Board approves use variance to let contractor store equipment at former church on Decoy Drive

The Zoning Board approved a use variance for 1118 Decoy Drive on a unanimous vote, allowing the owner to operate a contractor establishment and store equipment inside the former Visitation Church building while imposing several conditions intended to protect the surrounding R‑1 single‑family neighborhood.

The board’s motion — moved by Douglas Scribe and seconded — approved the variance contingent on: defining a hard‑surfaced pad that respects the 22‑foot maximum driveway width and the 15‑foot front‑yard setback, making that hard‑surfaced area the exclusive location for parking vehicles and trailers, restricting material and debris storage to inside the building, requiring an on‑site trash dumpster (with required enclosure), and installing obscuring material on the chain‑link fence along the south and east property lines within one year of approval.

Applicant Daniel Beebe told the board the operation would be primarily storage and staging for a construction company, not a customer‑facing business. "We are strictly wanting to store our tools and have somewhere to operate out of," Beebe said, adding that most activity would be vehicles and trailers leaving for jobs and returning intermittently. He estimated a typical daytime presence of a few employees and said the number of power units on site would vary by project.

Staff and board members discussed how R‑1 zoning limits front‑yard paving — a 22‑foot maximum width in the first 15 feet from the street — and noted that any larger paved area or egress apron would require a curb‑cut application through engineering. Terry Moltene, city planning staff, recommended describing the permitted pad area in relation to the 22‑foot driveway and 15‑foot setback so that the approval limits parking to paved surfaces and prevents use of grass or yard areas for parking.

Board members emphasized neighborhood protection while acknowledging the property’s institutional history and the adaptive‑reuse argument. During deliberations the board agreed the application met the legal standards for a use variance, including that the building’s former institutional use and site conditions support an alternative use with appropriate conditions. The motion passed by voice vote, recorded as four yeas and no nays.

The board also made procedural notes that the required curb‑cut application and dumpster enclosure details will be enforced through the city’s permitting and enforcement processes. The applicant said he would coordinate with engineering for the apron and could install screening and cameras as additional security measures.

The decision allows the property owner to move forward subject to the stated conditions; enforcement and any future modifications will follow the city’s permitting and code‑compliance processes.