powered by Legistar InSite
File #: PZ 24--001    Version: 1
Type: Administrative Appeal Status: Failed
File created: 12/8/2023 In control: City Council
On agenda: 1/16/2024 Final action: 1/16/2024
Title: Appeal of an Administrative Decision presented by Tina G. - Related to the Community Development Department's building permit number 22PDR-00065. The property is located at 3292 Creek Trace E, within land lot 746 of the 19th District, 2nd Section, and Cobb County, Georgia. PIN: 19074600150
Attachments: 1. Executed PZ 24-001 Motion to Deny with Prejudice, 2. Application for Appeal Redacted, 3. Community Development FInal Inspection Report, 4. Estimate provided by owner Redacted, 5. Original Permit Application Redacted
Action Summary:
title
Appeal of an Administrative Decision presented by Tina G. - Related to the Community Development Department's building permit number 22PDR-00065. The property is located at 3292 Creek Trace E, within land lot 746 of the 19th District, 2nd Section, and Cobb County, Georgia. PIN: 19074600150
MIT
MIT Supported - Mark All Applicable
? Critical Staffing Needs (staffing shortages, retention)
? Financial Stability/Sustainability (diverse tax base)
? Safety & Protecting Community (code enforcement, stormwater)
? Commercial Development
? Downtown Development
? Tourism (increase share; museum should equitably represent community; events)
? Downtown Parking (address parking needs)
? Youth Program/Council (community center for youth and seniors; learning gap)
? Prepare for Growth and Development (infrastructure in place; annexation; curb cuts; recycling, signage)
staffnotes
Staff Notes
See analysis below.
Summary
A permit was issued on April 13, 2022 for property located at 3292 Creek Trace East. The permit was issued as a homeowners' permit under the name Greg and Dori McManious. Mrs. Dori McManious signed the homeowners' affidavit stating that she was the owner of the property and would not offer said property for sale or rent.
During the final inspection and request for Certificate of Occupancy, it was found that the applicant of the building permit was no longer involved in the process. It was also found that the house that was constructed did not match the approved plans submitted with the building permit application. The house built did not include architectural features that were found on the originally approved plans.
The City advised the owner of the property, requestor of the Certificate of Occupancy, that the City's zoning and erosion and sediment control inspections did not pass, and therefore a Certificate of Occupancy could not be issued. Additionally, because the homeowner was not the builder of the house as presented in the origin...

Click here for full text