Sat 13 Jul 2024 13 30 34 0400 Re 2740 Grove St Ne Brookhaven Ga 30319 Gaddy Survey Estim 190Ad258 2
| Field | Value |
| Category | Surveys & Plans > Surveys & Plats |
| Confidence | medium |
| Reason | Email filename references Gaddy survey estimate; likely survey-related correspondence |
| Original File | sat_13_jul_2024_13_30_34_-0400_re_2740_grove_st_ne_brookhaven_ga_30319_-_gaddy_survey_estim_190ad258_2.eml |
| File Type | EML |
| Source | gmail-export |
sat_13_jul_2024_13_30_34_-0400_re_2740_grove_st_ne_brookhaven_ga_30319_-_gaddy_survey_estim_190ad258_2.eml
Email
| Header | Value |
| From | Sarah Zeeman <szeeman@gmail.com> |
| To | Frank Gaddy <frank@gaddysurveydesign.com> |
| CC | Al Ansley <al@gaddysurveydesign.com>, Joy Cooper <joy@gaddysurveydesign.com>, "bledermeier@mmatllaw.com" <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>, "jeffsbanks@hotmail.com" <jeffsbanks@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: 2740 Grove St NE, Brookhaven, GA 30319 - Gaddy Survey Estimate |
| Date | Sat, 13 Jul 2024 13:30:34 -0400 |
Email Body
*Moving the line - 2 feet 8 inches
* Mr Ledermeier
Apologies for typos, typing from my phone
On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 1:24 PM Sarah Zeeman <szeeman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> This 2746 and 2740 and it a Dekalb court order to move the property line. There
> is nothing weird about the move of the property line 2.8 Inches. This not
> for a subsivion or redesigning of a neighborhood.
>
> It is my understanding the new survey is being paid for by the Title
> company and Mr. Ledermeiser will confirm if that is correct.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 12:12 PM Frank Gaddy <frank@gaddysurveydesign.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mr. Ledermeiser,
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on the location of the property, I assume that you are talking
>> about a survey for both #2740 and # 2746 Grove Street with a minor
>> subdivision plat to change the property lines between the two properties.
>> Every jurisdiction has their unique peculiarities – The City of Brookhaven
>> and DeKalb County are no different. The City of Brookhaven will review to
>> ensure that both lots do not fall below minimum zoning requirements.
>> Usually, if you are not increasing the degree of non-conformity everything
>> will go smoothly on their review for the minor subdivision plat or “lot
>> reconfiguration” plat. Let me know, if you know something different for
>> these properties – I see a straight RS-50 zoning: 6000 s.f. minimum lot
>> size, 5’ side setbacks, 30’ rear yard, front yard – 5’ for the corner lot
>> and setback averaging for the adjacent lot, and 35% maximum lot coverage. I
>> do not have exact existing lot square footages – based on the measurement
>> tool on the county GIS map – you do not have a lot of area that can be
>> acquired legally by #2740 Grove Street – approximate lot area for #2740 is
>> 6800 s.f.+/- and # 2746 is 6450 s.f. +/- (so legally you could move
>> approximately 450 s.f. from #2746 to # 2740). You also will not be able to
>> move the property line if either building becomes less than 5 feet from the
>> side property line or creates and encroachment for an existing hardscape
>> item (these can always be moved by a land disturbance permit). The city
>> will require the existing and proposed lot coverage calculations to ensure
>> that the lot coverages do not exceed 35%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please let me know, if you are not talking about the lot next door at
>> #2746 Grove Street and instead the lot to the rear at # 2733 Osborne Road.
>> This would complicate matters exceedingly due to the lot being in a
>> different Zoning District (RS-100), the lot containing a land locked parcel
>> and two separate structures with different addresses on a single parcel.
>> The city would require all this to be straightened out – which would most
>> likely require a rezoning and variances to be obtained. Also, an
>> interesting point – A longtime friend owns a parcel on Osborne Road. We did
>> multiple surveys for him for properties on Osborne Road, Grove Street, and
>> Kendrick Road. He and his neighbors applied for rezoning on the Osborne
>> Road properties prior to the creation of the City of Brookhaven – DeKalb
>> did not want to rezone the property – so DeKalb created an Overlay District
>> to give the owners the setback reductions that they were desiring. This is
>> the only Overlay District that was created by DeKalb County in the City of
>> Brookhaven that is not honored by the city.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, DeKalb County is the most broken jurisdiction in the state
>> and their GIS department also requires review and approval on the minor
>> plat before they will allow the plat to be recorded. The DeKalb County GIS
>> department requires topographic conditions to be shown on what they require
>> as the existing conditions sheet. This sheet is immediately superseded by
>> the next sheet of the lot line change. In DeKalb County this “should be”
>> simple plat is a three-sheet plat: cover sheet, existing conditions sheet,
>> and lot reconfiguration sheet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please confirm which lot is the additional lot to be surveyed and I will
>> get the proposal updated accordingly to include both lots, legal
>> descriptions, and minor subdivision plat. GSD does not provide permitting
>> services, if you need a recommendation for a permit expeditor – we can
>> refer several that are familiar with both the City of Brookhaven and DeKalb
>> County process. Also, will billing be through McLain – Merrit or through
>> the property owner for the proposal for professional services? I believe it
>> was the 2016 changes to the Plat Act by the State General Assembly that
>> created the specific/additional rights of the local jurisdiction for
>> approval to any lot line changes – the surveyor is guilty of a
>> “misdemeanor” for creating a plat in non-compliance of the local
>> jurisdiction’s approval process – hence the reason for applying one of the
>> four different surveyor’s certification boxes required on all surveys in
>> Georgia. The reason that the g
Attachments
image001.jpg (image/jpeg, 4 KB)

Download Original (.eml)