Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves zero-foot front and rear setbacks for city parking deck at 431 Holly Street NE

Board of Zoning Adjustment · May 27, 2026
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 City Board of Zoning Adjustment on May 26 unanimously approved a variance allowing zero-foot front and rear setbacks for a proposed city parking deck at 431 Holly Street NE after the applicant said site constraints and a planned Holly Street vacation made the relief necessary.

The Decatur City Board of Zoning Adjustment on May 26 approved a variance to allow front and rear setbacks of 0 feet for a proposed city parking deck adjacent to 431 Holly Street Northeast.

Chair Tom Pulk opened the item (case 260526-01) and said petitioner Pewight Menali filed the request on behalf of the City of Decatur. The variance asks relief from the code requirement of a 25-foot front setback and a 20-foot rear setback to permit the parking structure to sit at the property line.

Applicant representative Jackson McNell told the board the zero setbacks are needed to accommodate site constraints for the parking garage and to align the first phase of a planned vacation of Holly Street. "The vacation of Holly Street will be on the northeast side of the parking deck ... from 4th Avenue just east of the proposed parking deck," he said, describing how the vacation would create a private drive and a fire-lane connection to 6th Avenue.

Board members pressed the applicant on access to an adjacent bank property. McNell said Renaissance/Regions Bank would retain existing drives on 4th Avenue and Lee Street and that a relocated teller drive would connect to the new deck. Planning staff confirmed surrounding zoning and compatibility were evaluated.

After discussion the board voted on a motion to approve the setback variance. The motion carried unanimously.

The board did not attach other conditions to this vote; the applicant is expected to return for related matters that were not properly advertised for the meeting, including maximum buildable area and building height, according to staff remarks.