Cobb County BZA approves variance for Liberty Ridge homeowner's sheds and pergola, adds encroachment notation

John Ellis, a Liberty Ridge Trail homeowner, won approval May 14 from the Cobb County Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance allowing two accessory structures and a pergola to remain near his house, but the board added a notation that the approval should not be read as endorsing any encroachment.

The variance (V-38-2025) covered three requests: to allow an existing approximately 200-square-foot shed to remain at the side of the principal building; to reduce the setback for an existing 108-square-foot shed from the required 5 feet to 1 foot along the eastern property line; and to reduce the setback for an existing approximately 169-square-foot pergola from the required 30 feet to 26 feet along the northern property line. County staff recommended approval. The property is in Land Lot 534, Sixteenth District and is located on the north side of Old Concord Road (near Liberty Ridge Trail and Sudbury Court).

Neighbors raised objections during the hearing. Resident Trudy Austin said the application contained discrepancies and that structures had been moved ahead of review: "He's requesting to have a shed moved to the front or next to the house. It already is there," she told the board. Austin also said the applicant's submission included a photograph dated March 28 showing the shed in the rear while current photos show it at the front.

Applicant John Ellis told the board the sheds are wooden and have been on the property for about 12 years and that one shed stores his motorcycle. He said one unit had been temporarily staged toward the front because the ground was too soft when it was delivered, and that he planned to move it to the rear. "I have a shed that's on the right side of my house. It's been there about, 12 years. I store a motorcycle in it," Ellis said. He also told the board he had obtained neighbor signatures consenting to the placement and that a recent survey shows the shed on his property; he said he could provide the survey as a PDF to staff.

Board members questioned whether the photographs and the survey presented consistent evidence. After discussion a board member moved to approve the variance; a second followed. A member asked to add a notation clarifying the board was not approving any encroachment given conflicting information. The motion carried and the board recorded the case as approved with the added note that the approval does not constitute endorsement of an encroachment.

The BZA record will reflect the board's amended motion and the applicant indicated he would provide the land survey to staff for the official file.