Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Athens-Clarke County Commission upholds modified approval for garage at 120 West Cloverhurst

3675965 · June 4, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission voted 5-3 to approve the existing detached garage and living space at 120 West Cloverhurst, modifying the Historic Preservation Commission decision while leaving other elements of the petitioners original request unapproved; the applicant may appeal to Superior Court.

The Athens-Clarke County Commission voted 5-3 on Oct. 12 to approve the detached garage and living space constructed at 120 West Cloverhurst while excluding the petitioners original request as presented to the Historic Preservation Commission.

The action resolved an appeal of the Historic Preservation Commissions (HPC) denial of Certificate of Appropriateness COA 2025-02-0342. The applicant, David Matheny, and the property owner, identified in the hearing as Mr. Williams, had built the garage after an earlier plan was permitted; a subsequent planning department site visit found the structures roofline and elevation differed from the approved drawings.

Jeffrey Deloach, representing Williams and Matheny, told commissioners that a licensed surveyor measured the garage and found the north-side roof height at about 21.7 feet (0.7 feet above the approved drawing), that the south side was about 3 feet higher than the plans, and that the garages grade sat roughly 4 feet above the main houses finished floor elevation. He said those measurements supported his experts opinion that the changes did not cause a substantial adverse effecton the districts historic character.

"This construction does not cause a substantial adverse effect and should be approved as submitted," said Professor James K. Reap, who testified as a preservation expert and, according to the materials submitted for the hearing, described more than 40 years of work at the University of Georgia and service on multiple preservation commissions. Deloach argued the HPCs denial constituted an abuse of discretion because, he said, commissioners had not applied the statutory standards or discussed several elements of the application, including a short brick retaining wall and a widened breezeway.

Neighbors and other opponents told the commission they considered the garages massing and scale incompatible with the contributing historic structure at 120 West Cloverhurst. Resident Marilyn Bickers, who said she lives on Witherspoon Court, said approval would set a precedent for permit holders to "ask forgiveness rather than use the permission granted." Neighbor Matthew Totten noted the garage and exterior stair together were wider than an adjoining primary residence and said the accessory structure should remain subordinate in scale and detail to the main house.

Planning staff clarified to commissioners that the application filed with the HPC had requested consideration only of the height change; staff included the brick wall and other site changes in its report after the site visit, but Deloach noted those items had not been the applicants requested scope before the HPC.

During discussion, commissioners cited competing concerns: several said the property had been scrutinized repeatedly and that the changes exceeded the approved plans, while others said the garages visibility from the street and the sites uphill grade meant it did not materially alter the districts public-facing character. Commissioner Hamby moved to accept the planning commissions recommendation but modify it to approve the structure as built while excepting the petition as presented at the HPC; Commissioner Wright seconded.

The roll call vote was: Hamby, yes; Link, no; Taylor, no; Wright, yes; Fisher, yes; Culpepper, yes; Myers, no; Thornton, yes. The motion carried 5-3. The commissions attorney reminded the body that an applicant may appeal a local land-use decision to the Superior Court.

The commissions action resolves the immediate appeal but leaves other disputed items that were noted in staffs site report (brick skirting, widened breezeway and short retaining wall) unresolved by this approval; the planning staffs inclusion of those items in its report was described during the hearing as staff observation rather than the applicants requested scope before the HPC. The applicant and property owner retain the right to seek judicial review of the commissions decision.

The commission adjourned after the vote and announced an executive session before the regularly scheduled monthly meeting.