Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Facility Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for private tennis court in Atlanta Country Club area with strict stipulations
Summary
The BZA approved a variance for a private sports court on Paper Mill Road after neighbors argued the court was built without prior approvals; the board required conditions including private‑use limits, no lighting, downcast shielding, evergreen buffering and inspections.
The Cobb County Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 15 granted variance B‑147 to allow a private sports/tennis court and several related reliefs from setback standards on a large Atlanta Country Club‑area lot, subject to conditions intended to limit community impacts.
Parks Huff, representing property owners Kevin and (Mrs.) Clayton, told the board the Claytons terraced and regraded the four‑acre lot, installed permitted retaining walls and paused court completion once informed a variance was required. Huff said the owners would limit the court to private use, would not light the facility, would shield existing lighting that affected neighbors and would submit a landscaping plan for county review.
Neighbors led by Leanne Freeman and Mike Dennis strongly opposed the variance, saying the work proceeded without the required setback approvals and removed tree buffers that previously protected adjacent yards. "The construction ignores the 100‑foot setback by over 80 feet," a neighbor testified, noting a petition signed by about 19–20 homeowners and warning that allowing after‑the‑fact variances sets a damaging precedent.
Huff emphasized mitigation measures and said the contractor who began the court told the owner no permit was required; he said the owner stopped work when informed of the variance requirement and had offered to shield lights, add evergreen plantings and ensure the retaining walls and drainage meet code. The applicant also agreed to no commercial use, no lessons or tournaments, and no stadium seating.
After questions about lighting, potential parking and whether the court could be relocated, a board member read stipulations into the record and the board voted to approve the variance with the conditions described.
The board’s action requires the applicant to submit final landscaping/buffering plans for county review, confine use to personal noncommercial activities, ensure lighting is downcast or shielded, and verify retaining‑wall stability and drainage.
