The Cobb County Board of Zoning Appeals on July 9 denied a request to legalize an existing 1,890-square-foot sports court at a Valley Creek Drive property, and ordered the homeowner to remove the court within 60 days.

The board’s action followed testimony from Katie Gregory, an environmental project consultant representing homeowner Matt Barnwell, and technical comments from county stormwater and sewer staff. Gregory said the court was installed as part of a landscaping plan to address persistent pooling and standing water and said no fill was used and the court was constructed of concrete.

The variance application sought two zoning exceptions: to reduce the required 100-foot setback for an accessory use over 650 square feet to about 4 feet from the east and south property lines, and to allow the sports court to be located in front of the principal building. Gregory also raised state and county environmental rules, saying part of the property lies within a 100-year floodplain and that roughly 10 linear feet of the court overlaps a 20-foot sewer easement (including a 2-foot buffer), which she described as reducing the effective easement width but not placing the sanitary line beneath the court.

Andrew Heath of Cobb County Stormwater Management told the board his office had flagged work within a state undisturbed-stream buffer and that the applicant had not yet resolved those state-level concerns. Heath said county floodplain policy generally prohibits bringing fill into the floodplain without compensatory cut and that any work in the floodplain would require a demonstration that the project creates a “no rise” condition for the design flood. He recommended resolving the stream-buffer and floodplain questions with state and county staff before approval.

Chris Duggan of Cobb County Water & Sewer said county sanitary sewer easements prohibit structures within easements; if the court encroaches, the county typically requires a hold-harmless agreement as part of building-permit review. Duggan said the survey information provided by the applicant did not appear to be of survey quality and that the encroachment could place the structure in violation of county code.

John Peterson, Cobb County zoning division manager, told the board the BZA’s remit is zoning criteria and setbacks, not state EPD determinations: “The issue regarding EPD is separate and different than what this Board is going to consider. This Board is only considering the zoning criteria.” The board, however, weighed the staff reports and the unresolved state and county regulatory issues in its decision.

A board member moved to deny V-74; the motion passed. After discussion, the board amended the motion to deny the variance and grant the applicant 60 days to remove the sports court from its current location. The board did not record a detailed roll-call vote in the hearing record.