Brookhaven Board of Appeals defers Divine Circle variance after neighborhood objections

The City of Brookhaven Board of Appeals on Oct. 15 deferred consideration of VAR25-00024, a request for multiple variances related to a proposed four-home development on Divine Circle, to the board's Oct. 15 meeting to allow applicants and staff time to explore alternatives.

The board's chair opened the continuing public hearing and staff noted a correction to the staff conditions: "It should be lots 2, 3, and 4," the staff member said, referring to a revised rear-setback condition. The chair also reiterated the board has no authority over whether a road is built and allowed a cumulative 10-minute public-comment period for support and opposition.

Neighbors told the board the proposal would change the neighborhood's character. Resident Sumeet Jeth said the developer's proposed lots would not meet RS-75 minimums, arguing that "if you have a 10,000 square foot minimum per the RS 75 standards, track 3 is at 7,000, track 4 is at 7,700 ish," and warned that combined impervious coverage and setback reductions would amount to a de facto rezoning by variance. Resident Yolanda said she was "not anti development" but opposed "overdevelopment," calling the variance request a "backdoor" rezone and urging denial or a 30-day deferral.

The project team countered that the parcels are existing lots of record and outlined public benefits. Architect Steven Russell said the plan includes a stormwater retention pond to handle runoff from the new houses, and engineering consultant Robert Morcliff told the board these are "existing lots of record with unopened right of way" and that the proposed pond and green space would be dedicated to the city. Morcliff also said some neighborhood setback measurements presented by residents measured from the curb rather than the property right-of-way, skewing comparisons.

Board members and staff probed multiple technical points: whether front setbacks should be measured from a centerline provided by a Linwood Park blanket variance (staff noted the blanket allows development 50 feet from the centerline), how the overall impervious coverage would be calculated if Lot 5 were dedicated for a detention pond, and whether shifting Lot 5 slightly could enlarge adjacent lots to reduce the need for some variances. Staff said the applicant had proposed keeping impervious coverage on most lots at or below about 3,500 square feet with one lot at 3,450 and another at 3,400 as a condition.

A motion to approve the variances failed for lack of a second. A subsequent motion to defer the item for 30 days passed; the board asked the applicant to return with feasibility work on alternatives that could reduce encroachments, explore whether Lot 5 could be reduced to increase conformity of lots 2-4, and clarify how much of the detention pond serves the four homes versus the downstream public benefit. The board and staff cautioned that a 30-day window is short and that the materials returned may be exploratory rather than formal survey-level plans.

The board will revisit VAR25-00024 at its Oct. 15 meeting.