Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auburn zoning board denies developer request to reduce front setback in Preserve Phase 6
Summary
The City of Auburn Board of Zoning Adjustment voted down a request to reduce the required 25-foot front setback to 18 feet for nine lots in Preserve Phase 6, after staff said the hardship appeared self-created and board members said moving homes forward would create visual incongruence on the street.
The City of Auburn Board of Zoning Adjustment on March 5 voted against a developer request to reduce the required 25-foot front street setback to 18 feet for nine lots in the Preserve Phase 6 subdivision, denying variance application BZ2025-002.
City planning staff told the board the requested 7-foot reduction affects nine lots in two sections of the phase and that a previously unaccounted 40-foot easement held by Tallapoosa River Electric Cooperative overlaps a 100-foot Alabama Power transmission easement. “The hardship in this case is considered to be self-created,” the city planner said, adding that the lots remain buildable under current rules.
The variance request would have allowed the builder to keep a consistent house product and align homes through a curved portion of the street, the applicant’s representative said. “We have nine lots to develop, and what we’re looking to do is move them 7 feet closer … to keep the same product on the ground as we move through,” Matt Cobb, an engineer working for Flowers and White Engineering LLC, told the board.
Board members questioned whether granting the variance would create visual incongruence along the street and noted the easement information appeared on the final plat even if not shown in earlier Master Development Plan (MDP) materials. “I don’t even know where to start with this one,” Board Chair Leticia Smith said during discussion, noting that moving some houses forward and leaving others at the original setback could affect how the street looks to drivers.
Staff described alternatives to a variance, including replating or redesigning lots to accommodate the easement. The planner said the developer could have adjusted lot layouts during the MDP or final plat process to avoid the conflict. “There was some forethought that could have been put in as far as just replanning it and getting it done to accommodate the easements,” staff said.
After discussion, a motion to approve BZ2025-002 was made and seconded and then failed on roll call. The board’s recorded votes on the motion were: Amy Sorrells — No; Marty Heffron — No; Mary Boyd — No; Charles Danbury Jr. — No. The motion did not receive the concurring votes required to grant the variance.
The board noted that the lots remain buildable under current regulations and that smaller home footprints could be used if the variance were not granted. No other public speakers addressed the variance during the hearing. The board chair said the matter will not proceed further at this meeting; staff indicated a related case (VCA) would appear on next month’s agenda.
The denial leaves the front setback requirement in effect for the cited lots and preserves the development pattern established by the approved plat and the city’s setback standards.
