Sandy Springs Board of Appeals reviews variance request for retaining walls and stream setback; transcript shows no formal vote

At a meeting of the Sandy Springs Board of Appeals, members heard an applicant request variances to allow retaining walls that exceed the city’s maximum height and to modify stream buffer and setback requirements for a property that contains a stream along its frontage. The transcript of the session does not record a formal roll-call vote or a final approval.

The request was introduced by Macentož Ross, listed in the transcript as a planner and zoning manager for the city, who outlined the variance sections cited in the application (transcript references to Section 0.3.3.2 and Section 0.4.3.2 appear in the record). An unidentified landscape architect for the applicant described existing 3- to 5-foot retaining walls on the site and said the proposal adds additional retaining walls at the rear of the property to address water control and provide a functional grading solution. The transcript indicates the proposed work touches a stream corridor that traverses the frontage and the front yard of the parcel.

City staff and the presenter discussed stormwater mitigation and plan updates. The transcript records that a city inspector advised holding work in the rear yard and contacting the building department; a stop-work order is mentioned after inspection. The applicant’s team said they submitted revised plans and stormwater mitigation materials during the review.

Support for the application was noted. One speaker on behalf of the applicant said there were 23 letters of support and that “there is no opposition,” and the transcript records that the parties agreed to two additional conditions, though the text does not specify the exact wording of those conditions. The transcript does not record a motion maker, a second, or a recorded vote count tied to a final decision on the variance request.

What the board discussed in the transcript falls into three categories: technical compliance with the cited Development Code sections, site-specific engineering and stormwater measures for the stream crossing, and whether enforcement actions already taken by inspection (the stop-work order) affect the board’s procedural handling. Multiple agency roles were referenced: the community development/permit review staff, the building department/inspector, and the applicant’s consultant team.

The transcript provides factual program-level details but omits a final procedural outcome. The record shows presentations, staff guidance to pause work pending building-department contact, written support for the application, and mention of two extra conditions; it does not include a formal vote tally or a clear certificate of approval. Interested parties should consult the official minutes or the city’s finalized decision document for the board’s recorded action and the precise conditions imposed, if any.