John Stanforth’s request to reduce rear-yard setback for detached garage deferred after neighbor objections

Johns Creek’s Board of Zoning Appeals voted to defer consideration of variance case V‑26‑0008 for 30 days after neighbors objected to a proposed detached garage and pool house that would encroach into the rear-yard setback at 145 East Meadows Court.

Planning and zoning manager Ruchi Agarwal told the board the corner lot is in the 7 Oaks subdivision, is about 0.507 acres and zoned R‑4A, and that the code requires a 25‑foot rear setback. Staff recommended approval of a reduced rear setback to 11 feet to permit a detached garage and pool house, subject to conditions including required building permits, an as‑built survey before certificates of completion, and installation of evergreen screening shown on the site plan dated 06/26/2026.

Applicant John Stanforth, who lives at 145 East Meadows Court, described site constraints that he said justify relief: the home sits diagonally on a corner lot that narrows toward the rear and has roughly an 8‑foot change in elevation that limits usable rear‑yard area. He said he initially sought a 7‑foot variance consistent with the HOA’s covenants but worked with staff and designers to revise the request to an 11‑foot setback to protect neighbor trees and allow room for screening. “We’ve designed this to work with staff and to make sure that we’re being good neighbors,” Stanforth said.

Neighbor Ron Bailey, of 155 East Meadows Court, opposed the variance, saying the proposed structures would face his property and damage his home’s value and enjoyment. Bailey told the board he hired an appraiser who concluded the proposed structures would “definitely negatively impact our home and our value” and said earlier evergreen screening on his property had failed. “His backyard is our front yard,” Bailey said, arguing the height and proximity of a pool house and garage would intrude on his view and equity.

Sam Sampson, the project’s landscape architect from Ironwood Design Group, replied that prior plantings were the wrong species, that the design now calls for a layered planting zone 11 feet wide and taller screening trees where appropriate, and that construction methods and tree protection notes would be used to reduce impacts. Sampson offered to work directly with neighbors on plant selection and placement.

Board members asked about peak building heights from finished grade (designers estimated roughly 16–20 feet to the peak depending on grade), the species and maturity of proposed screening, and whether both adjacent neighbors objected. A neighbor present offered that a 16‑foot setback might be a workable compromise. Because the applicant and the neighbor indicated there was room to try to negotiate a compromise, a board member moved to defer the case for 30 days; the motion was seconded by Ms. Winnemann and carried by voice vote.

The board did not take a final vote on the variance; the case was deferred to the board’s next meeting to allow parties to negotiate possible changes to footprint, setback or screening. Staff listed the conditions that would apply if approved, including limits on encroachment as shown on the June 26, 2026 site plan, required permits for a detached garage and a pool house, an as‑built survey, and planting of evergreen screening at a minimum 5 feet in height at installation.