Decatur zoning board denies variance for Church Street lot after neighbors raise nuisance concerns

The Board of Zoning and Adjustments to the City of Decatur on a vote of 4-1 denied a variance request from Donald Garner to build a single-family home on a lot on Church Street NW after board members said the applicant had not submitted a survey showing the proposed house placement and the lot is currently not in compliance with city rules.

The decision matters to neighbors and developers because the block is near multiple public investments and planned improvements; several residents told the board they feared approving a variance now would worsen ongoing nuisance problems. “My home was vandalized,” neighbor Franzetta Jones said, and she described repeated loud music, people sitting on her porch and open containers on nearby lots.

Garner told the board he is a veteran and said he wants to build a roughly 1,000-square-foot home for his 10-year-old daughter and has a builder ready, Builders R Us. He said he learned the lot contained accessory structures and that he moved to act after receiving violation notices. Board members repeatedly told Garner the board could not evaluate setback and other variance needs without a survey that shows the house footprint. “Without the lines of the house, we don't know what those variances would be,” one board member said.

Neighbors gave specific examples of police contacts and outreach. Savoria Cannon said she and family members had met city staff and law enforcement and asked the board to deny the request because “if this is allowed, it's gonna only get worse.” Francis Tate, representing a nonprofit involved in development in the area, outlined investments planned for the nearby Old Town area and urged the board to deny the request and hold to enforcement of accessory-structure rules.

Public testimony closed and the board took a roll-call vote. The record shows four board members voting “no” and one voting “yes”; the board chair announced that the request was not approved and advised Garner he could return with a survey and a new application.

Discussion versus decision: the record shows both public comment and planning/building department input during the hearing. Board discussion focused on procedural and evidentiary gaps (missing survey, unknown setbacks) rather than a determination on nuisance allegations, which the board noted are not directly within its variance review authority. The board directed the applicant to submit a survey with the proposed house sited and noted the board holds hearings the last Tuesday of each month and that application deadlines apply.

Garner was told he may reapply after submitting the survey and house plans; the board did not grant any variances at this meeting.