Decatur planning commission split over agricultural designation for Lane family property; adjacent rezoning approved

Vice Chair Gary Gordon presided over the Oct. 21 meeting of the Decatur City Planning Commission, where members approved a rezoning request for one portion of a multi-parcel property owned by the Lane family but declined to recommend an agricultural zoning for an adjacent tract.

The commission voted 5-1 to rezone a 17.35-acre parcel north of 2726 Auburn Drive Southwest from R-2 to R-1E, a lower-density residential designation that allows, among other uses, horses on larger lots. The commission then voted 3-2 not to recommend changing a separate 15-acre parcel from Institutional (ID) to AG-1 (agriculture); that recommendation will nevertheless be forwarded to the Decatur City Council for final action.

The contested requests, submitted by applicant Pew Wright McNally for landowners Ronald S. Stroop and Donald Lane, were discussed together by neighbors, a company representative and commission members. Blake McAnally, representing the applicants, told the commission the Lane family property had been in probate and a potential local buyer wants to live on the site, keep it mostly open and keep horses there as a hobby. McAnally said a buyer intends to build a single-family home and a stable and that federal tax rules make an AG-1 designation necessary for certain farm-related tax treatment.

Several nearby residents urged caution. Allison Blackburn Akins, who said her property backs directly up to the rezoned parcel, asked about lot sizes and said a ditch owned by the Lane property has not been maintained and has affected neighbors’ landscaping. John McDara, who identified himself as a nearby landowner, said he has waited 4½ years to buy adjacent acreage and urged the commission to reject the rezoning, calling past interactions with the property’s stewards misleading. Ray DeWelley asked commissioners to confirm which parcel was under consideration and whether it bordered Weatherly Circle; Mary Moore said she lives in Cityview Estates and expressed concern about how far Auburn Drive would need to be extended for access.

Commissioners and staff clarified that the R-1E designation permits equestrian uses at a minimum of five acres per horse and that further subdivision or road construction would require additional approvals. Staff and the commission recommended, and Commissioner Chad (city staff) explicitly noted, that if different zoning classifications are to remain on a single parcel it would be cleaner to subdivide the land so each zoning applies to a separate parcel; otherwise, mixed zoning over a single parcel can produce uncertain future uses.

Commission discussion touched on the property’s development history: McAnally said portions of the tract were planned for a previously proposed Cityview Farms development that stalled, and that the owner has cut hay and pastured livestock on the land for about 35 years. McAnally added that the family does not intend to run cattle and the buyer would keep only five or six horses. Opponents noted the city road (Auburn Drive) currently ends at Cityview Estates and expressed worry about a potential new access from Old Moulton Road. Staff said any road extension would require engineering, construction and a future commission review.

On the AG-1 request, McAnally said the ID zoning currently permits institutional uses such as schools, auditoriums, gyms and other public facilities and that AG-1 would impose additional restrictions closer to single-family residential standards. He also acknowledged that AG-1 zoning could allow agricultural uses such as poultry or hog operations, but said the prospective buyer intends only to house horses and live on the property.

The commission approved the R-1E rezoning by a 5-1 vote and did not recommend the ID-to-AG-1 rezoning (3-2). Both actions will be transmitted to the Decatur City Council; rezonings require council final approval. Commissioners also recorded concerns about drainage maintenance on the property and recommended that any future subdivision or site improvements come back through the planning process for review.

The commission’s action leaves the Lane property’s future use unresolved; the council will review both recommendations at a subsequent meeting.