City of Marietta Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - February 23, 2026

City of Marietta Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - February 23, 2026

The Board of Zoning Appeals met on February 23, 2026, to hear four variance cases. The meeting began with the approval of minutes from the previous meeting. Decisions were reached on two cases, with one denial and one approval with conditions. The final two cases were discussed but the transcript does not contain a recorded decision for one, and the other was introduced but not concluded.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: The board approved the minutes from the previous meeting without discussion.

Discussion Items

Case V 2025-41 – Jose Miguel Mayna Morales (554 Bowling Street)

• Request: Variances for a rear setback for an accessory structure and to allow the structure to exceed the height of the principal structure.
• Applicant’s Position: The applicant stated that the city measured the primary structure at 15 feet 6 inches and the proposed accessory structure at 17 feet 6 inches, exceeding the height limit by about 2 feet. He suggested lowering the structure to resolve the issue.
• Public Testimony (Opposition): A neighbor expressed strong opposition, stating the structure is taller than her house and, due to being built on a hill, appears 5–6 feet taller. She noted it is only about one foot from the property line, overlooks her backyard, and was built with the fence facing the wrong way. She also mentioned two other unpermitted structures on the property. The neighbor stated she had complained to the city during construction.
• Board Discussion: A board member noted the neighbor’s complaints and felt the placement was problematic. A motion was made to deny the variance.
• Decision: The variance was denied. The board advised the applicant to work with the city to avoid enforcement issues.

Case V 2025-46 – Crown Trend Transmissions Inc. (2070 Airport Industrial Park Drive)

• Request: Variances to operate auto sales on a parcel less than one acre and within 50 feet of residentially zoned property, and to allow a chain-link fence as screening.
• Applicant’s Position: The owner, Mr. Daffazelli, spoke at length in support. He noted the property is 377 feet from the nearest apartment building, with a tree buffer. He stated the business has operated for over 30 years without citations, maintains a clean and organized lot, and plans to keep auto sales very low volume (maximum 20 vehicles for sale). He presented 285 five-star Google reviews. He argued that alternative uses (full auto repair or leasing) would create more problems. He offered to accept conditions on parking and vehicle count.
• Public Testimony: No opposition was presented.
• Board Discussion: The board discussed stipulations, including that the parking lot be striped, no more than 20 cars be displayed for sale on site, and the right-of-way not be blocked. The applicant agreed to these conditions.
• Decision: The variance was approved with the stipulated conditions.

Case V 2026-02 – David and Melissa Darden (82 Main Street)

• Request: Variances for a shale driveway and to reduce the front setback by up to six inches due to a construction error.
• Applicant’s Position: Mr. Darden explained that the property has been in his wife’s family for over 100 years and they are rebuilding the home. The front setback variance is needed because a brick apron extends about six inches into the setback. For the driveway, he argued that shale is more suitable than asphalt or concrete to allow water percolation and to reduce runoff. He offered to install a 20‑foot hardened apron (5 feet required plus 15 additional feet) to contain the shale and prevent it from entering the right-of-way. He noted that there are gravel driveways in the neighborhood.
• Public Testimony: No opposition was recorded.
• Board Discussion: One board member expressed concern that the city generally frowns on gravel driveways but acknowledged the proposed hardened apron. He referenced a prior case involving a gravel driveway and noted he was “inclined to feet with 258” (possibly a code reference). Another member questioned whether the apron would adequately contain runoff. The board appeared to support the request.
• Decision: The transcript does not contain an explicit vote. However, the board moved to the next case, indicating the variance was likely granted. (Note: The meeting recording cuts off before a formal vote, but the board’s comments suggest approval with the condition of a hardened apron.)

Case B 2025-27 – James Burrell (318 Store Avenue)

• Request: Variances to rebuild a non-conforming structure and reduce the setback.
• Public Hearing: The public hearing was opened and closed. Only the applicant spoke briefly (transcript incomplete).
• Decision: No decision is recorded in the provided transcript. The recording ends during this case.

Key Outcomes

• Denied: V 2025-41 – Rear setback and height variances for accessory structure at 554 Bowling Street. The board found the structure’s placement problematic due to neighbor objections.
• Approved with Conditions: V 2025-46 – Variances for auto sales at 2070 Airport Industrial Park Drive. Conditions: parking lot must be striped, no more than 20 vehicles for sale on site, and right-of-way not blocked.
• Likely Approved: V 2026-02 – Front setback and shale driveway variances at 82 Main Street. The applicant offered a 20‑foot hardened apron to contain the shale; board comments indicated support, but no final vote is captured.
• No Decision Recorded: B 2025-27 – Variance for property at 318 Store Avenue. The hearing was held, but the transcript ends before a vote.