Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the V25 Easement Impervious topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds V25 after staff flags sewer-easement wall and impervious-surface issues; return set for March 12
Summary
Variance V25 (Isaac Hyatt) was held to the March hearing after staff identified a proposed wall encroaching on a sewer easement and concerns about impervious coverage. The applicant agreed to remove or relocate the wall and to work with Cobb Water and Sewer and stormwater staff before returning.
The Cobb County Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 12 held variance case V25 for the March hearing after staff identified a wall encroaching on a sewer easement and the applicant acknowledged impervious coverage exceeded county limits.
Why it matters: The board cannot approve a variance that depends on structures located inside recorded utility easements. County utility staff told the board a proposed wall overlapped the sewer easement and that any wall within the easement must be removed plus an additional 2-foot setback. The applicant agreed to investigate and said he believed removal was feasible but asked for time to confirm with engineers.
Staff and applicant exchange: The applicant, appearing as David Hayut on behalf of his father, explained the site plan and ownership of two lots and said the roadway configuration and driveway contributed to the impervious calculation. Wilson Collins from Cobb Water and Sewer showed the board a site plan excerpt and confirmed the thicker black curved line represented a proposed wall encroaching into the sewer easement; he said the wall would have to be “completely removed, plus two feet for the setback.” The board advised the applicant to meet with sewer staff and the stormwater manager to explore mitigation options and submit a revised site plan.
Board action and conditions: The board held V25 for one month and instructed the applicant to meet with Cobb Water and Sewer and stormwater staff, submit a revised site plan removing the wall from the easement and pursue impervious-surface mitigation options (such as dry wells or other stormwater measures) to reach the 35% limit. The board set a return date for the March 12 hearing and said the applicant would not need to refile but must update the date on the public notice sign.
Outcome and next steps: The applicant said he was about 95% certain the wall could be removed but preferred a one-month hold rather than risk a failed approval. The board’s motion to hold until the March hearing passed. The applicant was directed to submit a clean site plan showing the wall removed and to meet with stormwater staff to explore options to reduce impervious surface.
