Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance V 240007 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Johns Creek board approves variance for detached front‑yard garage at Medlock Bridge Road lot
Summary
On Sept. 17, 2024, the Johns Creek Board of Zoning Appeals approved variance V‑240007 to allow a two‑story detached garage in the front yard at 8950 Medlock Bridge Road, concluding the structure must not be used as an in‑law suite and must meet all building and river‑corridor approvals.
The Johns Creek Board of Zoning Appeals voted Sept. 17, 2024, to approve variance V‑240007 allowing a two‑story detached garage in the front yard at 8950 Medlock Bridge Road, subject to conditions prohibiting habitable use and requiring all building permits and river‑corridor approvals.
Alan Guerra, Planner II for the Community Development Department, had recommended denial, saying the zoning ordinance’s accessory‑structure rules favor placement in rear or side yards and that the applicant had not demonstrated an extraordinary hardship related to size, shape or topography. Guerra told the board that “staff recommends denial of V‑24‑0007,” and listed standard conditions staff would impose if the board nonetheless approved the request.
Doug Dillard, the applicant, told the board the lot is tapered and effectively constrained by side setbacks and a 75‑foot creek buffer, and that the proposed garage would sit about 250 feet from Medlock Bridge Road and be screened by existing trees. “All of these green circles you see here indicate trees on the property,” Dillard said during his presentation, adding that the upstairs would be left as shell space for future office or workout use, not an in‑law suite.
Board members debated alternatives including attaching the garage or moving the house forward; several members said the lot layout and river‑corridor limits reduced feasible placement options. The chair said he was “torn” but ultimately moved to approve the variance with conditions that the accessory structure not be used as habitable space or an in‑law suite and that the applicant obtain required permits and river‑corridor approvals. The motion was seconded and carried.
The board removed staff’s screening requirement (planting evergreen trees) from the final approval but stressed that river‑corridor rules and disturbance credit limits would still control tree removal. The board’s approval does not remove any requirement for building permits, inspections, or river‑corridor authorization; those remain prerequisite to construction and certificate of occupancy issuance.
Next steps: the applicant must secure building permits and river‑corridor approvals and demonstrate compliance with the conditions before receiving a certificate of completion.
