Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board approves lot-coverage variance for 121 Madison Ave, despite drainage concerns

City of Decatur Zoning Board of Appeals
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Decatur Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance to raise lot coverage at 121 Madison Ave from 47% to 50.4% on revised plans; board members conditioned support on mitigation options and debated precedent and stormwater risks.

The Decatur Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance Sept. 8 allowing the property at 121 Madison Avenue to exceed the citys 47% lot-coverage limit, increasing allowable coverage to 50.4% on revised plans submitted by the applicant.

The applicant, identified in the record as Eric, told the board he had overlaid an as-built site plan with a tree-can layout and removed shaded areas he judged nonessential to reduce coverage while preserving foundation stability and stormwater controls. "We ensured water runoff was managed," Eric said in his presentation, and the revised plan, he added, reduced coverage to 50.4% while maintaining a usable driveway.

The boards discussion centered on whether the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to remove impervious surface. Several members voiced concern about stormwater impacts and precedent. Board Chair Casey Boyce said the applicant appeared to have "gone back and removed about as much concrete as they can from the driveway while still maintaining its function as a driveway" and indicated support for mitigation as a condition of approval.

Members proposed several mitigation measures during deliberations, including removal of small front-yard concrete squares, rain-garden style stormwater features, or use of impervious pavers that do not count toward lot-coverage calculations. One board member said removing the narrow strips down the driveway would not materially improve drainage but suggested limiting additions to what is strictly necessary for vehicle access.

The board moved and seconded a motion to approve the variance on the revised plans. The chair announced the motion passed; the transcript records "nay" votes during the roll call but does not include specific tallies in the record.

The board did not specify additional follow-up dates for implementation beyond requiring the revised plans that were the basis for the approval. The applicant had offered during public comment to remove minor strips if that would satisfy the board; the approval was granted on the plans submitted to staff that showed the 50.4% figure.

Next steps: The variance is approved and the property may proceed under the revised plan; staff retains authority to monitor compliance with any conditions the board required during its approval.