IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA
§
Babatunde Oshodi,1 CIVIL ACTION
§
Plaintiff, FILE NO.: 21-cv-8640
v. §
James Stegeman, § Jury Trial Demanded
Janet McDonald (a/k/a Janet McElwaney)
§
Defendants,

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WITH SUPPORTING AUTHORITY AND
REQUEST TO GRANT DEFENDANTS AN INJUNCTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF2
________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW, Defendants, James Stegeman and Janet McDonald (a/k/a Janet

McElwaney), who respectfully file Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency

Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief With Supporting Authority and Request to

Grant Defendants an Injunction Against Plaintiff, and show this Honorable Court as

follows:

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE EMERGENCY MOTION

The first sentence, in the first paragraph is untrue. “COME NOW Plaintiff in the

above-styled case, by and through the undersigned counsel...”. The “subject property”,

1
Throughout the Emergency Motion, Oshodi refers to Plaintiff, using the terms “we”,
“our”, using multiple person nouns and pronouns. Defendants from time to time refer to
Plaintiff as multiple persons as well, one reason is that it is unclear who the property
actually belongs to. Hoten Group, LLC is the purchaser of record, but the Security Deed
also conveys the property to Groundfloor Holdings, GA LLC.
2
Defendants will be filing a formal Motion for Injunction against the Plaintiff.
located at 811 Sheppard Rd., Stone Mountain, GA 30083 (“811”) and Plaintiff seeks to

Quiet Title the property against Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs it is owned either by Hoten

Group, LLC, or GROUNDFLOOR Holdings GA LLC, not Bubatunde Oshodi (“Oshodi”).

The Security Deed [Exhibit A] for the 811 property shows

“THIS SECURITY DEED is given on this March 9, 2020 by and between

HOTEN GROUP, LLC,...referred to as ‘Grantor’, and GROUNDFLOOR
Holdings, GA LLC ... as ‘Grantee’) ...
WITNESSETH:
FOR THE CONSIDERATION hereinafter set forth and other good and
valuable consideration delivered to Grantor by Grantee at and before the
execution, sealing and delivery hereof...Grantor has and hereby does
grant, bargain, sell and convey unto Grantee and the heirs, legal rep...of
Grantee all that tract or parcel of land known by its common street address
at 811 Sheppard Road...”
With the Security Deed, there is a 1-4 Family Rider Assignment of Rents. Oshodi

has signed the Security Deed and Assignment of Rents: HOTEN GROUP, LLC, A Georgia

Limited Liability Company, By: Babatunde Oshodi, Title: Member.

The Legal Description for the Exhibit A to the Security Deed, comes from the

survey by A. S. Giometti Association, Inc. on July 31, 1970. The only Legal Description

that all transfers used prior to Hoten.

It appears that Hoten sold the property to Groundfloor Holdings GA LLC (“GHG”),

it does not even belong to Hoten or Oshodi. Oshodi cannot bring a Quiet Title action, or

request an Injunction for the property. Unauthorized practice of law in GA is very heavily

frowned upon, and if Defendants are not mistaken, it is illegal.

Just as stated in the Answers, Defenses and Counterclaim, Oshodi lacks standing

Page 2 of 18
and capacity to seek an injunction against Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. For the sake of

arguendo only, Stegeman/McDonald continue with their Opposition to Injunction.

In fact, it is Stegeman/McDonald that should be seeking a Permanent Injunction

against Oshodi and his cohorts. The builder hired by Oshodi, came to Stegeman/

McDonald’s home, he came flying up their driveway in his pickup truck and got out cussing

at McDonald/Stegeman, who were in their own yard, watching and photographing the

demolition of the building that used to be at 811. When the demolition persons arrived at

811, McDonald had politely asked the men doing the demolition if they minded if she took

photos, and they both assured her that it was fine with them.

Ever since Oshodi first obtained the property, there has been no pleasant enjoyment

for Stegeman/McDonald of their property. They never know what to expect next. Since

Oshodi obtained the property, only one time in the summer, was the weeds ever cut down.

There are pictures with Stegeman standing over in the yard, where the weeds were taller

than he is, and he is 5’ 10” tall.

Oshodi and his builder have caused much unrest, and Stegeman/McDonald’s 8 ½

year old female dog, died suddenly, only a few days after the builder had been to the

property taking pictures of the site plans that he put in the box, when he was done he

removed the site plans and left again. McDonald asked him while he was there, if he was

not supposed to keep the plans on site. He told her “no”. One night, not long after that,

the female dog, who had never been ill a day in her life, suddenly died. She had been

playing in the yard just 30 minutes earlier and was fine.

Page 3 of 18
 Even before the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBOA”) hearings took place, there

were bad feelings between the parties. The Oshodi gang did not like that

Stegeman/McDonald have a private right of way3 over the property and have done

everything they could to try to claim it does not exist. Every time anyone comes or goes

from the property at 821 Sheppard Rd. (“821”), which is next door to 811, the right of way

is used, every time Stegeman or McDonald goes to their mailbox, it is used. To claim it

does not exist, or is unneeded, is ludicrous.

Oshodi is seeking a “Court Order restraining and enjoining Defendants from

preventing the Plaintiff from their development project from being completed...” and he

brings up that money was borrowed for the project, which 30% must be completed

sometime in November, 2021. It is not written into the Security deed.

Somehow, Oshodi claims it is Defendants’ fault that no work has been completed.

That is totally false. After having the building on the property demolished, and refusing to

keep the site plans on the premises, they got a STOP WORK ORDER slapped on the

property. That is why no work has been done.

Of course, considering .10 acres is too small to build on, might have something to

do with the matter as well. In DeKalb County, R-100 zoning areas, you must have no less

than 15,000 square feet to build on. They claim the property to be non-conforming, yet to

be non-conforming, the owner must apply for that status, and no one ever applied, they

3
Private right-of-way: Any street, avenue, boulevard, road, highway, sidewalk, alley or
easement that is not owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental entity.
https://library.municode.com/ga/dekalb_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COD
ECO_CH27ZO_ART9DE
Page 4 of 18
think they can just make claims, and get away with it. Sorry, Stegeman/McDonald know

the entire history of the property, and plan on protecting their rights and their property

rights to the fullest extent of the law. That is what the true dispute is about.

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff repeatedly brings up that there is a business loan on the property, and he

needed 30% completed by mid-November [Em.Mtn.,p.1].

On page 2, the claim is made

“The Defendants insist that the property in the instant matter is their own
and are refusing to sign an easement agreement for the building of a
thoroughfare on the property to be accessed by parties by way of
easement”.
“In the instant matter, the dispute is no so much over the easement or
development as much as it is over who owns the actual property and who
is granting an easement to whom in the instant matter”.
Neither of those statements are true. Stegeman/McDonald has not stated that they own the

property; and the dispute has to do with both the private right of way and the building that

Plaintiff plans to erect on the 811 property. It will cause the Stegeman/McDonald property

to become totally unmarketable. A 3- story boarding house will kill the 821 property value.

It is unimaginable where Oshodi came up with this crazy idea of telling the court

that Defendants claim to own the property. While Defendants were the only ones that ever

took care of 811, and the easement and driveway, and should be entitled to prescriptive

title, what was actually said, was that there is a non-exclusive ingress-egress easement for

Stegeman/McDonald’s benefit on the 811 property and that they are not allowed to violate

the easement rights. They cannot obstruct, build upon, park upon the private right of way,

Page 5 of 18
and that Stegeman has taken care of the 811 property, driveway and easement for the past

27 years, and we don’t plan on giving them the easement/private right of way.

Plaintiff knew when he purchased the property that there was a private right of way

on the property, and they didn’t care and did not want to see the Warranty Deed or the two

surveys shown in [Exhibit B], or anything of the sort. Plaintiff purchased the property,

either without checking anything, and having done no due diligence before their purchase,

or thought that they would purchase, then cry that they have all this money tied up, and

should be allowed to go forward with the numerous violations, and it would be allowed.

Moreover, “Constructive notice. A purchaser who buys property which has a joint

driveway with the adjoining property, even though there is no recorded easement for the

joint use of the driveway, purchased the property with constructive notice that the adjoining

property owner may have an easement for the use of the joint driveway”. Mize v. McGarity,

293 Ga. App. 714, 667 S.E.2d 695 (2008). § 12:6. Outstanding easements or rights in land,

Ga. Real Estate Sales Contracts § 12:6 (6th ed.).

Plaintiff has admitted that there is a joint driveway. Defendants don’t agree that

there is, but Plaintiff’s admission of a joint driveway, shows constructive notice of the

private right of way.

They knowingly, willingly, wantonly, and with malicious intent, purchased a

property containing .10 acres on a septic tank since 1940, there was no foundation, which

would be evident to the most elementary builder. Any real estate investor/builder in

DeKalb County is aware of the Zoning Laws, the amount of land required to build on, the

number of square feet the structure must have, and would have checked out the plats for

Page 6 of 18
the homes immediately next door on both sides, and maybe in the rear. An honest

builder/investor would have steered clear of the property. Instead, Defendants are sure that

Plaintiff was aware of all of these things, and decided he would intimidate, harass, threaten,

and bully Stegeman/McDonald into letting him have his way.

Mr. Stegeman is 71 years old, and disabled with a mobility related disability. Ms.

McDonald is 62, and she takes care of Mr. Stegeman, and they believe that Plaintiff thought

he could just take advantage of Defendants. That kind of behavior is considered

exploitation and/or abuse of an elderly and disabled adult, a crime in Georgia.

When Plaintiff did not get his way, first he played the game with the ZBOA, and

when they were not successful there, decided to try for the Quiet Title and Injunction.

Plaintiff and anyone associated with him, have come to this Court with unclean hands

seeking numerous equitable forms of relief. In order to obtain equitable relief,

“Under Georgia law, ‘[h]e who would have equity must do equity and
must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the
subject matter of the action.’ OCGA § 23-1-10. “. Sure, Inc. v. Premier
Petroleum, Inc., 807 S.E.2d 19, 26 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
Plaintiff before this Court, has not fulfilled the conditions precedent to seeking equitable

relief and has unclean hands. A party cannot come into the Court, after attempting to steal

a private right of way, and three (3) + feet of a neighboring property, and request equitable

relief.

Rather than a Quiet Title and seeking an Injunction, Plaintiffs would have filed for

declaratory judgment as to the rights of the parties, but Plaintiff knew already what the

rights were, he merely intends to have this court dissolve the easement/private right of way.

Page 7 of 18
 B. Plaintiff Cannot Suffer Irreparable Injury

Plaintiff knew, or should have known, when he purchased the property, that there

was a private right of way on the property, and they didn’t care and did not want to see the

Warranty Deed or the two surveys shown in [Exhibit B], or anything of the sort. Plaintiff

purchased the property, either without checking anything, and having done no due

diligence before their purchase, or they knowingly, willingly, wantonly, and with malicious

intent purchased the property with actual knowledge of the facts, and now complain about

having a lot of money tied up, and should be allowed to go forward with the numerous

zoning violations, and it would be allowed.

The Supreme Court of Georgia has long held that when a structure is to be built that

is in violation of the zoning ordinances, and a homeowner’s property is injuriously affected

by such erection, it gives the right for the other homeowners to enjoin the violation of the

zoning ordinances:

“A three-family dwelling house is not a nuisance per se. It might, or might

not, become a public nuisance, depending upon its mode of operation.
Ordinarily the erection or operation of such a dwelling house would not
constitute such a public nuisance as might be abated on application of a
solicitor-general, but still, whether a public nuisance or not, such erection
or operation, where contrary to a valid zoning ordinance, would give
the property owners within the zoned district, whose property was
injuriously affected by the violation of the ordinance, a right to enjoin
a violation which was adversely affecting their property rights. If the
erection ...of the building should be such as to constitute a public nuisance,
still this would not preclude a property owner within the zoned district,
suffering special damages to his property rights, from the right of
injunctive relief. In such an instance, the property owner has suffered
a private injury to his property rights, which is not shared by the
public generally coming within the sphere of *647 operation of the act

Page 8 of 18
 complained of, and he is entitled to injunctive relief, not on account of
public wrong but on account of the private injury. As stated in O'Brien
v. Harris, 105 Ga. 732, 31 S.E. 745, 746: ‘The doctrine is too well
established to require any lengthy discussion that equity never interferes
at the instance of the individual citizen or person in matters merely
criminal, or merely immoral, which do not affect any right to property. *
* * a court of equity, under some circumstances, will, at the instance of an
individual, restrain an act which amounts to a violation of a criminal law;
but the act itself must be of some peculiar injury to the property rights of
the party complaining, and the court interferes, not on account of the
public wrong, but on account of the private injury.’”
Graham v. Phinizy, 204 Ga. 638, 646–47, 51 S.E.2d 451, 456 (1949)

Defendants are suffering from the actions of Plaintiff, in that the marketability of

their property is at risk. This Court has the power and authority to prevent Plaintiff from

causing the lack of marketability of Defendants’ property. This Court should issue an

injunction against building on the property, as the land itself is in violation of zoning laws,

and being real estate investors, looking to build rental property, along with the actual

knowledge of the private right of way over the property, they must not be awarded for their

misrepresentations and falsely sworn documents.

Plaintiff knowingly, willingly, wantonly, and with malicious intent, purchased a

property containing .10 acres, and having a septic tank that was built in 1940, there was no

foundation, which would be evident to the most elementary builder. Any real estate

investor/builder in DeKalb County is aware of the Zoning Laws, the amount of land

required to build on, the number of square feet the structure must have, and would have

checked out the plats for the homes immediately next door on both sides, and maybe in the

rear. An honest builder/investor would have steered clear of the property. Instead,

Page 9 of 18
Defendants are sure that Plaintiff was aware of all of these things, and decided he would

intimidate, harass, threaten, and bully Stegeman/McDonald into letting him have his way.

Mr. Stegeman is 71 years old, and disabled with a mobility related disability. Ms.

McDonald is 62, and she takes care of Mr. Stegeman, and they believe that Plaintiff thought

he could just take advantage of Defendants. That kind of behavior is considered

exploitation and/or abuse of an elderly and disabled adult, a crime in Georgia.

Plaintiff continually refers to “the permit for the thoroughfare to be developed on

the property disputed in the instant quiet title action. Failure to obtain this will cause further

delay in the project and risk defaulting the project entirely that the Plaintiff has already

incurred a substantial amount of expenses in” [Mtn TRO, p.3].

Just like in the Quiet Title action, Plaintiff starts at the very beginning making false

statements to the Court. Oshodi doesn’t even own the property, he lacks standing and

capacity to bring the Quiet Title action, and to seek an injunction for the wrong reasons.

As far as Plaintiff complaining about financial hardship, that was of Plaintiff’s own doing.

It is Stegeman/McDonald who had to repeatedly be at Zoning Board of Appeals hearings,

and finally had to hire legal counsel to get the matter straight. Now, the stress and further

hassle from Plaintiff, by his filing this action.

The Court should GRANT an injunction to Defendants.

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES

1. The Plaintiff is Not Entitled to TRO/Injunction, But Defendants Are

Plaintiff has attempted to show he is entitle to a TRO/Injunction, but has failed to

show that Defendants have done anything to warrant a TRO/Injunction against him. As he
Page 10 of 18
has done in the past, he seeks everyone to focus their attention on one hand, while the other

hand is actually doing something. First they tried to use the ZBOA to dissolve a private

right of way, and steal land from Defendants, and actually manage to build a boarding

house on a property that is much too small to meet the zoning requirements for R-100,

without the proper applications to do so. That didn’t work, so now they will try for a Quiet

Title, without meeting the pleading requirements, and a TRO to shut the Defendants up,

while they attempt to dissolve the private right of way, steal three feet of Defendants’

property, and still build the three story boarding house, while they violate all of the zoning

laws.

One must surmise that Plaintiff believed that if he could just somehow get the

building built, that he could accomplish the rest because the building was already built.

Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the 811 property. Just like when

he claimed that they would build back on the same foundation, he knew that there was no

foundation. It is his job to know, as a responsible builder, he would have known that.

So now, they come to this court, claiming to be the owner in his own name, to keep

from having to pay an attorney. It is common knowledge that an LLC must be represented

by legal counsel. But no, they came to the Superior Court believing that if they told this

outlandish story about Stegeman/McDonald claiming to own the property, they could

accomplish their tasks. Problem is, that out of all the people that have owned that property

over the last ten years, they were all told, prior to purchasing the property, that

Stegeman/McDonald have an ingress/egress easement over a certain portion of the

property, and they purchased it anyway.

Page 11 of 18
 The same with the current owner. Rather than talk with Stegeman/McDonald, in

a calm and reasonable manner, they have cussed, cheated, threatened and more. This group

of people apparently decided that they would try to scare, intimidate, and harass

Stegeman/McDonald into conforming to their wishes. That is not going to work either.

The law is on the side of the easement, and they cannot block, obstruct, dissolve or do

anything in any manner to the easement. It has always been there, and it will always be

there.

Therefore the Defendants, not the Plaintiff, that is entitled to a TRO/Permanent

Injunction against he Plaintiff, his builder, any of his other agents, employees, cohorts, and

the sort.

An Injunction is proper when there is a matter of land involved.

“(a) Land, under Georgia law, is deemed sufficiently unique that it is

entitled to equitable remedies to protect such interest in land. Rife v.
Corbett, 264 Ga. 871 ( 455 S.E.2d 581) (1995) (injunction to protect an
easement); Benton v. Patel, 257 Ga. 669, 672(1) ( 362 S.E.2d 217) (1987)
(injunction to stop foreclosure); Black v. American Vending Co., 239 Ga.
632, 634(2) ( 238 S.E.2d 420) (1977) ("the law regards as sufficiently
unique that equity will enforce a contract for [land] sale or lease"); ....
Therefore, when an interest in land is threatened with harm,
equitable injunctive relief is appropriate, because such harm is
deemed to be irreparble to the unique character of the property
interest, i.e., money damages are not adequate compensation to
protect the interest harmed. See generally Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v.
Americus Const. Co., 133 Ga. 392, 398 ( 65 S.E. 855) (1909)
(irreparable injury defined to enjoin a nuisance). See also Roth v.
Connor, 235 Ga. App. 866, 868-869 (1) ( 510 S.E.2d 550) (1998)
(property interests of grantor and others in restrictive covenants for their
benefit).
Focus Enter. Intl., Inc. v. Partridge Greene, 253 Ga. App. 121, 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).

Page 12 of 18
 Plaintiff has created and plans to create further nuisance. Should they be allowed

to build a 3 story boarding house on. Defendants have attached as [Exhibit D], the Ante

Litem Notice that they sent to DeKalb County on 01/20/2020. On page 3, ¶ 5 is a discussion

on how little property is at 811. The figures come out to 3,576 square feet, and they need

15,000 square feet.

This is a situation where a few real estate investors have paid $25,000 for an

unbuildable piece of property, and the believe that they can get around all of the numerous

obstacle in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening. One of the last ZBOA

hearings, these people were told that they need to change their building site plans, to

accommodate a triangle piece of property, just to get it to fit onto the property, shortly

thereafter, the application for variance was withdrawn [Exhibit ]. But apparently no one

told the planning and sustainability department that the application was denied or

withdrawn. The information available from them, is that there was a variance granted. Just

as Planning and Sustainability for some reason believes that an application for non-

conforming lot had been filed. There has been no such application filed. Plaintiffs think

they can put anything they want onto an application, and it will be accepted as such being

true. Defendants do not know whether or not it is standard practice for the building permit

people to check out what is put onto applications, but if they don’t, that would be a good

reason for builders/investors to believe that they can get away with lying on applications

without consequence.

Page 13 of 18
 C. Balance of Harms According to Plaintiff

Plaintiff claims that the threatened injury to Plaintiff outweighs the harms to

defendants in this matter who are not faced with the same financial pressures that the

Plaintiff is faced with. Plaitniff complains about the expense and time and great efforts he

has gone through in attempting the development project. [Mtn.TRO,p.3].

The problem with Plaintiff complaining about the development project, is all of the

arguments above in this Opposition. The violations of zoning, the lack of land for the

project, and the list goes on. Had Plaintiff been truly interested in a development project,

he would have purchased a large enough piece of property to build on, and the property

would not have had an ingress/egress private right of way on the property.

D. Plaintiff Has No Likelihood of Success on the Merits

All of the problems that Plaintiff complains of, were brought on by himself. We

must not forget that Oshodi is not even the owner of the property, he is a Member of the

owner of the property, and the owner of the property has conveyed the property to yet

another entity. What it boils down to, is Oshodi is not an attorney, he cannot represent the

owners of record, and he lacks standing to pursue this action and the TRO motion.

Defendants on the other hand, own their property, it will be paid off in around two

years, and they have put substantial amounts of time and money into their property, only

to have Plaintiff and his investor buddies attempt to make Defendants’ property value sink,

and make the property unmarketable. They must be restrained and enjoined from such

actions.

Defendants incorporate their entire pleadings into this TRO/Injunction request and

Page 14 of 18
show that there were numerous, less intelligent people that had ownership of the property,

and they were even smart enough to realize they could not legally do, what Plaintiff is

attempting to do. That is how Plaintiff ended up with the property, all of those before him,

saw that they could not do what they intended to do, and so they sold the property, and all

of the entities prior to Plaintiff, had invested less money. When Plaintiff paid what he did

for the property, he should have known there was a reason that no one before him had

developed the property. Unless of course, there is someone within the County Planning &

Sustainability or one of the Commissioners had assured Plaintiff that they would make sure

he succeeds in his development plans.

E. Granting Plaintiff an Injunction Would be a Disservice to Public Policy

The mere fact that what Plaintiff intends to do, dissolve a private right of way, build

a three story boarding house, when everything around the area are all ranch style homes,

the property itself is illegally non-conforming and has only a small fraction of the land

required for this area, granting an injunction will hurt the whole neighborhood, and make

Defendants property worth nothing.

Plaintiff complains about his expenses. In around two years, Defendants will satisfy

their 30 year loan. Defendants have put out much more than Plaintiff ever will on the

property. Defendants’ property and property rights must be observed.

Furthermore, Plaintiff wants an injunction against Defendants for what reason?

Defendants have not harmed, threatened harm, or done anything that an injunction would

be granted for. To the contrary, Defendants have shown that they have been threatened,

harassed, intimidated, cussed at, and a number of wrongs have been subjected upon

Page 15 of 18
Defendants. It would be fair and just to grant Defendants an injunction against Plaintiff

and against Plaintiff’s plans to violate the zoning codes for the area, and causing a nuisance,

and causing the loss or marketability of Defendant’s and other neighbors homes/properties.

F, and G are Missing From the TRO Motion

H. Defendants Have Shown That Good Cause Exists for the Court to Grant

an Injunction Against Plaintiff.

As has been argued throughout this Opposition, Plaintiff is not a proper party

Plaintiff. Defendants have done nothing to Plaintiff, while Plaintiff has done everything

possible to ruin Defendants’ quiet enjoyment of their property, and ruin the marketability

of their property, caused Defendants to have to attend ZBOA hearings numerous times,

and has now filed a vexatious litigation, causing Defendants even more stress and

sleeplessness. In essence, Plaintiff has attempted to abuse and exploit an elderly, disabled

man for their own gain.

CONCLUSION

Defendants have shown numerous issues within this Opposition. First and foremost

is the lack of standing and capacity of the alleged Plaintiff. Defendants have further shown

that they have a private right of way over the 811 property, which shows on Defendants’

Warranty Deed, Security Deed, and their Title Insurance documents. Plaintiff has violated

the private right of way numerous times, and his current building plans, show the private

right of way being violated even more.

Defendants have shown that Plaintiff intends to dissolve the private right of way,

and the building plans show the property line 3 feet over onto Defendants’ property, than

Page 16 of 18
actually exists. Zoning calls for 15,000 square feet in R-100 zones, which this is R-100.

.1 acres is only 4,365 square feet, deduct our private right of way of 780 square feet, deduct

the 10 feet on each side of the property as required by zoning laws, and the 40 feet in the

backyard, and Plaintiff is now down to 3,516 square feet. That equates to approximately

4.266% of the required 15,000 square feet for the property requirements to build on in

DeKalb County. With only 3516 square feet, the only way to satisfy the amount of square

feet for the building, is to make it three stories.

Plaintiff had claimed that they were going to build back on the same foundation,

which was for a house that was 864 square feet. Minimum square foot for homes in DeKalb

County, R-100 neighborhoods is 2,000 square foot homes. A two story home would only

come up to 1,728 square feet. To break 2,000 square feet, they need the three stories. The

building plans show three separate floors, each with two bedrooms on each floor, that

comes to 6 bedrooms.

The elevation is being grossly violated by putting three stories up. The three stories

will be out of place, and will hurt the entire neighborhood, but will hurt Defendants and

their property value most of all.

Defendants move the Court to grant an injunction against Plaintiff and his plans, in

favor of Defendants, who have lived in their home, and been good upstanding, tax paying

citizens, who should not loose the marketability of their home.

[Signatures on following page]

Page 17 of 18
 Respectfully submitted, this 9th day of January, 2022

/s/ James Stegeman /s/ Janet McDonald

James Stegeman Janet McDonald
(aka Janet McElwaney)

821 Sheppard Road

Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 801-4110
[email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby Certify, that I have, this 10th day of January, 2022, served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing upon Plaintiff, through the Tyler/Odyssey e-file system. Plaintiff
has listed that he lives at 811 Sheppard Road, Stone Mountain, GA 30083, but there is no
building for him to live in and no mailbox for mail delivery. The only way known to serve
Plaintiff, is through the e-file system as follows:

Babatunde Oshodi
Whatever email is on file at the
Tyler Odyssey e-file system.

/s/ Janet McDonald

Page 18 of 18
 INDEX TO EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT A: 811 SHEPPARD ROAD SECURITY DEED

EXHIBIT B: DEFENDANTS’ WARRANTY DEED & 2 SURVEYS

EXHIBIT C: ANTE LITEM NOTICE 01/20/2020

EXHIBIT D: WITHDRAWAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION

 EXHIBIT A:

811 SHEPPARD ROAD SECURITY DEED

GSCCCA.org - Image Index https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=75586410&k...

EXHIBIT A - 811 Sheppard Security Deed - 1

1 of 1 9/27/2021, 4:15 AM
GSCCCA.org - Image Index https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=75586410&k...

EXHIBIT A - 811 Sheppard Security Deed - 2

1 of 1 9/27/2021, 4:16 AM
GSCCCA.org - Image Index https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=75586410&k...

EXHIBIT A - 811 Sheppard Security Deed - 3

1 of 1 9/27/2021, 4:16 AM
GSCCCA.org - Image Index https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=75586410&k...

EXHIBIT A - 811 Sheppard Security Deed - 4

1 of 1 9/27/2021, 4:18 AM
GSCCCA.org - Image Index https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=75586410&k...

EXHIBIT A - 811 Sheppard Security Deed - 5

1 of 1 9/27/2021, 4:19 AM
GSCCCA.org - Image Index https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=75586410&k...

EXHIBIT A - 811 Sheppard Security Deed - 6

1 of 1 9/27/2021, 4:19 AM
GSCCCA.org - Image Index about:blank

EXHIBIT A - 811 Sheppard Security Deed - 7

1 of 1 9/27/2021, 4:19 AM
GSCCCA.org - Image Index https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=75586410&k...

EXHIBIT A - 811 Sheppard Security Deed - 8

1 of 1 9/27/2021, 4:24 AM
GSCCCA.org - Image Index https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=75586410&k...

EXHIBIT A - 811 Sheppard Security Deed - 9

1 of 1 9/27/2021, 4:20 AM
 EXHIBIT B:

DEFENDANTS’ WARRANTY DEED & 2 SURVEYS

EXHIBIT B - 821 Surveys & WD - 1
 The l,*td $*ll *5un *h.ilh lt]rs rnilS I
ir *ier t* ha ts tcrlt,r1 ls,qT;gt te$
isr s',#d| i:
& ha"e
lHJi#ffifn*#,i1il*
.,* -*:-i#,"-d"q*d&I-&ryfi','ffi"I"X'ii;flJ
jlrccr*,on.o.tione til ',:;i +*i'
o,,,r a1d A*$uiflr Ld

-r **r.,
F"eirrr.--,s ,__l e!$i, l*rilrq{sy
!t*t l_ r.*- :" "- r{.,r
[xJ$tlr6 *ns 16 ,ourK l(.. :j1j i*. "r,,.,tig rr:l]";rt
Jt'
Sr.il.-r:l-- ,,,
:':*i:l 'n 1eggg,-n-[[---ffisin, Fopnd.FtBp = eebarp!a,:,al
*J;ftfiu* Ijl:f:.M: r'uc*a, r.rk
enx, Frlr?;;|f;*;;.;;T;:;'"Jff, [I
?P:: f j* *
- ,-E
rr.ax^,^ s 6 -
= ^-. 1F6
**,;,, Manhor6, carer, o;
"$,::lf 6}*;":itf-
o,nuu
Xl;;lr-I.-iriraiis
f,egerneni :;."- r?ln:y Srp.*er

Tcl fr
t*.e .*-,.e

.$-**o*;x- {
3f-5.** i
"u
ryi
* '"rf
52J-'10. \
*Op;rrFtv
(5d L{'*':
.
. , n / -f,
, .r'-'*
f'rtl v€l
:l
t,
.;l
iil
*t
l

*&":

7&e-3'
5k ?Tf4;ffi{
[,*Sa&5$ f,S:l

v *g.1
Lr(-
rl
AJ

CI
5 a!

u
s.53 Ac-E#s
*s5 -
%,*.h'i&;*

,'a ,
r'l?fl
i

,
$ur.i*y fer ,,a",rr i n, ]TSJ*:]d*tll
lrr
Y f-r,?
1

&rd Jfu iL j :J
" !tr't:L+;A"l{Ey r:ffiffi
*{ * i,ln Sh*.x*rxr*
?s#'ry
- #nsts
p.oF*rry fir:a$ f
I t '- ir{iil&
la*
I
\-i
\-u"
i;:it -x{d
"S
"s.
i$.rd Lq$ J j, I )*-, *j..slr.i*tr t*S*l.* r:j,ircy.
I
iltr,r,{ia
I
; ,.-};'$#,s
r.T

*nr* $..,'i: . I
:

'i
Serk 1,. * F* , :

rrit .x drrr:?,,a,$E-GrfJLeer?*s tB * ! ,ln r,iy 6prrti6rr, rh,g p.f6y rr t {{r}r*e; i}, * c,r c{ rht i*-d
r{tt &,lr :t"t** l*.fI*SI-16Blrr?lS or
g:iqrisrj srtrl h*r br** $,rrlr*d rfi drrr"t y - ,ti' i!'g 6,r.
"li* 61r|"r*L yl"s*il gafalt **rln tY'rln *l#'!drr*t **d rtE$irtr{rtelrg pf lg.

;;:f ICYJ krttlar 3 s l* i

t':"'i:,:X:"'{-::*i3l::::**::*3:*-_3-u*:ru,*.,'."*6*_3
EXHIBIT D1 -BEasement
EXHIBIT Docs&
- 821 Surveys - PAGE
WD - -2-xHlBtr
01 1 - 1
 EXHIBIT B - 821 Surveys & WD - 3
01123455367890
39997
85 75668
732 !"6#$% !"6#&!9'1#&&!9'1#76()*+,!'368 &&!722- 5
 EXHIBIT B - 821 Surveys & WD - 4
01123455367890
39997
85 75668
732 !"6#$% !"6#&!9'1#&&!9'1#76()*+,!'368 &&!722- 5
 EXHIBIT B - 821 Surveys & WD - 5
01123455367890
39997
85 75668
732 !"6#$% !"6#&!9'1#&&!9'1#76()*+,!'368 &&!722- 5
 EXHIBIT C:

ANTE LITEM NOTICE 01/20/2020

 Janet D. McDonald
James B. Stegeman
821 Sheppard Rd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 801-4110/[email protected]
Friday, January 02, 2020
USPS Priority Mail

CEO Michael L. Thurmond

1300 Commerce Drive,
Decatur, GA 30030
Clerk DeKalb County Board of Commissioners1
1300 Commerce Drive
Decatur, GA 30030
DeKalb County Dept. Planning and Sustainability
330 W. Ponce de Leon Ave.
Decatur, GA 30030
Roads & Drainage Division
727 Camp Rd.
Decatur, GA 30032
DeKalb County Risk Management
315 West Ponce de Leon Ave.
Decatur, GA 30030

RE: ANTI LITEM NOTICE

Due to the Dept. of Planning & Sustainability
PUBLIC HEARING DEKALB COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
Application No. A-19-1243645, Parcel ID 18-073-02-005
811 Sheppard Rd. Stone Mountain, GA 30083

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Please note that this letter is an Official Ante Litem Notice, that backs up the letter
I sent on Friday, December 13, 2018, via email. I had emailed a letter w/Exhibits to the

1
The package included one Notice for all of the seven Commissioners: Nancy Jester,
Jeff Rader, Larry Johnson, Steve Bradshaw, Mereda Davis Johnson, Kathie Cannon,
Lorraine Chochran Johnson.

1|Page
EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 1
following entities:
CEO Michael L. Thurmond at: [email protected];
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners at: [email protected];
DeKalb County Dept. Planning and Sustainability at: [email protected];
Roads & Drainage Division at: rad_customerservice @dekalbcountyga.gov;
Risk Management and Employee Services at: Blicense @ dekalb countyga.gov; and
Georgia Department of Administrative Services Division of Risk Management
[email protected].
Only one entity responded at all, and the response an email auto response. I had
planned to send out hard copies the following Monday, December 16, 2019. I am now
submitting the letter to you, as only one department or entity responded to the email.
The Complaint:
On or around December 03, 2019, James Stegeman (“Mr. Stegeman”) and I,
received Notice of the above referenced hearing that was held on Wednesday, December
11, 2019. That was the same day that Code Enforcement put a Final Notice on the door
of the 811 Sheppard Rd. property.
Mr. Stegeman and I attended that Appeal hearing with two friends. Attached is a
copy of the Notice Exhibit A, and a copy of what was filed after the appeal hearing
Exhibit B. We had no idea of what the real issue would be. The Notice stated
“Variance from § 27-2.2.1 of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front
yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet for a proposed two-story building” [Ex.A]. The
code section used to grant the variance was § 24-2.2.1 [Ex.B], which when looked up,
that code section has been reserved Exhibit C. How are they using a code section that
has been reserved?
1. There were ten people or so on the Board at the hearing. Two men made the
decisions, and one woman did all the speaking. The decision was made, before
anyone walked into the hearing, and with no vote during the hearing. The rulings
were illegal and violated our due process rights, and our property rights.
2. The Zoning Appeals Board held that the new structure would be built on the
foundation of the old structure [Ex B, p.2]. The problem with that is, there is no
foundation for the old structure. Houses built in this area in 1940 did not have a
foundation. How are they able to build on the existing foundation? Mr. Stegeman

2|Page
EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 2
 was a general contractor before becoming 100% disabled, and he and I poured a
foundation for our home 25 years ago.
3. According to Chapter 7 and Exhibit B, p.2 #2, the property was supposed to be
visited. If it had been visited/inspected as required by code, these people would
have had actual knowledge of all of these facts, and if the investor had done his
due diligence, he would have also known all of the facts, that we are now
conveying to you.
4. The Appeals Board incorrectly claims that “The requested variance does not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the zoning district in which the subject property is located”
[Ex.B,p.2#2]; see the following paragraphs.
5. Under DeKalb County Zoning Laws, 0.1 acres2 is not enough property to erect a
new home. Further, with our non-exclusive ingress-egress easement over 780
feet on that property cannot be used, cannot be parked upon, hindered, or
disturbed. There are 4,356 square feet in a tenth of an acre, deduct our 780 feet,
and there is 3,576 feet, add the setback of 10 feet on both sides = 3556, and the
property is pie shaped with very little land in the back, but with another setback of
40 feet = 3516 feet for the total property Exhibit D. For years, I have reviewed
the information about that property, and at no time previously, did I ever come
across that there was more than .1 acres Exhibit E. The Zoning Appeals Board
claims there is 6,587 square feet for that property, so who did they steal property
from?
6. We hold a non-exclusive ingress-egress easement over 780 feet of the 811
property; the non-exclusive ingress-egress easement is shown on our warranty
deed and survey. The Board reviewed the documents, and one of the men said he
couldn’t find the non-exclusive ingress-egress easement position. Mr. Stegeman
pointed out where in the documents where the non-exclusive ingress-egress
easement very clearly shows on the documents one document a survey by a very
reputable surveyor, the other, our Warranty Deed, where the legal land description
is written out in English.
7. The Board of Zoning Appeals, informed the investor that the investor needs to put
OUR non-exclusive ingress-egress easement onto their survey in order to get

2
DeKalb County Property tax records. Also shown in Deeded Acres DeKalb County
Property Appraisal: https://propertyappraisal.dekalbcountyga.gov/Datalets/ PrintDatalet.
aspx?pin=18 073 02 005&gsp=LAND&taxyear=2019&jur=000&ownseq=0&card=1…

3|Page
EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 3
 around our non-exclusive ingress-egress easement rights. The Board further
determined that our non-exclusive ingress-egress easement “doesn’t matter”.
Because it is not a “mutual” non-exclusive ingress-egress easement and it is not
“vague” the non-exclusive ingress-egress easement cannot be disappeared with
the wave of the Board’s wand, and it does matter. The advice is illegal tampering
with recorded land documents, violates Real Estate Law,3 violates our Rights to
Due Process, violates our property rights, and is a felony under the penal code.
That Board does not have the power to determine the legal aspects of our non-
exclusive ingress-egress easement, and certainly should not be putting a
stipulation that the appellant commit a felony in order to get the variance
approved. Mr. Stegeman and I had two other people with us that heard the
stipulation to obtain the variance. It is beyond the ability of these investors, to
just add our easement onto their deed or survey.
8. The 811 Sheppard Rd property has changed hands ten (10) times since 2010, and
no survey since 1970. Exchibit F is a showing of the sales of that property.
9. There is a culvert that runs in front of the properties on this side of the road. The
culvert is 12-18 feet lower than the ground of the properties. The culvert keeps the
road itself from flooding during heavy rains. There will have to be a back fill, on
top of the culvert to bring the land up enough to give the investor 20 extra feet.
The road will then flood, and be a hazard to anyone driving on this section of
Sheppard Rd.
10. The Board further stated in Exhibit B #3: “Granting this variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located”. That
is also not true, there will be a need to raise the ground up 12-18 feet, and raising
the ground up to where they want it, will make it impossible to see what is coming
when we try to leave our driveway, it will be hazardous to anyone driving up or
down Sheppard Rd, when we are pulling out of our yard;

3
When references to violates the law, comes from either DeKalb County Zoning Laws,
Building Laws, Land Laws, and/or Pindar’s Real Estate Law and Procedures (Pindar’s is
a treaties recognized by Supreme Court of Georgia). Pindar’s addresses non-exclusive
ingress-egress easements §§ 8:1, 8:17, 8:18, 8:26, 8:27, 11:20, 21:7, 21:60, § 44-9-1 and
other §s.

4|Page
EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 4
 11. The property is not connected to the sewer and there is not enough land for
a new septic system. To that, the investor stated that he had talked to the City, and
they were approving him to be connected to the City’s sewer system.
a) the County, not the City controls the sewer system, the City cannot grant
something they have no control over;
b) we were told by the DeKalb County that the sewer system is too far away for
us to connect to it.
The Board at the meeting said that the investor would be allowed to hook up to the
City sewer (city does not have sewer, it is county sewer), and that we would
benefit by having to hook to sewer at the same time and have to pay half of the
fess for doing so, even though we had been told that we could not hook up, several
years ago. The Board insisted that it would benefit us. We explained that the hill
that we are on, and the lines would have to go way down under the road, and that
it would require a pump system to get the mess to go up hill again to reach where
the sewer is. They did not care. It is more than 150 feet away.
12. The Board decided that the investor was experiencing a hardship and
overturned the previous denial. I don’t know how an investor can experience a
hardship. An investor is expected to do due diligence prior to purchasing a
property. Had this investor done his due diligence, he would have had actual
knowledge that
a) there was our non-exclusive ingress-egress easement. covering that property;
b) that you cannot build a new house on less than a tenth of an acre in DeKalb
County (and most likely nowhere in GA);
c) that the reason for the culvert it keeps this section of road from becoming
hazardous;
d) you cannot legally add our non-exclusive ingress-egress easement to their
survey and dissolve the non-exclusive ingress-egress easement by doing so.
Even after explaining all of these things to the Board, the two men decided that the
investor, Hoten Group LLC4, is under a hardship, and the woman announced that the
variance was approved.

4
The Hoten Group, LLC, S.O.S. Control Number 19113986, a Domestic Limited
Liability Company, Formed and existing under the Laws of Georgia; Date of Formation
08/23/2019; NAICS Code: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing; Office Address: 2399
5|Page
EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 5
 Mr. Stegeman and I cannot help but wonder who this investor knows that works
for DeKalb County. How can a new owner/ investor suffer a hardship? Hardships are
not available for this type of owner. Variances are for people that already owned the
property when the new zoning took place, and for some reason must replace what was
already in place. We have read all of the codes that pertain to this situation.
A smart investor would have performed due diligence, would have visited the
property, and know what the property looks like.5 It was obvious that this investor has
never physically seen the property. A smart investor, and the history of the property, and
whether or not a neighbor held an easement upon the property, whether or not it was on
septic or County sewer, not City sewer, and would not be seeking a hardship ruling, he
would have left the little 01 acre sitting. A not so smart investor, are the people that
purchased the property when neglecting his duty of due diligence? How much and to
whom did this investor pay off for this decision? Nobody ignores and breaks the law for
no reason.
Since when does the Board have the power to determine whether or not our non-
exclusive ingress-egress easement matters? It was part of our contracts when we
purchased our property. The Board cannot legally determine that our non-exclusive
ingress-egress easement does not matter. Then to advise this investor to illegally change
recorded Real Estate documents, is unconscionable at best. We had witnesses with us as
to what was said in that hearing.
Furthermore, that property has changed hands 6-8 times over the past few years.
Why? Because the persons that purchased the property learned the truth:
1. Not enough land to build new house
2. our non-exclusive ingress-egress easement

Parkland Drive, Unit 2246, Atlanta, GA 30324. According to the Official DeKalb
County, Georgia Records, this is the only property owned by The Hoten Group, LLC.
The Hearing shows that The Hoten Group, LLC owns the property as an investor.
5
The codes and rules show that the Board was supposed to have visited the property prior
to making a ruling as well. The Board had seen old photos of when the owner before the
last owner, had owned the property, as they continually referenced the dumpster on the
property, which there has not been one for a year or more. In fact, no one has cleaned the
old tires, and trash thrown onto the property by the owner before last trashed the
property. In fact, there remains a "FINAL NOTICE" on the door of the property stating
that they had until early December to clean the mess up. We have lived next to a
nuisance for 25 years, and no one has ever enforced anything against the property.

6|Page
EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 6
 3. cannot connect to sewer, not enough land for new septic system.6
Another thing that made that appeal hearing some sort of sick joke, was when we
told the Board that we have an easement on that property, and that it cannot be built on.
We were asked if we could prove it, so Mr. Stegeman handed them Warranty Deed,
Security Deed w/legal description, and our survey w/legal description. The 811 property
has not been surveyed since 1970. That is the date on the survey the investor is using.
One of the Board members looked at our documents, and said something to the effect that
it don’t matter. Since when does real property records not matter? We argued the point,
and in the end, it didn’t matter according to the board. Nothing we said mattered. They
had their minds made up prior to the time the hearing began. They granted the variance,
and never mind that it will make it more dangerous to pull out of our driveway, or that
the drain water from the road, will no longer have a culvert to keep people from wrecking
in front of our yards. I am not amused in the least.
On top of that, I still want someone to explain to me how an investor can have a
hardship, when they failed to do their due diligence prior to purchasing a piece of
property, and why in the world, DeKalb County would go along with something that
violates numerous laws, and codes.
The only hardship, will be the one that Mr. Stegeman and I, together with anyone
in the area driving on Sheppard Rd., when we go to pull out of our driveway, because we
won't be able to see what is coming around the corner. Our home is right in the middle of
the biggest curve on Sheppard Rd. The other thing that Mr. Stegeman, and I and
everyone driving down Sheppard Rd will have the hazard of, is the lack of a culvert that
is needed for heavy rains, and when the road ices up. The rain water will no longer be
able to leave the road and go into the culvert, meaning the road will hold a lot of water
there, and people will be at higher risk of crashing.
Nevertheless, we are required to give ante litem notice prior to filing suit.
Mr. Stegeman, is 100% disabled and survives on Supplemental Security Income,
and the County's ruling violates our Civil and Constitutional Rights, along with other
codes mentioned above, and has allowed a nuisance for a very long time, most of which
the statute of limitations bars. Mr. Stegeman has been discriminated against, and denied
the full appreciation and enjoyment of his property. Now the Board has made sure that a
disabled man faces a hardship, instead of denying an investor what the investor wants.
Mr. Stegeman has lived in his home 25 years, and the investor never lived at the 811

6
This information is taken from DeKalb County’s

7|Page
EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 7
Sheppard Rd property. Failed to do due diligence and is not grandfathered in for a
variance.
Mr. Stegeman further has a claim under 42 § 1983, an illegal taking and inverse
condemnation due to refusal to acknowledge the easement which we use every day to
come and go from the property, and other causes of action. Plus it must be illegal for the
Board to advise this investor to put our easement on his deed in order to get around our
easement.
We look forward to hearing a response from someone at DeKalb County.

Sincerely,

________________________
Janet D. McDonald

________________________
James B. Stegeman

8|Page
EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 8
 Department of Planning & Sustainability
330 Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 300
BeKalb flnwxty Decatur, GA 30030
&*, *##t&
(4041 371-21ss or (40 41 37L-28I3 (Fax)
Michael L. Thurmond
Chief Executive Officer
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DEKALB COUNW ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL

The following application will be heard at a public hearing held by the Dekalb County Zoning Board of Appeals on
Wednesday, December Ll,201.91:00 PM in the auditorium of the Manuel J. Maloof Center Annex Building, 1300
Commerce Drive (on the northwest corner of Commerce Drive and West Trinity Place in downtown Decatur).

This is not a rezoning application.

N4 Application No: A-19-1243645 Parcel ID: 18-073-02-005

Commission District 04 Super District 07

Applicant: Tracy Swearingen

P.O. Box 871183
Stone Mountain, Georgia 30087
Owner: Hoten Group, LLC
2399 Parkland Drive, Unit #2246
Atlanta, Georgia 30324
Project Name: 811 Sheppard Road

Zoning: R-100 zoning district

Locatio n: The property is located on the south side of Sheppard Road, approximately 1,,027 feet north of San
Pablo Drive, at 8L1 Sheppard Road, Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083.
Request: Variance from section 27-2.2.L of the Oet<alb County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front yard
setback from 35 feet to L5 feet for a proposed two story home.

Note: Request: Variance from section 27-2-2.2.1 (Chapter 27 is zoning)

The approval form on page 2 of 3 shows:

Variance request: The applicant is requesting a variance from section 24-2.2.1

(Chapter 24 is taxes), and section 24-2 - 24-5. are reserved. Variance was granted using a code that

has been reserved, claiming that 24-2.2.1 granted the set back for the front yard setback from

35 feet to 15 feet for a proposed two story home.

NOTE TO APPLICANT(S): All matters being heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals shall require that the applicant or an appointed representative be present at the hearing.
Without adequate applicant representation, the Board may not fully understand the request or the applicant's position, and therefore, may either defer or deny the
application. lfthe applicant or a representative cannot be present, please contact the Planning Department at 404-371-2155.

NOTICE TO Att AFFECTED PROPERW OWNERS: The tax records of DeKalb County indicate that you are a property owner within 250 feet of the property referenced above.
lf you have an interest in this application, you may attend the public hearing at the date, time, and place indicated on this notice. lf an interest group is to attend the hearing,
it is recommended that a spokesperson be appointed to represent the entire group. lf you decide to attend the hearing, you are encouraged to contact the Planning
Department at 40 4-37f-2155, the morning of the public hea ring to determine whether the application is still on the agenda.

NOTE: All supporting materials submitted during presentation at the public hearing, including photographs, shall become a part of the permanent record.

Please make copy(s) prior to the public hearing for you records.

EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 9

Print Date: O1,h5l2AE Page 7 of 2 P1119 Ver 083120L1
EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 10
 The l,*td $*ll *5un *h.ilh lt]rs rnilS I
ir *ier t* ha ts tcrlt,r1 ls,qT;gt te$
isr s',#d| F"eirrr.--,s i:
& ha"e
lHJi#ffifn*#,i1il*
.,* -*:-i#,"-d"q*d&I-&ryfi','ffi"I"X'ii;flJ
jlrccr*,on.o.tione til ',:;i +*i'
o,,,r a1d A*$uiflr Ld

-r **r.,
,__l e!$i, l*rilrq{sy
!t*t l_ r.*- :" "- r{.,r
[xJ$tlr6 *ns 16 ,ourK l(.. :j1j i*. "r,,.,tig rr:l]";rt
Jt'
Sr.il.-r:l-- ,,,
:':*i:l 'n 1eggg,-n-[[---ffisin, Fopnd.FtBp = eebarp!a,:,al
*J;ftfiu* Ijl:f:.M: r'uc*a, r.rk
enx, Frlr?;;|f;*;;.;;T;:;'"Jff, [I
?P:: f j* *
- ,-E
rr.ax^,^ s 6 -
= ^-. 1F6
**,;,, Manhor6, carer, o;
"$,::lf 6}*;":itf-
o,nuu
Xl;;lr-I.-iriraiis
f,egerneni :;."- r?ln:y Srp.*er

Tcl fr
t*.e .*-,.e

.$-**o*;x- {
3f-5.** i
"u
ryi
* '"rf
52J-'10. \
*Op;rrFtv
(5d L{'*':
.
. , n / -f,
, .r'-'*
f'rtl v€l
:l
t,
.;l
iil
*t
l

*&":

7&e-3'
5k ?Tf4;ffi{
[,*Sa&5$ f,S:l

v *g.1
Lr(-
rl
AJ

CI
5 a!

u
s.53 Ac-E#s
*s5 -
%,*.h'i&;*

,'a ,
r'l?fl
i

,
$ur.i*y fer ,,a",rr i n, ]TSJ*:]d*tll
lrr
Y f-r,?
1

&rd Jfu iL j :J
" !tr't:L+;A"l{Ey r:ffiffi
*{ * i,ln Sh*.x*rxr*
?s#'ry
- #nsts
p.oF*rry fir:a$ f
I t '- ir{iil&
la*
I
\-i
\-u"
i;:it -x{d
"S
"s.
i$.rd Lq$ J j, I )*-, *j..slr.i*tr t*S*l.* r:j,ircy.
I
iltr,r,{ia
I
; ,.-};'$#,s
r.T

*nr* $..,'i: . I
:

'i
Serk 1,. * F* , :

rrit .x drrr:?,,a,$E-GrfJLeer?*s tB * ! ,ln r,iy 6prrti6rr, rh,g p.f6y rr t {{r}r*e; i}, * c,r c{ rht i*-d
r{tt &,lr :t"t** l*.fI*SI-16Blrr?lS or
g:iqrisrj srtrl h*r br** $,rrlr*d rfi drrr"t y - ,ti' i!'g 6,r.
"li* 61r|"r*L yl"s*il gafalt **rln tY'rln *l#'!drr*t **d rtE$irtr{rtelrg pf lg.

;;:f ICYJ krttlar 3 s l* i

t':"'i:,:X:"'{-::*i3l::::**::*3:*-_3-u*:ru,*.,'."*6*_3
EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 11
-xHlBtr 1 - 1
 EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 12
https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=21722637&key1=8293&key2=641&county=44&countyname=DEKALB&userid=236244&app… 1/1
 821

811

DeKalb County Parcel Map

De K a lb C ount y GIS Dis c laim e r
Th e ma p s a n d d a ta , co n ta i ne d on D e Ka lb C ou n ty’s Geo g ra p h i c In fo rm a ti o n S yste m ( GIS) a re su bj e ct to

±
to -d a te i nfo rm a ti o n, th e i n fo rm a ti o n i s p ro v i de d “a s is ” w ith o u t w a rra nty, re p re se nta tio n or gu a ra nte e
of a n y of th e d a tab a se i nfo rm ati on p r ov id ed h e re in . D eK a lb C o u n ty ex p l ic itl y d i scl ai ms a ll re p re s
0 0.0 0 50.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 4 me rch a nta b il ity a n d fi tne ss fo r a p a rti cu la r p u rp o s e. In n o ev en t sh a ll D e Ka l b C o u n ty b e lia b le fo r
u s e, d a ta , o r p ro fits, w h eth e r in a n ac tio n of co n tra ct, n eg li g en ce , o r o th e r a cti on s, a ri si ng o u t o
miEXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 13
an d d a ta ar e for i ll u s tra ti o n p u r p o se s o nl y an d s h o u ld no t b e r el ie d u p on fo r a ny re a so n . Th e m a

Date Printed: 12/15/2019 co ns tr u e d or u s ed a s a l eg a l d e scr ip tio n . Th e are a s d e p i cte d b y m ap s a n d d a ta a re ap p ro xi ma te, a n d

IAS WORL,D - Production Page I of2

li?.1*: 1,* 1:7'.3 t2 11li ,]\jli: *r)?e731

?it21 i* : ri'1. \J?ii?ti;{} fi.? Aft l',T f.* ft.{}L;: kt
r.?{r*ft{ Ali*rr.ti l.L c all *$r.pper4* {1*

,,/ r t:lt1;;

Status ACTIVE
Alternate lD 0974731
Old Parcel lD
Tax DistricUDescription 04-U NINCORPORATED
Click Here tc Lnle r N0les
Click l"iere lcr Tax irrql:iry

it';tr{.';:i *t;*lx*
Bankruptcy Deferral Pending Pending Total DeKalb Total Ailanta
!fl,1e] eavment eran liliXi", Status/Case Exist Homestead Status Millage Rate Millage Rate
Active Yes - 251 '1 Yes - 11 /03/201 5 No No 0.044540

L r:tV l*tr:rryiar"i*r'

Case Status Tax Sale File # Collector Levy Date Sale Date
S . TAX SALE 15-R30037902-NOV MCE - Manita Clay Elliott 0911012015 1110312015 Click Here for Levv

T';*2.1.-i** *yek*t

..
Year Date
::.--- Book,. Page CFN Status Reported to Clerk? Under Levy?
Hecoroeo
2014 01116t2015 1595 0348 2015-012552 SY
2012 01i28t2013 1354 0233 2013-023254 CY
2012 01t2812013 1354 0233 2013-023254 CY
2011 0110112011 1214 0197 2012-015974 CY
2009 01t01 t2009 0885 01 95 2010-017283 CY N

2008 01t0112008 0725 0088 2009-029047 CY N

2007 01t01t2007 0545 0282 2008-001 6683 CY N

2006 01t01t2006 0395 0367 2007-0008409 CY N

t{.,
a r *, * l l n*t r m *?.i * rz

Years Needing Recalc None

Recalculation Message c
Property Class R3 - RESIDENTIAL LOT
Land Use Code 101-Residential 1 family
ro CERTIFY THAT
THIS ts THIS ls ATRr F:. .. .-
0.1 000 or
^^h\/ ^E iJc
rHE nnrctttAL DoCUMENT
oR
Acres ii6n"necicoPv
Built As 09 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
New Construction N
Dwelling Type
Mortgage Company BYr
TAX
Exemption Codes
TJEKALB
RGTA /
Disabled
TMA Audit
H/S Application Mail Date
5k//0
Click ilere !rr Fxernpltcns

*wrz*rrafutp

Owner Co-Owner
INCO,IE ASSETS LLC -

EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 14

http:/iis-tyler-webvml/iasworld/DataletsiPrintDatalet.aspx?pin:18 073 02 005&itemkey:... 312412016
 IAS WORLD - Production Page2 of2

Mailitlq &,ddr*e*

ENCORE ASSETS LLC

675 SEMINOLE AVE STE 301
ATLANTA GA 30307

'T
a a {? * * alti * x an d I tj',* { tz t; L, n *t * 4'* t1t th r * u qlt * * t r * r* * ;zt * 1

Year Cycle Billed Paid Due

2015 County 53 45 -53.45 0 00

2014 County 469.14 -413.94 55 20

2013 County 809.1 8 -809.18 0.00
2012 County 1,369.30 -1,369.30 0 00

2011 County 827.64 -827.64 0 00

2010 County '1,055.78 -1,055.78 0.00

2009 County 1,614.71 -1,614.71 0.00

2008 County 755.00 -755.00 0.00
Total. 6,954.20 -6,899.00 55.20

rl ir i rr t::

Original
Classified
Return Value
Appeal Value
Appeal Status
Appeal Level
1 .Total Taxable/Billing Value
Years Needing Recalc
Recalc Message
Recalc After
Tenant
Beg Year
End Year
Terms
Curr Year
Ramp %

EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 15

http:i/is-tyler-webvml/iasworld/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin:18 073 02 005&itemkey:'.. 312412016
12/11/2019 DeKalb County Property Appraisal

PARID: 18 073 02 005

Tax Dist: 04-UNINCORPORATED
HOTEN GROUP LLC 811 SHEPPARD RD

Land

Land Type G - SITE

Land Code 2 - SITE VALUE
Square Feet 0
Calculated Acres 0
Deeded Acres .1
Market Land Value 15,040
Parcel ID 18 073 02 005
Address 811 SHEPPARD RD
Unit
City STONE MOUNTAIN
Zip Code 30083-3642
Super NBHD
Class R3 - RESIDENTIAL LOT
Land Use Code 101-Residential 1 family
Neighborhood 0690
Zoning R100 - SF RES DIST

EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 16

https://propertyappraisal.dekalbcountyga.gov/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=18 073 02 005&gsp=LAND&taxyear=2019&jur=000&ownseq=0&card=1… 1/1
12/15/2019 DeKalb County Property Appraisal

PARID: 18 073 02 005

Tax Dist: 04-UNINCORPORATED
HOTEN GROUP LLC 811 SHEPPARD RD

Sales

Sale Date Price Tran Code Grantor Grantee Instrument Book / Page
09/03/2019 25,000 NETBUY HOTEN GROUP LLC LW - 27773 / 00332
PROPERTIES LLC LIMITEDWARRANTY
DEED
07/05/2019 7,500 0 - Valid Sale FMV WELLS NEHEMIAH M NETBUY LW - 27658 / 00275
PROPERTIES LLC LIMITEDWARRANTY
DEED
06/19/2019 7,500 Q - Quit Claim Deed SAVAGE CHIQUITA WELLS NEHEMIAH M QC - QUIT CLAIM DEED 27658 / 00274
03/10/2018 0 Q - Quit Claim Deed KARIM JIHAD WELLS NEHEMIAH M QC - QUIT CLAIM DEED 26799 / 00327
10/20/2017 16,000 K - To or from Relo ENCORE ASSETS LLC WELLS NEHEMIAH M LW - 26585 / 00796
or Real Est Co LIMITEDWARRANTY
DEED
11/09/2016 W - Legal Instrument AF - AFFIDAVIT 25932 / 00001
11/03/2015 2,573 9 - Public Utility or DEKALB COUNTY TAX ENCORE ASSETS LLC TD - TAX DEED 25276 / 00762
Government COMMISSIONER
05/20/2015 0 0 - Valid Sale FMV DINAPOLI ROBERT N. COOK JAMES WD - WARRANTY DEED 25049 / 00588
10/29/2010 0 Q - Quit Claim Deed STOWERS MIKE J DINAPOLI ROBERT N QC - QUIT CLAIM DEED 22201 / 00696
02/08/2010 0 Q - Quit Claim Deed DINAPOLI ROBERT M STOWERS MIKE J QC - QUIT CLAIM DEED 21853 / 00240
06/08/2000 0 5 - Old Code No DINAPOLI GERARD M DINAPOLI ROBERT M WD - WARRANTY DEED 11429 / 00740
Longer Used
02/17/1983 0 0 - Valid Sale FMV WD - WARRANTY DEED 04718 / 00742

Sale Details 1 of 12

Sale Date 09/03/2019

Price $25,000
Deed Book 27773
Deed Page 00332
Plat Book
Plat Page 11 0
Buyer 1 HOTEN GROUP LLC
Buyer 2
Seller 1 NETBUY PROPERTIES LLC
Seller 2

EXHIBIT C - Ante Litem Notice - 17

https://propertyappraisal.dekalbcountyga.gov/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=18 073 02 005&gsp=SALES&taxyear=2019&jur=000&ownseq=0&card=1… 1/1
 EXHIBIT D:

WITHDRAWAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION

 330 W. Ponce de Leon Ave
Decatur, GA 30030
www.dekalbcountyga.gov/planning
Office: 404-371-2155

Chief Executive Officer DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY Director

Michael Thurmond Andrew A. Baker, AICP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Wednesday, March 10, 2021 – via Zoom

MEMBERS PRESENT: Nadine Rivers-Johnson, Chair

Dan Wright, Vice-Chair
Pamela Speaks
Mark Goldman
Alice Bussey
Jasmine Chapman
John Tolbert

. STAFF PRESENT: Brandon White, Planning Manager

Jeremy McNeil, Sr. Planner
Rachel Bragg, Sr. Planner
Melora Furman, Sr. Planner

1. Call to Order/Determination of Quorum:

After members presented a quorum, Chair Rivers-Johnson called the meeting to order @ 1:02 p.m.

2. Reading of Opening Statement & Board Introductions

Chair Rivers-Johnson read the opening statement of procedure for the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings,
then ZBOA members introduced themselves.

3. Approval of Minutes:
Alice Bussey made the motion, Mark Goldman seconded to approve the minutes from February 10, 2021.
The motion was approved unanimously.

AGENDA

DEFFERRED ITEMS:

D1 A-20- 1244329 (Deferred from 1/13/2021 meeting) Commission District 04 Super District 07
18-073-02-005
811 SHEPPARD ROAD STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30083

Application of Tracy T. Swearingen, Sr. to request the following variance from Chapter 27 of the DeKalb County Zoning
Ordinance to reduce to front yard setback for a proposed two-story detached home, relating to the R-100 zoning district. The
property is located east of Sheppard Road, at 811 Sheppard Road Stone Mountain, GA 30083.

MOTION: (Applicant requested withdrawal of the application now that they are complying with the setbacks.)
Dan wright moved, Mark Goldman seconded for withdrawal without prejudice, per the applicant’s request. The motion
passed unanimously.
EXHIBIT D - APPLICATION WITHDRAWN - 1