Sandy Springs Board of Appeals Meeting Summary - November 5, 2025

The Sandy Springs Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on November 5, 2025, at 6:00 PM in the Studio Theatre at City Hall. The board considered five variance cases, with one withdrawn before the meeting. Of the four heard, three were approved and one denied. Public testimony was heard on each case, and votes reflected a range of opinions.

Consent Calendar

• None. The meeting agenda and minutes from June 4, 2025, were approved unanimously without discussion.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Case B (215 Huntcliff Terrace): Applicant Eileen Nairon and her husband Philip Hayet (homeowners for 38 years) spoke in support, emphasizing their need to age in place with a handicapped-accessible addition. They noted no tree removal, HOA and neighbor support, and argued that staff’s suggested alternative would be cost-prohibitive and destroy their only flat backyard. Tom Williams, their contractor, also spoke in support, highlighting the lot’s unique corner-cul-de-sac challenges. No opposition was voiced.
• Case C (2940 Coles Way): Representative Mr. Flowers spoke in support, praising staff and confirming removal of existing impervious area equal to new encroachment. No opposition was voiced.
• Case D (50 Mountain Creek Trace): The builder (who developed the street in 1980) spoke in support, noting that staff’s recommended path (building on the west side to avoid crossing the stream) was the right approach. Neighbor Christian Dotter spoke in support, citing consistency with nearby homes. Helen Tapp, a land planner and neighbor, spoke in opposition, arguing that any variance sets a bad precedent for environmental protection and urged rigorous inspection if approved. The applicant rebutted that building on the other side would destroy more trees and that the opponent’s own home would likely not be buildable under today’s rules.
• Case E (5825 Mountain Creek Road): Applicant Masud Zahidi spoke in support, detailing infrastructure problems (flooding, sewer, sinkholes) and arguing that his proposed development would upgrade the area at his own cost. He noted that the property already has extensive natural buffers. Three residents (Steve Brant, Morgan Luger, and Ann Day) spoke in opposition, citing concerns about an office building’s visual impact, traffic, safety, and the lack of clear city planning for the mixed-use street. The applicant rebutted that the street is zoned commercial by the city’s comprehensive plan and that he is allowed to develop.

Discussion Items

• Case B – 215 Huntcliff Terrace: Staff recommended denial, but after hearing applicant’s plight (aging-in-place, neighbor support, no tree removal), board questioned whether the neighbor’s side setback would be less restrictive. The applicant argued staff’s alternative was infeasible. Board moved to approve with conditions (encroach no more than 16 feet, substantially similar to submitted plan).
• Case C – 2940 Coles Way: Staff recommended approval with conditions (stormwater mitigation plan, site plan conformity). Board briefly discussed the arborist’s recommendations for tree conservation and mitigation; applicant had already replanted. Motion to approve passed 5-1 (one opposed).
• Case D – 50 Mountain Creek Trace: Staff recommended approval with conditions (stormwater plan, encroachment limited to 25 feet into each setback). Board discussed whether denial would force building on the east side of the stream (requiring stream crossing but no variance). The board weighed environmental impacts vs. hardship. Motion to approve passed with the chair opposing, but the motion carried (5-1).
• Case E – 5825 Mountain Creek Road: Staff recommended approval with conditions (retain 20-foot vegetative buffer, evergreens at least 10 ft tall, fence/wall, interparcel access). Board debated the comprehensive plan’s intent for the area and the adequacy of the existing natural buffers (360+ ft). Despite staff support, motion to approve failed 3-3, denying the variance.

Key Outcomes

• Case B (V-25-39): Approved unanimously by voice vote with conditions: no more than 16-foot encroachment into 40-foot rear setback, construction substantially similar to plan dated October 17, 2025.
• Case C (V-25-23): Approved (5-1) with conditions: stormwater mitigation plan by registered design professional at permitting, construction substantially similar to submitted site plan.
• Case D (V-25-43): Approved (chair opposed, motion carried) with conditions: stormwater mitigation plan, encroachment into primary street setback and impervious surface setback each limited to 25 feet.
• Case E (V-25-35): Denied (motion failed 3-3). No variance granted; buffer requirements remain.
• The meeting adjourned with no ongoing or new business.