The Sandy Springs Board of Appeals on June 4 unanimously denied variance V-24-29, rejecting a request that would have allowed an addition at 380 Ferry Landing to extend 10 feet into the 15-foot side common lot line setback. The board voted to follow staff’s recommendation for denial after hearing presentations from city staff, the homeowners and multiple neighbors.

The denial preserves the setback required under the Sandy Springs development code and responds to concerns from residents and staff about neighborhood character, river corridor protections and the scale of the proposed addition. Staff had recommended denial, and the board approved that recommendation without recorded opposing votes.

Michelle McIntosh Ross, a city planner presenting the case to the Board of Appeals, told the board the application sought a variance from “section 6.10.2(b) to allow a home addition to encroach into the 15-foot side common lot line setback by 10 feet” and that staff recommended denial. McIntosh Ross said the parcel is in the Riverchase neighborhood, abuts the Chattahoochee River and is subject to the Metropolitan River Protection Act, associated buffers and the city’s floodplain setbacks. She also told the board the property is zoned RD-27 (residential detached, 27,000-square-foot lots) and that Fulton County records list the house as built in 1978 and acquired by the current homeowners in 2023.

Applicant representatives and homeowners said the addition was intended to create an in-law suite and a one-car carriage-garage arrangement that fits the family’s needs. Paul Loftus, homeowner of 380 Ferry Landing, said the project would allow his mother-in-law to live with the family and asked the board to consider the family hardship. “I’m not looking to harm anyone. I’m not looking to encroach on anyone,” Loftus said. Builder Jared Keim and homeowner Shelley Loftus explained the lot’s development constraints — including the floodplain, river buffers, existing house footprint and driveway — and said they believed a horizontal addition was the only feasible design to meet their needs.

Neighbors and several residents speaking in opposition told the board the variance would erode the established spacing and tree canopy that define Riverchase and could set a precedent for future encroachments. Melinda Gertz, a Riverchase resident at 390 Ferry Landing, told the board the objection was not personal but about “preserving the character and balance of our neighborhood.” She said the applicant’s home already occupies a larger proportion of its smaller-than-average lot and that the proposed addition would sit about 15 feet from her primary bedroom, affecting privacy, light and noise buffers.

Other opponents stressed precedent and environmental concerns along the Chattahoochee River. Dr. Bruce Green, a Riverchase resident of 48 years, said the proposed expansion — described in the plans as including a garage, accessory dwelling unit, game room, exercise room and screened porch — lacked justification under the zoning standards. Several neighbors submitted letters and asked the board to deny the variance to protect lot spacing, tree canopy and runoff/stormwater considerations.

Staff reported five comments submitted through the city’s online portal — all in opposition and none in support — and counsel and staff noted no mitigation plan (such as an enhanced landscape buffer approved by the city arborist) had been provided in the application package. During deliberations the board asked whether alternate configurations within code (for example, installing a bathroom or reworking interior space) could meet the family’s needs without a variance; the homeowners acknowledged other design options but said those options were less functional given the site constraints.

A board member moved to deny the variance “to go along with the city’s recommendation of denial.” The motion was seconded and the board chair called the vote; the chair stated the vote was unanimous and the variance was denied. The transcript does not include a roll-call of each board member’s individual vote.

The board also noted, during the meeting, that case V-2511000 (Johnson Ferry Road) had been withdrawn and would not be heard that evening. The Board of Appeals adjourned after the two items and routine procedural business.

The decision leaves in place the city’s development-code setback for the Ferry Landing parcel and maintains the city and neighborhood protections the board cited in denying the requested encroachment. Any further changes to the property that would require relief from the code would require a new application and demonstration of the development-code criteria for a variance.