powered by Legistar InSite
File #: PZ 24-035    Version: 1
Type: Variance Status: Passed
File created: 10/8/2024 In control: City Council
On agenda: 11/4/2024 Final action: 11/4/2024
Title: City Initiated variance request to the UDC table 2-2 dimensional requirements for residential lots. The property is located at Buck, within land lots 831, 2nd section, Cobb County Georgia. PIN: 19083101440.
Code sections: Table 2-2 - Dimensional Requirements for Residential Zoning Districts
Attachments: 1. Approved PZ 24-035, 2. Lot 3. Recorded Plat Redacted, 3. SIte Plan Redacted, 4. House Plans Redacted
CASE NUMBER: PZ 24-035
APPLICANT: City Initiated Variance Request.
VARIANCE: To vary to the UDC table 2-2 minimum width at lot frontage dimensional requirement for residential lots.
LOCATION: Buck Road, within land lots 831, 2nd section, Cobb County Georgia.
ZONING: R-15 PIN: 19083101440

Staff Recommendation: Approval. Planning and Zoning:

BACKGROUND: The R-15 district currently requires a minimum lot frontage width of 75 feet. However, Lot 3, located within a subdivision initially rezoned from R-20 to R-15 on July 18, 2005, was recorded with a frontage width of approximately 40 feet on September 22, 2005. Despite being platted nearly two decades ago, Lot 3 has remained undeveloped during this time.
In June 2024, the applicant submitted permits to develop Lot 3, which triggered a zoning review. Given the passage of time and changes in the zoning code, the current standards require a 75-foot minimum lot frontage for properties in the R-15 district. As a result, the proposed development does not meet the current requirements, and a variance approval is necessary to allow development of lot 3 to proceed as originally platted.
The distinction between a non-conforming use and vested rights is critical to this case. Non-conforming uses refer to structures or uses of land that were legally established before a zoning change rendered them non-conforming. However, a future use that was contemplated but not realized before the enactment of a new ordinance does not qualify as a non-conforming use. In this case, Lot 3 was platted in 2005, but no site development or construction took place before the zoning standards were revised. As such, Lot 3 does not qualify as a legally non-conforming lot.
Vested rights, on the other hand, pertain to the right to develop property under previous zoning regulations, typically arising when an owner has made substantial changes or expenditures in anticipation of development before a zoni...

Click here for full text