Brookhaven board defers decision on Redding Road putting-green variance after staff recommended denial

The Brookhaven Board of Appeals on a split and often tense sequence of public testimony on VAR25-00032 voted to defer a request by homeowners Ryan and Britney Blackburn to reduce a 75-foot stream buffer to 53 feet for a small artificial-turf putting green at 2853 Redding Road.

The applicant’s consultant, Jennifer Wolfe of It’s Permittable LLC, told the board the drainage feature at the back of the Blackburn lot is “not a functioning creek” but a shallow drainage ditch that is dry about 90 percent of the time and “rarely holds more than six inches of standing water.” Wolfe said the proposed surface would be an engineered permeable artificial-turf system with a compacted stone base to promote infiltration and that the applicants would follow the city’s specifications to seek a pervious credit when permitting.

The city’s staff, however, reported an earlier stream-buffer determination by staff and correspondence from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources that describe the feature as an intermittent conveyance channel that can have groundwater-supported flow 48 hours after rain events and therefore carries required buffers. Staff recommended denial. Board members questioned whether the lot’s topography and prior determinations supported a variance and whether allowing recreational encroachments would create an unfavorable precedent.

During the public-comment portion, neighbors and community members gave mixed testimony. Supporters, including nearby residents Ronnie Mayer and Thomas Sullivan, said the drainage ditch is typically dry, praised the applicant for seeking approval before installing the turf and said the engineered surface would reduce maintenance and help children play safely. Opponents and board members pointed to prior cases in which substantial development had been allowed in buffer areas and emphasized the city’s duty to follow the code and technical staff determinations.

Several board members asked whether a site-specific stream-buffer determination could be completed in time for the board’s next meeting; staff said a stream-buffer determination application is typically processed within about five business days. The applicant asked for a deferral to Dec. 17 to allow staff to re-evaluate the feature, conduct a site visit, and, if needed, revise the design or the proposal’s footprint. The board voted to defer the case to the December 17 meeting for the stated purpose of obtaining a site determination and further review of whether engineered turf would qualify for any pervious credit under city specifications.

The board’s chair encouraged the applicant to review the exact language in the city code that sets the criteria for granting a stream-buffer variance, noting the standard requires unusual circumstances tied to the parcel’s physical characteristics. If staff’s site determination finds the feature is not a stream, the buffer requirement would not apply and the case could be withdrawn; if staff confirms the feature is a stream, the case will return with the record of that determination and any revised plans. The board made no final determination on the variance itself at the meeting.