Covington board approves variances to allow church and adjacent lot to become single residence

The Covington Board of Adjustments approved a variance for Case No. 250409BOA to allow conversion of a former church parcel and an adjacent lot into a single attached residence, reducing the required rear-yard setback and granting a height variance.

The application covers a portion of Lot 5 and 10 feet of a revoked alley in Square 2302 in Covington, with municipal addresses of 202 West 20 Third Avenue and 325 North Madison Street. The applicant asked to reduce the rear-yard setback to roughly 3 feet from the rear property line and to increase the maximum allowed height from 35 feet to 40 feet to match the existing church roofline.

Applicant Guy (last name not provided) told the board, "We're going to remove that house in the back. It's being moved. . . . We're going to do a breezeway between the church and that. It's just a new house. . . . The new house is going to be like 2,600 square feet." He said the new portion would include an attached garage and that he sought the reduced setback to accommodate the garage and building footprint.

Neighbors questioned plan details and potential impacts. Property owner Bjorn Jones, who said he lives at 205 West 20 Fourth Avenue directly behind the site, asked for drawings and said he was concerned about drainage onto his lot: "I would need to know exactly how high the building's gonna be because of drainage on my property. I wanted to make sure it's not, too close to the property line. So any runoff would go onto my property and cause drainage problems." Another neighbor asked that an existing live oak be protected; staff said any tree work would require proper permits.

Ellen (staff member) explained how the zoning and lot configuration affect setbacks: because 10 feet of a revoked alley becomes part of the lot, the lot depth and rear-setback calculations change; an attached garage is subject to the 20 percent setback requirement while a detached accessory garage could be sited closer to the rear property line. She also noted the applicant had not submitted building-permit plans at the time of the hearing.

Commission discussion touched on the lack of finalized plans, exact final height and grade, and assurances about drainage and tree protection. The record shows the board voted in favor of the variance by a 3-2 margin. The motion language in the record is: "the requested variance be approved." The file does not contain a submitted building permit at the hearing, and staff advised that a building permit and construction drawings would be required before construction.

The board did not record specific binding drainage mitigation on the record; neighbors asked for assurances that runoff would not be directed onto adjacent property. The applicant indicated the house would be raised and that final construction details (ceiling heights, final roof peak) were still to be determined by the architect.

Next steps: the applicant must submit formal building-permit plans and comply with any permit and tree-protection requirements before construction begins. The minutes do not list a building-permit application number or a contractor by name.