Auburn board denies variance to shrink lot width for proposed road‑service use near Auburn High School

The Auburn Board of Zoning Adjustments on Feb. 5 voted to deny a variance that would have reduced the 100‑foot minimum lot width to 35.5 feet for a parcel in the Comprehensive Element District (CED), a move that would have allowed a road‑service use at a site adjacent to Auburn High School.

The request, listed on the agenda as BZ2025001, sought a variance of 24.5 feet from the 100‑foot lot‑width requirement specified in the city zoning rules to permit a road‑service use on a lot that currently measures about 75.5 feet at the road frontage. The denial means the applicant will not proceed with the parallel conditional‑use review before the Planning Commission next week.

David Slocum, the civil engineer representing the developer, told the board the parcel is constrained by detention ponds and utility easements and that the applicant has a contract on the property. “I feel the hardship is justified and it’s a great location and would appreciate your consideration,” Slocum said, arguing the applicant would have to build elsewhere if the variance were denied.

City planning staff and board members focused on why road‑service uses are treated differently in the zoning table. Planner Muse, city planning staff, said, “The definition of road service speaks to the intensity of use and very clearly in the zoning ordinance,” noting the lot‑width standard ties into required buffer yards used in the city’s performance‑zoning approach.

An adjacent property owner, Stacy Williams Jordan, opposed the variance at public comment. Jordan said she platted her parcel in 2010 with a 75.5‑foot frontage specifically to prevent road‑service uses and argued the proposed operation would create traffic problems at a single curb cut serving multiple businesses. “To me, this would be a hardship on my business,” Jordan said, citing difficulty turning in and out of the existing driveway during peak periods.

Board members questioned the likely intensity of vehicle movements. The applicant’s team acknowledged they had submitted a site plan as part of the conditional‑use application and said the project would include about 101 parking spaces, but they did not provide a clear estimate of daily vehicle trips during this meeting.

After discussion, a motion to approve the variance was made and seconded; the motion failed on roll call. The recorded vote was Leticia Smith — no; Amy Sorrells — no; Will Faulkner — no; Mary Boyd — no. Because the board requires the concurring vote of four members to grant a variance, the motion did not meet the legal threshold and the variance was denied.

With the denial of the variance, the applicant indicated it would not move forward to the Planning Commission on the conditional‑use item for the site. The board closed the matter and proceeded to housekeeping items before adjourning at 5:00 p.m.