The attorneys at The Odom Firm, PLLC are proud of what we have been able to accomplish for our clients and their families. Please remember that these cases and the results achieved were based on many factors and results differ from case to case, depending on the circumstances particular to each situation.
Obtained a variance for 181’ reduction from the 300’ required separation from an outdoor pet service use and a residential use in South End for Club Fetch. January 30, 2018
Obtained a variance for a 4’ reduction from the required 10’ street side yard to allow a new second story addition to be built over a legally non-conforming portion of the existing structure in Plaza-Midwood for the Sedgwick family. January 30, 2018
Obtained a variance for a 17’ reduction from the required 45’ rear yard to allow for an existing garage structure to remain in Providence Plantation for the Cobb family. January 30, 2018
Obtained two variances for a 10’ reduction from the required 20’ setback along the street and a 15’ reduction from the required 20’ rear yard to allow for construction of a new house in the Belmont neighborhood for a family trust. November 28, 2017
Obtained a 3.1’ variance from the required 5’ side yard to allow for a bathroom addition to an existing house in the Elizabeth neighborhood for the homeowner. October 31, 2017
Obtained two variances for a 12’ reduction from the required 20’ setback along the street and a 24’ reduction from the required 35’ rear yard to allow for the construction a new house in Plaza-Midwood for a homebuilder. October 25, 2016
Obtained a 2.6’ variance from the required 5’ side yard to allow an existing bay window on the house to remain within the required side yard for the Lewis family. June 28, 2016
Obtained a 9’ variance from the required 45’ rear yard to allow a portion of the existing home constructed in 2004 to remain within the required rear yard for the Crosland family. June 28, 2016
Obtained a 9’ variance from the required 45’ rear yard to allow for an existing house to remain in Barclay Downs for the Thomas family. April 29, 2014
Obtained a resolution of a dispute with the County prior to the variance hearing regarding required dryland access which allowed for construction of a residence on a lot that was within the flood zone and did not have dryland access in Myers Park. February 23, 2016
Obtained a 10’ variance from the required 45’ minimum rear yard to allow the construction of a second floor addition to the existing nonconforming single-family structure in Myers Park for the Pappas family. April 28, 2015
Obtained an administrative deviation from the zoning administrator of .2’ and .9’ into the side and rear yards to allow the eaves/gutters of an existing detached garage to remain in Myers Park for the Kostiw family. July 15, 2014
Obtained a decision from the City of Charlotte Zoning Board of Adjustment which reversed the zoning administrator’s determination that a composting operation at Wallace Farm was not permitted in a residential zoned district as a legally non-conforming use. The composting use was found by the Board to be legally non-conforming and could continue and the notice of violation was invalid. 2006
Obtained a zoning verification letter from the zoning administrator after an appeal of a notice of violation alleging that screening and fencing was required at the industrial property on Graham Street in Charlotte at Joey’s Truck Repair. The property was determined to be legally non-conforming and the notice of violation was withdrawn with a full reimbursement of the filing fee to the property owner.
Obtained a 28’ variance from the 45’ required rear yard to allow for an expansion of the existing home along the established rear building line which is 17’ from the rear property line and to allow for the relocation of HVAC system within the proposed required rear yard in Plaza-Midwood for the Firenze family. October 27, 2015
Obtained a rezoning of property in Mecklenburg County from residential to neighborhood services to allow for client to build a convenience store gas station without parcels for fast food restaurant and retain buildings. 2015
Obtained a decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals in NCJS, LLC and James H. Plyler v. City of Charlotte, reversing the City of Charlotte Zoning Board of Adjustment and reversing the Mecklenburg County Superior Court, which held that the dumpsters on the industrial property owned by NCJS did not require screening under the City’s zoning ordinance. Costs for the ZBA and superior court hearing transcripts were reimbursed by the City as a result of the Court of Appeals decision. August 15, 2017
Obtained a decision from the City of Charlotte Zoning Board of Adjustment which reversed the zoning administrator’s determination that a wrecker service with outside storage was illegally operating a junkyard. The junkyard use was found by the Board to be legal and conforming with the zoning ordinance and could continue and the notice of violation was invalid. December 31, 2011
Obtained a conditional use permit from the Cleveland County Board of Commissioners to allow the operation of a “sweepstakes” retail business in Kings Mountain, NC. March 15, 2010
I just feel that it is necessary to give credit where Credit is due. Yesterday David represented us in a hearing in Cleveland County and it was oblivious to me that they were about to hang me out to dry without even acknowledging that David was there. He did however takeover the situation immediately and took charge within a matter of minutes. The board chair was extremely irritated and tried many times to “ruffle” David’s feathers without success. I just want you guys to know his performance was outstanding and without fault. Phillip and I both are extremely happy with the way your firm has handled our case both personally and professionally. If David had not been there yesterday I would not have received my permit. After the meeting Attorney David Teddy from Cleveland County followed me to the Atrium and said he just had to say…”Good Work” you guys came in with a plan today and it worked. And he too complimented David’s work. So with all that being said we would like to thank you guys for helping us. I’m glad to know we have somewhere to go in the future if this is ever a problem again.
These are partial lists and do not constitute a promise of any kind. Please remember that these cases and the results achieved were based on many factors and results differ from case to case, depending on the circumstances particular to each situation. The outcome of a particular case cannot be predicated upon an attorney's or a law firm's past results. Our past successes should not be construed as a representation that we will be successful with any particular case in the future, and not every case in which we have been involved has resulted in a favorable outcome.