Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears information-only presentation on three R1A variance requests; staff recommends denial
Summary
City staff presented three variance applications to subdivide a roughly 0.45-acre parcel into smaller lots under R1A zoning; staff recommended denying the variances citing neighborhood character and lack of hardship. No formal Council action was requested.
At a Cumming City Council meeting, staff presented three variance applications (2024292, 2024293 and 2024291) seeking exemptions from R1A dimensional standards to subdivide a parcel and create additional detached single-family lots. The item was listed as information only and staff said its recommendation is denial.
Scott, a city staff member, told the council the applications request variances ranging from about 34% to 70% for density, lot size, lot width and setbacks to create more lots than the R1A district typically allows. “Really what they're trying to do in essence is utilize these large variances to create density,” Scott said, arguing the proposal would not align with the purpose and intent of the R1A single-family zoning district.
The presentation said the property currently contains one house on an approximately 0.45-acre parcel and that the applicant proposes dividing the site into multiple smaller lots (staff packet lists lot sizes that differ in places in the verbal record). Scott noted the subdivision was originally platted as separate lots and that the variance requests were transferred to the council because of a planning commission conflict of interest.
Council members questioned the zoning history and how the parcel was assigned R1A. One council member asked whether the subdivision was platted in 1955 and whether the city later applied R1A zoning when adopting its current map. “I know these were platted in ’55. Correct?” a council member asked. Council members discussed that some older subdivisions were likely carried forward into current zoning categories when the city adopted its ordinances decades ago.
Staff said that, based on the lot sizes and the R1A standards, the proposed subdivisions would create nonconforming lots and that similar developments would not be consistent with surrounding neighborhood character. Because the item was information only, no motion or formal vote to approve the variances was taken.
The council asked staff to research historical zoning records and subdivision plats to clarify how the property received its R1A designation and whether prior county mapping affected the outcome. Staff offered to return with that research at a later date.
