Planning commission reviews two subdivision consent items for Bank Street and Wilson Street parcels

The Decatur City Planning Commission on June 17 read two consent-agenda subdivision items that would split existing parcels on Bank Street and Wilson Street into smaller lots.

Tommy Williams, planning department staff, presented Certificate 3648-25 and described it as “0.23 acres. The current zone is B-5 Central Business District,” with the applicant listed as Pew Wright McAnally and landowner Hendry Holdings LLC for the property at 711 Bank Street NE. Williams said the request is to subdivide one parcel into two for commercial use and noted that the Decatur future land use is urban core downtown. He read two conditions to be met, including that an approved firewall be in place before the certificate can be recorded and that easements be shown.

The second consent item, Certificate 3649-25, covers a 0.68-acre site currently zoned M-2 General Industry for parcels at 808 and 900 Wilson Street NE. Williams told the commission the applicant (recorded in the transcript as Pierwright McAnally) and landowner Jane Hartson seek to subdivide one parcel into two with an industrial land use; conditions listed included providing a visualization of a third building on the parcel and adding a 10-foot electrical easement behind the buildings. Williams added a point of information that any relocation of utilities would be at the owner’s expense and must occur before construction.

Chris Hendry, who identified himself as the owner of the Bank Street building at 711 Bank St. NE, thanked staff and said they had worked with Josiah and Tommy to prepare the application. Hendry said he and his partners hoped splitting the Bank Street property would support “retail commercial businesses, back to life on Bank Street,” and that another business would occupy the new unit. He said the split will support retail/commercial use that “will fit in nicely.”

The agenda had been set as a consent calendar after the applicant requested removal of a public hearing; the chair, Kent Lawrence, explained that consent items are read first and then voted on together. The transcript records a roll call near the end of the meeting with Lawrence responding “Yes,” but the transcript does not include an explicit motion text, a named mover or seconder, a full vote tally, or a clear statement that the consent agenda was approved. Because the meeting record provided does not show the final vote outcome, the article does not assert whether the certificates were adopted.

Clarifying details in the staff presentation included parcel sizes (0.23 acres for Certificate 3648-25; 0.68 acres for Certificate 3649-25), current zoning (B-5 Central Business District and M-2 General Industry), proposed land uses (commercial and industrial), and staff conditions (required firewall approval, visualization of an additional building, and a 10-foot electrical easement). Williams also noted that any utility relocations would be at the owner’s expense and must occur before construction.

The planning commission did not discuss substantive changes to zoning or other approvals that would require City Council action; the chair and staff reiterated that some matters (zoning, annexations, sidewalk café licenses, and certain resolutions) require additional council approval after commission review. The transcript records no formal debate over the conditions listed by staff.

The commission moved to adjourn shortly after the roll call. The transcript shows the items were presented and public comment by the Bank Street property owner was received; it does not record a formal vote outcome for the consent agenda in the provided excerpt.