TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Will Deaton, MPA, AICP, CFM, CZO - Planning & Zoning Manager
Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: March 11, 2025
RE:
Title
A25-02: Variance Request - Accessory Building Size at 118 Johnson Street
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
4 - D.J. Haire
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal 2: Responsive City Government Supporting a Diverse and Viable Economy
• Objective 2.1: To ensure a diverse City tax base
Goal 4: Highly Desirable Place to Live, Work, and Recreate
• Objective 4.5: To ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods
Executive Summary:
The applicant, Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church, represented by Alex Parham, seeks a variance from City Code Section 30-3.E.5, which limits accessory structures to the lesser of 1,500 square feet or 30% of allowable lot coverage. The request proposes a 2,400-square-foot accessory building to secure the Church’s vans and other belongings, exceeding the current size restriction.
The Zoning Commission unanimously approved the request at their February 11, 2025 meeting.
30.2.C.14 Variance:
A variance serves as a mechanism for granting limited deviations from the dimensional standards of this Ordinance-such as height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, and similar numeric requirements-when a landowner demonstrates that strict compliance would impose an undue and unique hardship due to circumstances beyond their control. These circumstances may include exceptional topographical features, unusual lot dimensions, or other inherent conditions specific to the property.
Variances are intended to be applied sparingly and only in exceptional cases where such relief is necessary to prevent undue hardship. However, a variance may not authorize changes to permitted uses or alter any applicable conditions of approval.
Background:
• Address: 118 Johnson Street
• Owner: Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church
• Applicant: Alex Parham
• Zoning: CC (Community Commercial) and MR5 (Mixed Residential 5)
• Existing Use: Religious Institution
• Parcel Size: ±5.39 acres
Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses
• North (across Johnson St.) - SF6 (Single-Family 6), single-family housing
• South/Southwest (4926 Bragg Blvd.) - MR5 (Mixed Residential 5), adjoining Church property
• East (across Bickett St.) - MR5 (Mixed Residential 5), apartments
• West (4938 Bragg Blvd.) - CC (Community Commercial), vacant
Issues/Analysis:
Request:
The applicant seeks a variance from UDO Section 30-3.E.5 Note 2, which limits accessory structures to the lesser of 1,500 square feet or 30% of lot coverage. The proposed 2,400-square-foot structure exceeds these limits.
Key Considerations
• Ordinance Compliance: The request surpasses size restrictions for accessory structures. The commission must determine if it aligns with the ordinance’s intent for the CC district.
• Land Use Impact: The oversized structure requires evaluating its effects on surrounding properties.
• Precedent Risks: Approval may influence future variance decisions.
• Alternative Compliance: The commission should assess whether other solutions within existing regulations could meet the applicant’s needs.
Review Criteria
Under UDO Section 30-2.C.14.f, a variance may be granted only if:
1. The hardship results from ordinance restrictions, not personal circumstances.
2. Unique site conditions (e.g., lot size, topography) necessitate relief.
3. The variance is the least deviation required for reasonable use.
4. It upholds the ordinance’s intent and purpose.
5. Public safety and welfare remain protected.
Conclusion
The Zoning Commission must evaluate whether the request meets these criteria, considering potential alternatives, precedent risks, and consistency with the CC district’s objectives.
Insufficient Justification for Variance
The following are not valid grounds for granting a variance:
1. The existence of other conforming or nonconforming uses or structures within the same or different zoning districts.
2. A request for a use that is explicitly or implicitly prohibited in the district.
3. Economic hardship or the potential for increased property value or profitability through the variance.
Findings
The following findings are based on the responses submitted in the application by the applicant and the best available information about the proposal without the benefit of testimony provided at the evidentiary hearing.
Findings of Fact Statements as reviewed by the Planning Staff:
1. There is sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships, as shown by the following evidence:
Strict adherence to the Ordinance requirements would result in practical difficulties and undue hardship, as it prevents the Property Owner from constructing a needed building of sufficient size to accommodate and secure its buses.
2. There is sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
Any practical difficulties or undue hardships stem from unique conditions specific to the property and are not the result of actions taken by the landowner. The site's five-acre size creates constraints that make strict compliance with the ordinance unreasonable. Under the ordinance, only 30% coverage, or 1,500 square feet, is permitted, which is insufficient given the available space. Despite this limitation, the proposed structure would fit comfortably within the site without necessitating tree removal or significant land disturbance.
3. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures, as shown by the following evidence:
The requested variance represents the minimum deviation necessary for the reasonable use of the property, as the variance is the least adjustment required to permit the Applicant to build the garage. Any large-scale project would trigger a review by the Technical Review Committee (“TRC”), which is unnecessary for this request.
4. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
The variance aligns with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance while upholding its spirit, as evidenced by the following: The proposed structure remains consistent with the Ordinance's objectives as demonstrated by the contractor’s previous construction of a similar garage on a nearby church’s property. The structure also fits well within the parcel’s boundaries and has minimal impact on the surrounding area, ensuring compliance with the Ordinance’s overall intent.
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, public safety and welfare have been assured, and substantial justice has been done, as shown by the following evidence:
Granting the variance ensures that public safety and welfare are fully considered while achieving substantial justice. Constructing the accessory structure will protect the Property Owner’s buses from vandalism while preserving a critical transportation resource. This, in turn, allows drivers to continue operating the buses safely and reliably, benefiting both the church and the broader community.
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact.
Options:
1. Approve Findings of Fact as drafted
2. Approve Findings of Fact with specific changes
Recommended Action:
Approve Findings of Fact as drafted
Attachments:
1. Application & Site Plan
2. Findings of Fact