Zoning board approves variance for decades-old concrete outbuilding despite neighbors' tree concerns

The Decatur Zoning Board of Adjustments on April 13 approved a variance allowing an existing concrete block building on US 380 Business to encroach roughly 9.52 and 9.78 feet into the required 10-foot rear-yard setback. Chair (speaker 1) made the motion and the board approved it by voice vote.

Lisa Hannon, the planning director, entered the staff report into the record and said the variance was triggered when the applicant submitted plans. Hannon said the building appears to have been in place since 1995 or earlier, that the lots will be platted into a 0.73-acre western lot (Lot 1) and a 0.64-acre eastern lot (Lot 2), and that a sewer line crosses both parcels. “We are going to require [an easement encroachment agreement] to be approved by Public Works and recorded by the applicant before the variance is recorded,” Hannon said.

The applicant, Deborah Lusk, identified herself as the owner of both properties and asked the board for the variance, saying she had not received complaints about the outbuilding and had made it more aesthetically pleasing. “I haven't had any complaints about it being there,” Lusk said. She told the board she plans a small 30-by-30 metal building on Lot 1 and that the existing concrete structure on Lot 2 would remain.

Adjacent residents who identified themselves as Guy and Irene of 1803 Oak Meadow Drive, the north lot, said their main concern was preserving a row of mature cedar trees that provide a windbreak and visual buffer. The neighbors said branches had been cut near the building during past painting and asked that any required work avoid harming trunks or roots. “Our primary concern is appearance and our cedar trees,” the residents said.

Board members focused the decision on the variance criteria rather than the neighbor dispute over trees. A member summarized staff findings that the building is a long-standing nonconforming structure, that moving or demolishing it would pose undue hardship, and that there is no planned expansion that would change the calculus. Hannon also noted that buffering requirements will apply to Lot 1 when it is redeveloped, but that Lot 2 in its current single-family use does not trigger buffering under the code.

Chair moved to approve the variance for the existing building only, not for any future new buildings; the motion was seconded (the transcript records a second from “Danny”) and the board voted in favor. Staff confirmed the easement encroachment agreement must be approved by Public Works and recorded before the variance is finalized.

The board postponed Items 3 and 4 to the April 13 meeting because the building official was not present. With that business concluded, the Chair adjourned the meeting.