OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Marietta, Georgia/City Council Archive View
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Board of Zoning Appeals Public Hearing - May 27, 2026

City Council Archive View — Wednesday, May 27, 2026
BodyMarietta, Georgia
SessionCity Council Archive View
DateWednesday, May 27, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 19:42

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:00

Yeah.

0:04

We'll call to order the May 27th meeting meeting for the Merit of Board of Zoning Appeals.

0:10

This is the public session.

0:12

A few housekeeping items.

0:14

Those of you, those of you who are here to present your ordinance or your your present for the board to approve your variance.

0:26

I cannot speak today, forgive me.

0:28

You have a total of 20 minutes to make your case to the board for approval.

0:33

You can reserve any of that time for rebuttal.

0:36

Those of you who are here in uh who are not in favor of a variance and would like to request denial.

0:43

Please first you must sign in if you want to speak to that.

0:47

And then secondly, um you have a total of collective total of 20 minutes to make your presentation to the board for denial.

0:55

And you can uh uh if there is some rebuttal from the person trying to get a variance, you can still come back and speak.

1:07

Lastly, please remember to turn your phones off or turn them back on when you leave the building.

1:13

Thank you very much.

1:15

It's the paper down there.

1:17

Good.

1:18

Okay.

1:19

Uh I think we have to vote.

1:21

Uh first vote is on the minutes from last month's meeting.

1:24

I don't believe there were any changes, correctly?

1:27

Okay.

1:27

Do I hear a motion to approve those meeting minutes?

1:31

I move to approve.

1:32

Second.

1:33

Okay, motion has been made and seconded.

1:35

We approve the meeting to the minutes from last month's meeting.

1:38

All those in favor.

1:40

Okay.

1:41

Thank you very much.

1:44

I didn't hear you won't.

1:45

Sorry.

1:46

Okay.

1:46

First case closing.

1:48

Or I'm sorry, Daniel.

1:50

Thank you, Mr.

1:50

Chairman.

1:51

So for case V two oh two six-13.

1:54

Cassandra Mathis on behalf of James Presley is requesting variances related to 651 Ottawa Drive to retain a non-conforming structure and to reduce the required setback from 10 feet down to 4.8 feet.

2:07

Okay.

2:07

Who's here to present this variance to the board?

2:10

Please step forward at the podium, ma'am.

2:12

State your name there.

2:15

My name is Kimberly Woods.

2:17

I am Cassandra Mathis better half.

2:19

How's that?

2:20

Partner in crime, I guess.

2:22

Yes, we're just asking the our client is just trying to redo the house.

2:28

And they can't remodel it because it's the extent of the damage in the water in the house is just going to cost an over exuberant amount of money.

2:36

And so they need to just go ahead and demolish the house and build a new one.

2:40

But they would love to keep the structure for the garage because there's no damage in the garage.

2:45

The garage is just fine.

2:47

So they were just asking, because I know it's an R3 zoning at this point, and they want a 10-foot setback.

2:54

Well, this house has been there since 1985.

2:57

And nobody's complaining.

2:59

The house, if you look at some of the pictures, you can see where the houses next to it.

3:04

You can actually see next to it where it's been there forever, and nobody's had any problems with it.

3:09

And the neighbors don't have a problem with it, because we're not changing anything in the garage.

3:13

Right.

3:13

No, no work.

3:14

Exactly the same.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning and Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████83%
Procedural█████9%
Environmental Protection████8%
Summary of Proceedings

Board of Zoning Appeals Public Hearing - May 27, 2026

The Board of Zoning Appeals met on May 27, 2026, to consider three variance requests related to property in Marietta, Georgia. The meeting began with approval of the previous month's minutes and a brief housekeeping overview. Each case was presented, discussed, and voted upon.

Consent Calendar

  • The minutes from the previous month's meeting were unanimously approved.

Cases

Case V2026-13 – 651 Ottawa Drive (Cassandra Mathis, on behalf of James Presley)

  • Request: Two variances to retain a non-conforming structure (garage) and to reduce the required setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet.
  • Presentation: Kimberly Woods (representing applicant) explained the home requires demolition due to extensive water damage, but the garage is undamaged and the owner wishes to keep it. The structure has existed since 1985 with no neighbor complaints.
  • Public Opposition: None.
  • Outcome: Motion to approve both variances with the finding that granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, and general welfare. Motion seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Case V2026-14 – 538 Haywood Circle (David Sinclair, on behalf of owner Scott Mills)

  • Request: Variance to allow gravel as an acceptable parking surface.
  • Presentation: Owner Scott Mills stated that during a permitted full remodel, the old impervious asphalt driveway was replaced with a permeable crushed rock drive. The builder did not inform him a variance was needed; the inspector flagged it during final CO inspection. Mills described the installation (rebar reinforced edging, 18-foot aprons to contain gravel).
  • Public Testimony: John Crowley (neighbor, 534 Haywood Circle) spoke in support, stating the Mills have enhanced the property’s value and the permeable surface improves water runoff and reduces erosion compared to the prior asphalt. He attributed the error to the contractor, not the homeowner.
  • Board Discussion: Several board members expressed that the builder should have known city regulations. They noted the city council has repeatedly asked the board not to approve violations, and that similar cases have occurred before. Responsibility falls on the contractor, but the board cannot enforce that.
  • Outcome: Motion to deny the variance on the basis that granting the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a suitcase (sic). Motion seconded. Denial was approved by voice vote (with at least one opposed, though exact tally not recorded). The chair advised the applicant that the appeal process now goes to superior court, not city council.

Case V2026-15 – 303 Kennesaw Avenue (Kristen and Nicholas Bayer)

  • Request: Variances to increase allowable fence height for masonry columns by one foot on the front and major side yard.
  • Presentation: Owner Nick Bayer explained they want to enclose the property for safety (daughter and animals) with a historically appropriate, proportional design. The variance is for the posts (columns) only, not the fence body, to better match the scale of the large stucco Greek Revival style home. He cited 94 Rutledge (Charleston, SC) as architectural inspiration. A board member noted a neighbor had expressed opposition, but the neighbor did not appear. No formal public opposition was recorded.
  • Board Discussion: No significant discussion; a board member complimented the design choice.
  • Outcome: Motion to approve the variances with three stipulations: (1) the height increase applies only to the masonry columns; (2) field verification for corner sight distance must be conducted by engineering prior to vertical construction; (3) full compliance with Knox Box and emergency access requirements for installed gates. Motion seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Key Outcomes

  • Case V2026-13 (Ottawa Drive): Variances approved (unanimous).
  • Case V2026-14 (Haywood Circle): Variance denied (voice vote, at least one opposed).
  • Case V2026-15 (Kennesaw Avenue): Variances approved with stipulations (unanimous).
  • The meeting adjourned without further business.

Meeting Transcript

Yeah. We'll call to order the May 27th meeting meeting for the Merit of Board of Zoning Appeals. This is the public session. A few housekeeping items. Those of you, those of you who are here to present your ordinance or your your present for the board to approve your variance. I cannot speak today, forgive me. You have a total of 20 minutes to make your case to the board for approval. You can reserve any of that time for rebuttal. Those of you who are here in uh who are not in favor of a variance and would like to request denial. Please first you must sign in if you want to speak to that. And then secondly, um you have a total of collective total of 20 minutes to make your presentation to the board for denial. And you can uh uh if there is some rebuttal from the person trying to get a variance, you can still come back and speak. Lastly, please remember to turn your phones off or turn them back on when you leave the building. Thank you very much. It's the paper down there. Good. Okay. Uh I think we have to vote. Uh first vote is on the minutes from last month's meeting. I don't believe there were any changes, correctly? Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve those meeting minutes? I move to approve. Second. Okay, motion has been made and seconded. We approve the meeting to the minutes from last month's meeting. All those in favor. Okay. Thank you very much. I didn't hear you won't. Sorry. Okay. First case closing. Or I'm sorry, Daniel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So for case V two oh two six-13. Cassandra Mathis on behalf of James Presley is requesting variances related to 651 Ottawa Drive to retain a non-conforming structure and to reduce the required setback from 10 feet down to 4.8 feet. Okay. Who's here to present this variance to the board? Please step forward at the podium, ma'am. State your name there. My name is Kimberly Woods. I am Cassandra Mathis better half. How's that? Partner in crime, I guess. Yes, we're just asking the our client is just trying to redo the house. And they can't remodel it because it's the extent of the damage in the water in the house is just going to cost an over exuberant amount of money. And so they need to just go ahead and demolish the house and build a new one. But they would love to keep the structure for the garage because there's no damage in the garage.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com