-acre R-4A lot in Seven Oaks.
• The lot was platted by Fulton County in 1998 with a 100-year floodplain along the rear property line. The city’s current stream buffer regulations cover approximately 50 percent of the property, limiting usable rear yard area.
• The presentation described the encroachment as 21.5 feet into the 75-foot buffer. However, the staff condition read aloud later set the cap at 25 linear feet of encroachment; the transcript is internally inconsistent on this point.
• The proposal would create approximately 1,325 square feet of new impervious surface within the buffer and would avoid the 50-foot undisturbed buffer. The applicant proposed a 1,504-square-foot planting area with two large trees, four small trees, 22 shrubs, and 88 ground cover plants.
• Braulio Galvea of GP Hardscape, representing the homeowners, cited the combined effect of the stream buffer and steep topography as the hardship. He said roughly half of the rear yard was affected and that moving the pool toward the house would not resolve grade, drainage, access, setback, or retaining-wall requirements. The design was, in his view, the minimum reasonable intrusion.
• No additional members of the public came forward to speak in support or opposition.
• Board questions addressed the purpose of the retaining wall. The applicant explained that the property drops roughly 13 to 15 feet from the house toward the creek, and the redesigned retaining wall is needed to create a level pool area without entering the 50-foot undisturbed buffer. The wall would be six feet tall with a safety fence, and engineering would be submitted with the building permit.
• Staff recommended approval with two conditions: first, that the development shall not exceed the encroachment and impervious surface amounts shown on the site plan, specifically 1,325 square feet of impervious surface associated with the swimming pool and retaining wall within the stream buffer; and second, that a vegetative planting plan be submitted with the building permit and installed before the final site inspection.
• The Board approved V-26-0011 as presented by staff; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Departmental Updates

• Staff reported no formal departmental update. The Board noted that the next meeting and case deadline is September 15, 2026, and that three cases had been received for that cycle.

Key Outcomes

• Approved the July 21, 2026 meeting minutes unanimously.
• Approved V-26-0008 (145 East Meadows Court) with staff conditions, allowing a reduced garage and pool house encroachment into the 25-foot rear setback.
• Approved V-26-0010 (160 Morton Manor Court) with staff conditions, allowing the HOA to construct a 450-square-foot community pavilion within the required 100-foot setback.
• Approved V-26-0011 (410 Crepe Myrtle Terrace) with staff conditions, allowing a swimming pool and retaining wall within the 75-foot stream buffer.
• Adjourned by unanimous voice vote after a motion and second.