Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Church Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Decatur BZA approves variances for Sunday school addition at 1205 Mill Road SE
Summary
The Board of Zoning and Adjustments approved setback variances allowing a classroom addition to a church at 1205 Mill Road SE after the applicant argued the site’s four-sided frontage creates a hardship; the project still requires planning commission site-plan review.
The Board of Zoning and Adjustments of Decatur City voted to approve setback variances for a proposed classroom addition at 1205 Mill Road Southeast, allowing a 20-foot variance on one frontage and a six-foot variance on another so the church can add a connected classroom to its existing facilities.
The variances were sought by applicant Adi Newsom to attach a classroom to an earlier addition on the church’s property. Board members were told the parcel is bounded by roads on all four sides, creating multiple front-yard conditions that the applicant said make strict enforcement of the setback standard an unnecessary hardship.
Blake McAnally, an attorney with Pew Wright McAnally representing the applicant, described the project as a classroom addition that “would fall inside their, their property in their existing parking lot” and said it would not increase the congregation’s overall attendance, only provide classroom space separate from worship areas. He told the board the addition appears in the exhibit provided to members and described it as a “45 100 square foot addition, immediately, connected to that building.”
Board members discussed the parcel configuration and how the building relates to surrounding streets. McAnally noted that because the building is public or semi-public, the applicable setback is 35 feet; the applicant requested 20 feet off that 35-foot requirement along Chunn and six feet off 35 along Mulberry. He also said the property has more than the minimum required parking and that the addition would not require reconstruction of parking to meet minimums.
Mark Moody recused himself from consideration of this case because of an ownership conflict the board identified. Under the board’s rules, the recusal left four voting members; the board recorded four favorable votes to grant the variances.
Planning staff and McAnally told the board that, if the variances are granted, the project would still return to the Planning Commission for site-plan approval and any required adjustments before construction.
The board’s action was limited to the variances; further design, site-plan and building-permit reviews remain pending.
