The Sandy Springs Board of Appeals denied two of three variance requests dealing with retaining walls that weren’t built to city-approved specifications.
A contractor for Shira Cohen, the property owner at 220 Zeblin Road, built two retaining walls in the backyard that were too close together and did not follow the plan approved by the city. A variance was sought to keep them as they were built, said LaQuita Williams, a planner for the Community Development Department.
Josh Dover, the general contractor for the project, said he failed to check with the city before changing from the approved plan.
The Board of Appeals voted to approve the variance instead of following the staff recommendation. However, the homeowner will have to install heavy plantings at the direction of city staff to hide the retaining walls.
The other two variance requests by homeowners didn’t fare as well, with both being denied. The retaining walls at these homes will have to be removed and rebuilt to meet code requirements.
The homeowner at 470 Cambridge Way asked for a variance to allow a retaining wall to encroach more than half the depth of the side building setback and be less than 15 feet from the rear lot line. Both were violations of the city development code.
The regulations are intended to protect trees and vegetation on the sites and to protect the character of the neighborhood.
Josh Mahoney, an attorney with Battle Law in Tucker, spoke on behalf of the homeowners, Brooks and Holly Copeland. He said they needed the retaining wall to expand the driveway so it could accommodate a long-wheelbase accessibility van.
Staff recommended denial of the variance and the Board of Appeals voted against it on a 4-3 vote.
The third hearing was on a variance request at the home of Cory McCallum at 95 Forrest Lake Drive to allow an existing retaining wall to remain as it was built, which was placed more than half the depth of the side building setback.
Alex Ilazovic of Lucas Tilton Residential told the Board of Appeals that the property was surveyed to follow the regulations, but somehow during the construction of the retaining wall, a mistake was made.
“It seems like it’s becoming more standard to just say ‘Oh, we’ll get a variance but we’ll build it the way we want’” said Board of Appeals Vice Chair Sherri Allen.
The Board of Appeals again voted 4-3 to reject the variance request, following the staff recommendation.
