Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-19-2023 Board of Adjustments Agenda Packet
May 15, 2023 Board of Adjustments Minutes 1 The Board of Adjustments met Monday, May 15, 2023, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Anil Vira, Chairman; Cathy Slagle, Vice-Chair; Frank Lamia; Donna Cook; Ryan Baker; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director; Michelle Melton, City Planner; and Cindy Beaudreau, Planning Clerk. Chairman Vira called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. Approval of Minutes Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 17, 2023, meeting. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Chairman Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Ryan Baker, and Donna Cook. Nay: None. BOA 23.04 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, James Boothe, for a 10’ variance to the front setback requirement for property zoned R-2, Medium Density Single- Family Residential District. The property is approximately 8,000 SF and is located between Orange Avenue and Cricket Lane on Satsuma Street. PPIN#: 285254 Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the case summary and explained that when the lot was platted in 1960, the front and rear setbacks were 45’. There was an administrative appeal in 2004 for Lots 1 & 2 to be recognized as legal lots of record on behalf of the landowner of Lot 1 (462 Satsuma). The two lots were recognized as legal lots of record per the request. This request for a 10’ front setback variance would result in a 25’ front setback as opposed to the required 35’ front setback for R-2. Ms. Melton showed an aerial of the property, the Huggins Division recorded plat from 1960 which shows the lot at 80’ x 100’, and a partial survey that was supplied by the applicant. The applicant is requesting the variance to be able to construct a house that is 40’ deep. The Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section D.3 contemplates front setback relief of non- conforming lots. Staff can grant an administrative variance of 5’ for the front setback pursuant to Article VII, resulting in a front setback for the property of 30’. The applicant is requesting an additional 5’ front street setback variance to have a 25’ front setback as opposed to the required 35’ and platted 45’. Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, stated that the Planning Commission recently amended Article VI, Section D.3 to set the 5’ administrative variance due to there not being a limit set previously. Ms. Melton shared a slide showing the dimensions of houses based on the buildable areas with the different setbacks. According to the variance criteria in the Zoning Ordinance, the subject property does not present an “exceptional condition…because of its size, shape, or topography”. The shape of the lot is rectangular, is relatively flat and there have been no BOA requests of record pertaining to a variance due to the topography of any of the surrounding lots in the city records. There will be no “substantial detriment to the public good” nor impairment of the intent of the ordinance if this variance is denied. May 15, 2023 Board of Adjustments Minutes 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of Case BOA 23.04. Staff has reviewed, and is willing to grant, an administrative 5’ front setback variance. Ryan Baker asked for an explanation on the platted 45’ setback and if that stays with the land. Mr. Simmons explained that the original plat did go to the Planning Commission and minutes are available. This lot was platted in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance in place at that time. The 45’ setback was not listed on the plat, so that when the Zoning Ordinance changed, the setback on that lot changed. The Zoning Ordinance evolved to include lot sizes and district codes also. The applicant, Sunny Boothe, explained that they are long time Fairhope residents. She stated that they are requesting the variance due to the house next door having a 24.7’ front setback so that their home will line up with that setback. Ms. Boothe also noted that she and her husband have some health issues and would like to have the master bedroom on the first floor of their home to avoid having to climb stairs. Ms. Boothe addressed the emails that oppose the variance stating that the survey showed the property next door having a 24.7’ front setback and that they hoped to match that setback so that the properties look better aesthetically. Chairman Vira opened the public hearing at 5:15pm. Carolyn Boothe, who lives at 106 Orange Street, spoke against granting the variance. She stated that the neighborhood is becoming flooded with big homes on small lots which does not add to the beauty of the neighborhood. She believes that the rules should be followed for everyone. She added that the resident that used to own the subject property had bad water problems on that lot. Cathy Slagle asked Ms. Boothe where her house was exactly. Ms. Boothe explained that she is two doors down from the southeast corner. Andy Parvin, who lives at 104 Pecan, spoke against granting the variance. He explained that he and his wife moved to Fairhope a few years ago. They were surprised at the cost of real estate in Fairhope, but they did some research and found that Fairhope has enacted some very specific codes as to building a home and how a home, whether new or existing, must be situated on a lot with regards to setbacks and set asides. They went ahead and decided to build their home and were comforted by the codes that Fairhope had enacted. Mr. Parvin explained that if the codes were relaxed, then everyone in that neighborhood could potentially be negatively impacted on the largest purchase a person may make. Mr. Parvin relayed that the code is public record and they, as newcomers, found it. He believes that the applicants should not be rewarded with the variance because they did not do their research and asked the Board to please deny the request. Ron Mitchell, who lives at the corner of Orange and Satsuma, spoke in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Simmons to agree that the house next to the subject property has a 24.7’ setback. Mr. Simmons could not confirm that due to an incomplete survey, but does not doubt that the property has a 24.7’ setback. Mr. Mitchell believes that granting the variance would allow the homes to look more uniform. Mr. Mitchell addressed the e-mail from Dennis Jacobson stating that Mr. Jacobson thought that a precedent would be set that all properties would have a 25’ setback. Mr. Mitchell explained that the Board addresses each property individually. Mr. May 15, 2023 Board of Adjustments Minutes 3 Jacobson then told Mr. Mitchell that he did not have a problem with the variance request being approved if the homes would line up. The public hearing was closed at 5:26pm. Ryan Baker asked if there were drainage issues on this lot. Ms. Melton explained that in 2004 when the lots were recognized as legal lots, there was mention of drainage problems. The Huggins were at that meeting, and they also stated there were drainage problems. Mr. Baker asked if the drainage problems could create a problem when building on the lot. Mr. Simmons explained that any drainage issues would be addressed during the permit process. The fruit and nut neighborhood does not include a lot of drainage infrastructure. Drainage was taken into consideration when the administrative variance limit was put in place. Mr. Simmons then explained that with the administrative variance applied, the applicants could build a 2,100 square foot home along with a 700 square foot accessory building. Mr. Baker asked if the topography of the lot should be a consideration. Mr. Simmons and Ms. Melton both stated that the lot is a flat lot. Donna Cook asked if there were any drainage easements on the back of the property. Mr. Simmons and Ms. Melton both stated that there are not. Chairman Vira asked about the house to the right having a 24.7’ setback and how that is not continuous across the house. Ms. Melton agreed that the house does not lie in a straight line across the lot. Chairman Vira asked about the buildable area on the subject property. Mr. Simmons stated that the buildable area, with the 5’ administratively granted variance, is 2,100 square feet. Chairman Vira stated that if the Board approved the requested variance, there would be a 300 square foot difference. Mr. Simmons stated that the City does not look at house plans and that the setback will go with the land. Mr. Simmons explained that the setback on the house to the right was 15’ due to having a driveway to an accessory structure. Mr. Simmons reiterated that the City must abide by the ordinance setbacks when evaluating each property. Mr. Simmons shared a story where the State of Alabama granted a setback variance for an ADA ramp, was sued, and lost under the criteria that the ramp was not a hardship. The ruling was that nothing precluded the house from being built and including the ramp within the setback requirements. Ms. Melton explained that for a variance, first and foremost, the size, shape and topography of the lot must be considered. Chairman Vira asked the applicants whether they were able to design a 2,100 square foot home with a master bedroom on the first floor. Ms. Boothe believed that they could, but wanted to confirm what the footprint would be for the house before designing the home. Mr. Simmons stated that once the administrative 5’ variance is applied, the home could be a two-story 4,200 square foot home. Mr. Baker asked if the Board needed to do anything administratively to grant the administrative variance. Mr. Simmons replied that his office could grant that variance. Motion: Frank Lamia made a motion to deny Case BOA 23.04. Cathy Slagle seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Ryan Baker, and Donna Cook. Nay: None. May 15, 2023 Board of Adjustments Minutes 4 Old/New Business Chairman Vira asked if there were any items for the next meeting. Mr. Simmons answered that there are three items. Adjournment Ryan Baker made a motion to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Ryan Baker, and Donna Cook. Nay: None. Adjourned at 5:35 p.m. ____________________________ ________________________ Anil Vira, Chairman Cindy Beaudreau, Secretary S BAYVIEW STGEORGE STGAS T O N A V POMELO STPECA N A VS MOBILE STNICHOLSAV KUMQUAT STLIBERTY STEQUITY STWHI T E A V MOSS OAK CTPIER A V CRICK E T L N SATSUMASTCity of FairhopeBoard of Adjustment June 19, 2023 ¯KUMQUAT STPIER A V BOA 23.03 - 358 Kumquat Street Legend COF Corp. LimitsB-3b - Tourist Resort Commercial Service DistrictR-2 - Medium Density Single-FamilyCOF Planning Jurisdiction ¯ ¯ ^ Project Name:358 Kumquat StreetSite Data:12,600 SqftProject Type:Front Setback VarianceJurisdiction:Fairhope Planning JurisdictionZoning District:R-2PPIN Number:44288General Location:North side of Pier Avenue, West side of Kumquat StreetSurveyor of Record: Engineer of Record: Owner / Developer:Williams WigginsSchool District:Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Prepared by: Denial Michelle Melton 1 BOA 23.03 358 Kumquat St. June 19, 2023 Summary of Request: The Applicant, William Wiggins, is requesting a front setback variance to build a front porch inside the front setback at 358 Kumquat St. Exact dimensions for the variance were not given, the Architectural Site Plan for the proposed porch would be approximately 14 feet from the front property line. The subject property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is approximately 12,600ft². The request is for Lot 7 of the Re-subdivision of Lots 4, 5, & 6 (Block 13) of the Magnolia Beach Addition to the Town of Fairhope, Alabama MISC BK1 PG331 (Slide 177-B) circa 1951. The original plat is from 1913 and neither plat reflects setbacks; however, the re-subdivision from 1951 does support the current lot dimensions of 70x180. Recorded Plat 1951 2 BOA 23.03 358 Kumquat St. June 19, 2023 The subject property is a larger in area than required for an R-2 lot – 12,600 s.f.; whereas 10,500 s.f. is the minimum. However, because it is 70’ wide, instead of the required 75’, it is a legal non-conforming lot Comments: The subject property is a legal, non-forming lot with a legal, non-conforming structure on it. The Applicant wishes to replace the existing small, covered porch and a pergola with a covered front porch as shown in the architectural details provided below. Recorded Plat 1913 Table 3-2: Dimension Table -Lots and Principle Structure Dimension Min . Lot Area/ Min. S etbacks Max. total lot Ma x. District or Allowed Units Per Lot Width Front Rear Side Street covera2 e by all height use Acre (UPA) side structures RIA 3 acres / -198 ' 75 ' 75 ' 25 ' 50 ' none 30 ' R-1 15,000 s.f./-100 ' 40 ' 35 ' IO ' b 20 ' 4 0% 30 ' . R-la 40,000 s.f/ -120 ' 30 ' 30 ' IO ' b 20 ' 25% 35 ' R-lb 30 ,000 s.f./ -100 ' 30 ' 30 ' IO ' b 20 ' 25% 35 ' R-lc 20 ,000 s.f./ -80 ' 30 ' 30 ' IO ' b 20 ' 25 % 35 ' R-2 10.500 s.f -"""')' 3)" 3). 10· r, ~o· 3 7o 0 30· " 3 BOA 23.03 358 Kumquat St. June 19, 2023 A survey of the existing structures was not provided. The below image illustrates the existing porch, with an open air pergola attached to the house. The pergola is allowed because it is open to the sky per established precedentIt is a legal structure, not a legal, non-conforming structure. Based upon the Architectural Site Plan, provided by Architect Phillip Owens, the existing home is approximately 29’ from the front property line. The required front setback is 35’. The existing porch, not to be confused with the pergola, extends further into the setback than the home, but is not shown on the above plan. The image below illustrates the difference between '''"'""' PUNE TO IMTCH EXISTWG @ WEST ELEVATI ON 1 SCALE: J/16" • ,·-o· :W--8"P:IST 5TRUCTURE @ SOUTH El£VAJION SCl,LE: J11r. 1·-0· NOTE: 1.ROO'"PITCH TO W.TCHEXISTWG. 2. ROOf" O','ERW,NC l O ~ EXISTlNC. J.~PI.Ai'C f 0 '-1,1.TOID:IST1.'II'.:. @ ESJ El[VAJION A1 soor. J/16·. 1·-0· 4 BOA 23.03 358 Kumquat St. June 19, 2023 the porch and pergola. It is important to note, the Architectural Site Plan is not an official survey. Variance applications should have an official survey for reasonable consideration of the variance request. Nonetheless, the current primary structure’s building frontage is closer to the street than the required 35ft. The Zoning Ordinance defines building frontage as “the outside wall surface of a building excluding the porch or deck, nearest to the front lot line.” Thus, the current front porch further encroaches on the front setback. 5 BOA 23.03 358 Kumquat St. June 19, 2023 Current porch with planters covering damaged wood panels. Damaged wood panels. 6 BOA 23.03 358 Kumquat St. June 19, 2023 Proposed Replacement Porch. Note the primary structure is setback 29 feet and the porch will be 15ft deep making the variance setback request a 21 feet variance request from the current R-2 35ft front setback, which will result in a 14 feet front setback for the porch. , Porch is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: A roofed-over or open space attached to the outside of an exterior wall of a building, which has no enclosure other than the exterior walls of such building. Open mesh screening shall not be considered an enclosure. The Zoning Ordinance Article VII Section B provides for non-conforming structures and Section D.3 contemplates front setback relief of non-conforming lots. B. Non-conforming Structures Structures that were legally constructed prior to the adoption of this ordinance, but which could not be constructed under the terms of this ordinance are considered legal non-conforming structures. A legal non-conforming structure may continue to exist subject to the following: 1. Non-conforming structures, or those parts of a structure that are non-conforming may not be expanded either horizontally, or vertically. Alteration and expansions shall conform to all current SITE PU.N I' I / ... ,l , ........ ,....._ F '-._ E(15Tlt,t: ................. ST'JW l;Tllit E ...._, "-...._ ................. ',, ,. I IE\¥ Cflt H ,on mo I ..... 7 BOA 23.03 358 Kumquat St. June 19, 2023 regulations. 2. The structure shall remain legal in all other regards except for the non-conformance that existed upon adoption of the ordinance that made the structure non-conforming. 3. A non-conforming structure, which is not intentionally damaged, destroyed, or removed, may be restored within one year from the date of the event. If the structure is not re-constructed in one year all restorations and improvements shall be in compliance with applicable ordinances. The burden of proof of date of damage or destruction shall be on the person proposing the restoration. D. Non-conforming Lots Where a lot, tract or parcel of land has an area or width that does not conform to the requirements of the district in which it is located, the lot may be used for a detached single-family dwelling except in the M-1 and M-2 Industrial Districts. A single detached family dwelling may be constructed in an R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, or R-5 Residential District provided the lot to be so used has a minimum area of four thousand (4,000) square feet and a minimum lot width at the building line of forty (40) feet, provided it is located on a public sewer. 3. The minimum front setback required for the district (and, on corner lots, the street side setback) shall not apply to any lot where the average front building line(s) of the adjacent lot(s), is less than the minimum setback required for the district. In such cases, the front building line may be the same as the average front building lines(s) of the adjacent lot(s). In no case, shall the front building line be more than 5’ less than the minimum setback required for the district. It does appear in the aerial and by doing some rough measuring of the neighboring Kumquat facing lots that the existing front setbacks are less than the current R-2 required 35ft, which is typical of this area of town. It is noted that the subject property does have considerable area in the rear for a larger porch than what exists in the front. 8 BOA 23.03 358 Kumquat St. June 19, 2023 From City of Fairhope Viewer App (GIS). Last visited June 9, 2023. Section B(1) is applicable in that the current non-conforming structure is being expanded horizontally to extend the across the entirety of the frontage of the house and vertically pursuant to the provided architectural plans. Section B(2) may be applicable as well although it is unclear from the application at what time the current porch was damaged to its current condition. It may have been gradual. The Applicant may renovate or “restore” the existing porch and pergola with the current existing dimensions and may do so via the Building Department and does not require a front setback variance. However, the existing front porch does not extend 15ft beyond the primary structure; whereas the proposed new porch does. Analysis and Recommendation: Variance Criteria 9 BOA 23.03 358 Kumquat St. June 19, 2023 (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape, or topography. Response: The lot is substandard in size and currently hosts a legal non-conforming structure. (b) The application of the ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance. Response: The Applicant may replace the existing front porch pursuant to Article VII, so no unnecessary hardship is being created by doing so. (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and Response: The subject property has the “peculiar” conditions of being smaller than a R-2 lot, hosting a non-conforming, legal structure. However, sub-standard lot dimensions are fairly common in the Fruit and Nut neighborhood with many of the lots in this area only being 66ft wide (or less). (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance. Response: Relief will cause substantial detriment to the public good. The current structure is legal and non-conforming, the pergola structure is legal and not a covered porch. The replacement porch will be more of an encroachment on the front setback requirement, which is prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. When a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect: Article II.C.3.g. Effect of Variance - Any variance granted according to this section and which is not challenged on appeal shall run with the land provided that: (1) The variance is acted upon according to the application and subject to any conditions of approval within 365 days of the granting of the variance or final decision of appeal, whichever is later; and (2) The variance is recorded with the Judge of Probate. Recommendation: Staff recommends Denial of a front setback variance. *Applicant may replace the existing pergola and/or repair the existing covered porch. 358 Kumquat St. Fairhope, AL 36532 •Existing porch/site plan •Existing porch/site plan From:John Miller To:planning Subject:Hearing Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 1:45:38 PM This message is regard to Case BOA 23.03, applicant William Wiggins First of all, Mr and Mrs Wiggins are delightful neighbors and an asset to or immediate community. The requested variance is perfectly acceptable to our household at 115 Pier Avenue. The variance will allow for improvements to the subject property and while providing an aesthetic enhancement it will serve to increase our property value. We wholeheartedly support the variance and encourage your positive response as well. It improves the life quality of Fairhope which is good for all of us Thank you Sent from my iPhone PATLYNN DRBON SECOUR STHOLLY DRMYRTLE STGREENWOOD AV C LA I RE CT OLIVE AV LESLIE CT ALLISON CT DESHA CTQUAIL LOOPFREDERIC K A V BARCLAY A V CEDAR AV ROSA AV GLE NHARDI E DR City of FairhopeBoard of Adjustment June 19, 2023 ¯PATLYNN DRGREENWOOD AV BOA 23.05 - 686 Greenwood Avenue Legend COF Corp. LimitsR-1 - Low Density Single-FamilyR-2 - Medium Density Single-FamilyR-4 - Low Density Multi-FamilyCOF Planning Jurisdiction ¯ ¯ ^ Project Name:686 Greenwood AveSite Data:Approximately .33 acresProject Type:Street Side SetbackJurisdiction:Fairhope Planning JurisdictionZoning District:R-2PPIN Number:61116General Location:Southeast corner of intersection of Patlynn Drive and Greenwood Ave.Surveyor of Record: Engineer of Record: Owner / Developer:Max and Emily HansenSchool District:Fairhope West Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation:ApprovePrepared by: Mike Jeffries 1 BOA 23.05 686 Greenwood Ave. June 19, 2023 Summary of Request: The applicants, Max and Emily Hansen, are requesting a 15’ variance to the street side setback located at the southeast corner of Patlynn Drive and Greenwood Ave. The property is zoned R-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The recorded plat reflects a 35’ setback along Patlynn Drive and Greenwood Ave. Corner lots are allowed a 20’ side street setback on the lot line with the greatest dimension per the Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is square having two lot lines with equal distance abutting a street. The variance request is to establish the front line and the side street lot line. The request matches the current orientation of the existing home. +---GREENWOOD AV E w o:: ·s o 0 in I Iii z z >-...J ~ ~, '° .., i pou j 35' FRONT ! 1977 RECORDED PLAT GR EE NWOOD AV:C SB't"S.'Sl"E .. ✓---·--·---0'50D·----··--------·7 .'/ ~OPOSEO l S' SlOG , SETBAOC VARIANCI: i ( ' : -,-__ _! _ _!2_,__ i I , ! , , :1 i i ~ i c: t!11 ! I JI ;!g t!11 \ l : I :,Ill -,_ '!...: !... --...J i ( 0-IUE ,• i PROPOSEO 1ft l!UlG. SETBAO( LINE , i ! L ______________ ....!I?:~'!'!-. _________ _j 1.orxr REQUESTED SETBACKS 2 BOA 23.05 686 Greenwood Ave. June 19, 2023 The subject property is Lot 18 of Unit Two, Replat of The Pines Subdivision as recorded in 1977 on Slide 883-A. The plat depicts a 35’ front setback along all rights-of-way, as depicted below. The plat has twelve lots that depict these setbacks on two frontages. A similar variance was approved on October 17, 2022 for Lot 6 of Unit One, Replat of The Pines Subdivision (also shown highlighted below). One difference to point out is the subject property is a square lot that would require two 35’ front setbacks and not a 20’ street side setback. el I I - ... ,w , 1"=-4·· .. ~ ·••+ • .., )_. c:, f \ : -----• I ' <!J ]=> (f) © I I ----~ ' j 3 BOA 23.05 686 Greenwood Ave. June 19, 2023 The Zoning Ordinance has dimension standards for each Zoning District within the municipal limits. The subject property is zoned R-2, which has the following dimensional standards: The variance request of 15’ is compliant with the Street Side Setback requirements shown above. Analysis and Recommendation: Variance Criteria (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape, or topography. Response: There are not (b) The application of the ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance. Response: A conflict exists between platted setbacks but also unique equidistance corner lot lines. (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and Response: Not applicable. (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance. Response: Relief would not cause substantial detriment. Review of aerial photos shows other corner properties with structures built that appear to be in line with a “street side setback”. Table 3-2: Dimen sion Table -Lots and Principle Structure Dimension Min. Lot Area/ Min . Setbacks Max. total lot Max. District or Allowed Units Per Lot Width Front Rear Side Skeet coverai:e by all height use Acre (UPA) side structure s RIA 3 acres/ -198 ' 75 ' 75 ' 25 ' 50 ' none 30 ' R-1 15,000 s.f./ -100 ' 40 ' 35 ' 10 ' b 20 ' 4 0% 30 ' a R-la 40,000 s.f./ -120 ' 30 ' 30 ' 10 ' b 20 ' 25% 35 ' R-lb 30,000 s.f./ -100 ' 30 ' 30 ' 10 ' b 20 ' 25 % 35 ' R-lc 20 ,000 s.f./ -80 ' 30 ' 30 ' 10 ' b 20 ' 25 % 35 ' R-2 I 0.500 s.f. -~::;· 3~· .35· 1 o· b ~o· 3 7° n 30· ' 4 BOA 23.05 686 Greenwood Ave. June 19, 2023 General Comment: It is important to note that a variance is an approval that runs with the land and is not tied to any existing structure or proposed site plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of BOA 23.05 686 Greenwood Ave., a request for a 15’ setback variance on the western property line abutting Patlynn Dr. 5 BOA 23.05 686 Greenwood Ave. June 19, 2023 Zoning Ordinance Requirements: The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance defines a variance as follows: Variances: A modification of the strict terms of the relevant regulations in a district with regard to placement of structures, developmental criteria or provision facilities. Examples would be: allowing smaller yard dimensions because an existing lot of record is of substandard size; waiving a portion of required parking and/or loading space due to some unusual circumstances; allowing fencing and/or plant material buffering different from that required due to some unusual circumstances. Variances are available only on appeal to the Board of Adjustment and subject to satisfaction of the standards specified in this ordinance. The Board of Adjustments is authorized to grant variances through Article II.A.d(3) which says the following: d. Duties and Powers: The Board shall have the following duties and powers: (3) Variances - To authorize upon appeal in specific cases variance from the terms of this ordinance not contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance will, in an individual case, result in unnecessary hardship, so that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. Prior to granting a variance, the Board shall find that: (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape, or topography; (b) The application of this ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and, (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance. The Ordinance provides guidance for variance requests through the following criteria: Article II.C.3.e. Criteria – (1) An application for a variance shall be granted only on the concurring vote of four Board members finding that: (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape, or topography; (b) The application of the ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance. (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance. When a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect: 6 BOA 23.05 686 Greenwood Ave. June 19, 2023 Article II.C.3.g. Effect of Variance - Any variance granted according to this section and which is not challenged on appeal shall run with the land provided that: (1) The variance is acted upon according to the application and subject to any conditions of approval within 365 days of the granting of the variance or final decision of appeal, whichever is later; and (2) The variance is recorded with the Judge of Probate. GREENO RD SSCARLETT AV SPRING PARK DRNICHOLS AV SALEM STHESTER STBELLECHASECTNNORTHCHASE CTNICHOLS AV EXTPROFESSIONAL PARK DRREILLY CIRH A W THORNE CIR City of FairhopeBoard of Adjustment June 19, 2023 ¯ NICHOLS AV SPRING PARK DRPROFESSIONAL PARK DRNICHOLS AV EXT HAWTHORNE CIR BOA 23.06 - Stoic Equity Partners LLC Legend COF Corp. LimitsB-2 - General Business DistrictB-4 - Business and Professional DistrictM-1 - Light Industrial DistrictR-1 - Low Density Single-FamilyR-3PGH - Patio/Garden Single-FamilyCOF Planning Jurisdiction ¯ ¯ ^ Project Name:Stoic Equity Partners LLCSite Data:23,061 SqftProject Type:Special Exception, Indoor KennelsJurisdiction:Fairhope Planning JurisdictionZoning District:M-1PPIN Number:276903General Location:South side of Nichols Avenue, East of Professional Park DriveSurveyor of Record:S.E. CivilEngineer of Record:S.E. CivilOwner / Developer:Stoic Equity Partners LLCSchool District:Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Prepared by: Denial Hunter Simmons 1 BOA 23.06 Nichols Ave Ext PPIN# 276903 – June 19, 2023 Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting a special exception variance to allow a dog kennel to be located on Nichols Avenue, PPIN# 276903 The subject property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. Analysis and Recommendation: According to the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section A., the M-1 zoning district “is intended to provide a suitable protected environment for manufacturing, research and wholesale establishments which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable emissions, and generate little industrial traffic. Industrial parks should be encouraged. Locations should be in accordance with comprehensive plans.” A dog kennel is not allowable by right, but only by special exception approval by the Board of Adjustment. On July 25, 2022, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow a Kennel or Animal Hospital in M-1 Zoning District as a use “Permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions”. This was not allowed ‘by right’ because some M-1 locations would not be suitable for a dog kennel, especially those adjacent to residential zoned property. The conceptual site plan below depicts a possible location of the kennel. - -=:r ;.-~~'r -. -,.. , .. l"• -11<to,1• --~-r'-~ I I . I !:. u , : ii ... ij I -·· .. 1, J I .. i THIS PLAN IS A CONCEPT OF WHAT COULD BE BUil T THIS PLAN NEED NOT BE BUILT I 2 BOA 23.06 Nichols Ave Ext PPIN# 276903 – June 19, 2023 Zoning Map City of Fairhope Municipal Code Section 12-4 Noise in residential districts states the following intent: It is the intent of the city to endeavor to provide citizens an environment free from such excess sounds or noise as may jeopardize their health, welfare and safety, or degrade the quality of life. Furthermore, Section 12-4.c.2 places sound thresholds measured in db(a) for noises in residential districts: Loud or raucous sounds or noises. It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or cause a continuous noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any residential district and which exceeds eighty-five (85) db(a) during the hours of 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. and fifty (50) db(a) during the hours from 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. at the corner of residence nearest the source of the sound within a residential district or upon any public street or right-of-way within, or bordering upon, any residential district within the corporate limits of the city. Legend a co F Corp. Limits B-2 -Ge neral Business District -8-4 -Bu si ness and Profe ssio na l Di strict -M-1 -Light Industri al Di str ict R-1 -Low Density Single-Family R-3PGH -Patio/Garden Sing le-Family CO F Planning Jurisdiction 111 IJ SCARLETT AV v, 3 BOA 23.06 Nichols Ave Ext PPIN# 276903 – June 19, 2023 Staff does not claim to be sound measuring experts, nor can we estimate the sound generated by a dog kennel. In 2018, Pet Boarding and Daycare Magazine published an article titled, A Barking Matter: Reducing Noise In Pet Boarding and Daycare Centers. The author states, “A single dog barking can reach 80–90 decibels (there are dogs that can reach over 100dB). When you have a group of dogs such as those in a kennel or daycare center, the typical noise level can reach an alarming 115 decibels.“ A typical noise level of 115 decibels clearly exceeds the 50 decibel (evening) and 85 decibel (daytime) thresholds required by The Fairhope Code of Ordinances. As shown on the zoning map above, the subject property is across Nichols Ave. from Hawthorne Glen Subdivision (Single-Family Residential) and adjacent to Spring Run Place (R3-PGH), and Wynwood Apartments (Zoned B-2). From a cursory review, sound intensity obeys an inverse square law with distance. The Georgia State physics department created an publicly available calculator for estimating sound levels with the inverse square law. Based on our input of 115 decibels, the calculator predicts noise would drop below 85 decibels at 320 feet. Our ordinances do not require a specific separation distance, Fort Worth, TX, for example, requires a dog kennel to be at least 100 from any residentially zoned property and 300 feet from any residential habitat. Without additional sound attenuation, 300 feet seems like a reasonable buffer between a dog kennel and residential uses. The below image illustrates a 300 feet buffer around the subject property. There are 18 homes and 5 apartment homes within the buffer. Based on staff’s review, the proposed dog kennel is a non-compatible use at the subject property. SOUND PERSPECTIVE ~ 100G ~ 80-90dB SOME MAY REACH OVER lOOdB Ill ~~E~~~ 60dB ~ ~g:i~ BOdB ~ ~!~~ER 90dB 4 BOA 23.06 Nichols Ave Ext PPIN# 276903 – June 19, 2023 Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment DENY the proposed Special Exception for the subject property to allow a dog kennel due to incompatibility with adjacent properties. From:James Foley To:planning Subject:BOA 23.06 Special Exception Date:Friday, June 9, 2023 12:45:09 PM I am writing on behalf of Fairhope Brewing Company, the tenant located at 914 and 918 Nichols Avenue with respect to the request for a Special Exception to allow for indoor kennels on a property near my facility. I am concerned about the potential for loud, distracting noises coming from a kennel and how those sounds might affect the atmosphere for my customers and employees. I have lived in an apartment next to a dog that was constantly yapping, and I know that it can be a create a very unsettling experience. Cheers! James Foley Managing Member Fairhope Brewing Company From:Andy Malone To:planning Subject:Case: BOA 23.06 PPIN# 276903 Date:Friday, June 9, 2023 11:03:30 AM Attachments:image001.png I am familiar with these type of indoor kennels. The noise/barking is non-stop. I am an animal lover, but this area is full of residential property, offices, restaurants, etc. – it is one of the most thriving parts of the city. This is the 20th year we’ve had our office here & I’ve witnessed a ton of growth/improvement around me. I’ve also been presented with multiple zoning type variances/requests & have never objected to a single one. My view is, if you own the property you should be able to do pretty much whatever you want – within reason. However, a kennel just does not make sense in this area. The barking & the potential for smell this would create could drastically hurt the customer experience we are trying to maintain. Plus, the people living in the apartments behind them (who may not be getting this letter because they are not property owners) are going to have to try to sleep with all that noise & their kids are going to have to live with that noise & smell while playing on the grounds which back right up to this property. I would be opposed to this special exception. Thanks Ill From:Randy Niemeyer To:planning Cc:Samuel H. Andrews IV; Stephen Mills; Rebecca Neira Subject:Nichols Avenue Special Exception Date:Friday, June 9, 2023 10:56:41 AM My name is Randy Niemeyer and I live 390' away from the proposed kennel site, but as an officer on the Board of the Hawthorne Glen Property Owners Association, I want to speak on behalf of the ten property owners that are within the 300' perimeter. Ours is a quiet neighborhood, occupied mostly by retirees. We all selected this area for the peaceful nature of the area. Adding 24 hours of multiple barking dogs to this equation is profoundly inconsiderate. I'm sure the prospective kennel operators have said "the barking isn't that bad" or "it's only during the day". ANYONE who has lived near a veterinarian's office or kennel will attest to the fallacy of those statements. Before you vote to approve this special exception, please consider three things. One, if a kennel was considered to be a peaceful and quiet neighbor, they wouldn't need an exception. Kennels would already be allowed in this area. Two, your approval could potentially lead to sleepless nights for our ten property owners, plus the 75 or so families adjacent to the south of this property. Three, there is no magic to the 300' number. Many bedrooms will be subject to the noise if this is approved. Would you approve it if your bedroom was 90' away, as is 200 Hawthorne Circle, a property we manage as a rental? Can you imagine trying to rent this property and as you are showing it to a prospective lessee, you are overwhelmed by the sound of barking dogs? Approval of this exception will effectively ruin this property as a rental, as well as disrupt the neighbors for much farther than 300'. Respectfully, Randy Niemeyer 216 Hawthorne Circle Secretary/ Treasurer Hawthorne Glen POA Ill From:Robert TarabellaTo:planningSubject:Case BOA 23.06Date:Friday, June 9, 2023 10:49:32 AMDear Board of Adjustments,I am the owner of 93 Partners LLC, which owns the building at 925 Nichols Avenue.Currently, my business Spark Videotrucks occupies that building. We were notified of therequest for a Special Exception to build a dog kennel facility on the vacant lot next door to our property. There’s a very good reason why the current zoning does not allow for indoor kennels at the proposed location — they are a public nuisance. We strongly oppose any such exception to allow that kind of business. This street is a quiet combination of residential, entertainment, professional offices, and in our case light assembly. We have been respectful of the mixed nature of this neighborhood, and we generally cease our operations by 3:30 PM Monday through Friday. The character of the street has changed dramatically for the better over the last twenty years, and the proposed dog kennel, with it’s 24 hour a day noise, would be step in the wrong direction. In addition, the proposed location is a small lot, just over 100 feet wide. Presumably, there would be a need for an outdoor area for the animals, and that outdoor area will back up to a densely populated residential neighborhood of mostly renters, who will be adversely affected by noise from the proposed development, yet as renters will not be advised of what has been proposed. That is discriminatory and unfair. I have personal knowledge of a similar facility in Foley. A friend of mine operates a business located approximately 1500 feet from an indoor kennel and he reports the noise from that facility never stops. We encourage you to decline the applicant’s request for Special Exemption. Respectfully, Robert Tarabella 251-272-0224 6/12/23, 3:55 PM A Barking Matter: Reducing Noise In Pet Boarding And Daycare Centers | Pet Boarding and Daycare Magazine https://www.petboardinganddaycare.com/barking-matter-reducing-noise-pet-boarding-daycare-centers/1/8 A Barking Matter: Reducing Noise In Pet Boarding May 8 - 11, 2023 Las Vegas, Nevada Nov. 6 - 9, 2023 Current Issue Back Issues About Shows Advertise Media Kit Subscribe Privacy Policy f l t i Search © 2023 Barkleigh Productions REDUCING NOIS ~ IN PET BOARDING AND DAYCARE CENTERS P~!d~?.~~~~ng WEST 6/12/23, 3:55 PM A Barking Matter: Reducing Noise In Pet Boarding And Daycare Centers | Pet Boarding and Daycare Magazine https://www.petboardinganddaycare.com/barking-matter-reducing-noise-pet-boarding-daycare-centers/2/8 And Daycare Centers January 12, 2018 By Lahnie Johnson Dogs bark and we know we can’t change that. But dog kennels and other holding areas are built (all tile and concrete) to make noise worse by amplifying sound and increasing echoing. The only way to reduce dog barking noise to a reasonable level is by installing the correct noise reducing products for the situation—and each situation tends to be unique. Anyone who has been in a kennel is not likely to forget the tension and stress they felt from the incredible, constant barking noise which easily exceeds 100db. (OSHA requires hearing protection at 85dB.) Now imagine how stressed out the dogs are, considering their hearing is vastly more sensitive than ours and all of the dogs are barking continuously. Hershey, Pennsylvania CURRENT ISSUE Subscribe Advertise Current Issue Back Issues About Shows Advertise Media Kit Subscribe Privacy Policy f l t i © 2023 Barkleigh Productions lt1 PROFESSIONAL PET BOARDING CERTIFICATION Boardi g Kennel Management :Znc:11 Eclftlon Sam Kohl 6/12/23, 3:55 PM A Barking Matter: Reducing Noise In Pet Boarding And Daycare Centers | Pet Boarding and Daycare Magazine https://www.petboardinganddaycare.com/barking-matter-reducing-noise-pet-boarding-daycare-centers/3/8 A single dog barking can reach 80–90 decibels (there are dogs that can reach over 100dB). When you have a group of dogs such as those in a kennel or daycare center, the typical noise level can reach an alarming 115 decibels. At this decibel level a person should not stay in the area even 15 minutes without hearing protection. To put it in perspective, normal human speech is around 60dB; an automobile 80dB and a jackhammer 90dB. Louder than 85dB, damage to the hearing starts to occur. In addition to hearing damage in humans, high noise levels have been linked to lowered productivity, decreased communication skills, insomnia and other sleep disorders, anxiety, heart arrhythmia and more. Dogs also suffer from similar afflictions when repeatedly exposed to high levels of noise. There are a number of acoustical products that can help reduce noise in kennels or buildings where the dogs are housed or located. Please keep in mind Current Issue Back Issues About Shows Advertise Media Kit Subscribe Privacy Policy f l t i © 2023 Barkleigh Productions SOUND PERSPECTIVE ~ 1DOG ~ 80-90dB SOME MAY REACH OYER 100d8 ~ ~g:i~ BOdB ~ ~!~~ER 90dB 6/12/23, 3:55 PM A Barking Matter: Reducing Noise In Pet Boarding And Daycare Centers | Pet Boarding and Daycare Magazine https://www.petboardinganddaycare.com/barking-matter-reducing-noise-pet-boarding-daycare-centers/4/8 that every situation is unique and should be assessed by an experienced acoustic specialist. Noise Reducing Myths First though, let’s dispel some myths and discuss some DIY “fixes” that do not work. For some reason a lot of people are under the impression that egg cartons help reduce noise. They don’t. Egg cartons are made of a different substance than the acoustic foam used in the recording industry and, if used, can actually make the problem worse. Another myth is using foam rubber. Just because placing a foam rubber mat under a noisy appliance may absorb some of the sound, it does not mean it will stop sound from traveling through the air. It doesn’t work and is a waste of money. The last soundproofing myth is installing wall carpeting. It is untidy looking, collects mold, odors, mildew and dust. Keeping it clean is a problem and the reduction of sound is so minimal it is not worth considering—the cons are too many. Below are some acoustical treatments frequently used to reduce noise that do Current Issue Back Issues About Shows Advertise Media Kit Subscribe Privacy Policy f l t i © 2023 Barkleigh Productions Noise Reducing Myths 6/12/23, 3:55 PM A Barking Matter: Reducing Noise In Pet Boarding And Daycare Centers | Pet Boarding and Daycare Magazine https://www.petboardinganddaycare.com/barking-matter-reducing-noise-pet-boarding-daycare-centers/5/8 work. Please keep in mind, you first have to identify the area that is affected by the noise. If it’s where the dogs are penned, then you will primarily need a product that can absorb the direct barking and also the reflective barking off of the hard surfaces. There may also be instances where you need to stop the barking noise from room to room. An example of this would be management offices adjacent to the kennel space. Wall Treatments Sound blankets fall into this category as they can be hung. You may get some reduction in reverberation and sound absorption but cleanliness, odor retention, and maintenance may be an issue. Acoustic wall panels are another option. They are readily available and a reasonably priced option. Ease of putting them up is a plus, and they are also decorative, but there again odor retention and wash ability are a problem. For rooms or areas with more than a few dogs, there may not be enough noise reduction as a sole treatment. However, acoustic panels can be used in addition to sound panels/baffles when additional sound reduction is needed. Ceiling Treatments Current Issue Back Issues About Shows Advertise Media Kit Subscribe Privacy Policy f l t i © 2023 Barkleigh Productions Wall Treatments Ceiling Treatments 6/12/23, 3:55 PM A Barking Matter: Reducing Noise In Pet Boarding And Daycare Centers | Pet Boarding and Daycare Magazine https://www.petboardinganddaycare.com/barking-matter-reducing-noise-pet-boarding-daycare-centers/6/8 Ceiling tiles can be effective, but may require you to first put up a grid. This will entail the cost of installing the drop ceiling and the cost of tiles. If considering this option, you’ll need a tile that is mold resistant, non-odor retentive, and can be washed. Never use a ceiling tile made of gypsum board covered with PVC. This type won’t do much to reduce noise in the room. Look for a tile that has a high NRC (1.00 or higher); this will help reduce reverberation and echoing in the room. Acoustic Panels/Baffles Treatment Usually the best solution for kennels and the like is some type of acoustic baffle or panel that can be hung from the ceiling. Sound baffles or panels that mount up in the ceiling are one of the most effective methods to reduce reverberation and reduce noise because more surface areas (2 faces and 4 edges) of the panel are exposed to the room. They also usually do not interfere with fire sprinklers, lighting and do not block air circulation. There are many types for both indoor and outdoor applications. Be sure the one you choose is hydrophobic, non-odor, sealed, fire proof, durable and easy to Current Issue Back Issues About Shows Advertise Media Kit Subscribe Privacy Policy f l t i © 2023 Barkleigh Productions Acoustic Panels/Baffles Treatment 6/12/23, 3:55 PM A Barking Matter: Reducing Noise In Pet Boarding And Daycare Centers | Pet Boarding and Daycare Magazine https://www.petboardinganddaycare.com/barking-matter-reducing-noise-pet-boarding-daycare-centers/7/8 wash. Also, for maximum effectiveness, hang the panels in two directions (front/back and left/right orientations).This prevents open paths between walls from forming where sound can bounce and escape absorption. There are several types of sound abatement products available on the market to quiet even the most earsplitting of problems. Because each situation may require a different solution, it is important to always do a little research and check with an acoustic professional before installing anything on your own. This will save you both time and money. As a leading solutions provider and manufacturer of noise attenuation materials for over 20 years, Acoustiblok offers the full range of services and products to solve noise and vibration issues, including problem identification, acoustical testing, design, engineering, installation support and post-installation testing to ensure that our materials are properly implemented and noise control objectives are achieved. Acoustiblok products are used in industrial, residential, commercial, and marine sectors worldwide. The company’s products are all made and sourced in the United States. To learn more go to www.a coustiblok.com or call 813.980.1400 Current Issue Back Issues About Shows Advertise Media Kit Subscribe Privacy Policy f l t i © 2023 Barkleigh Productions 6/12/23, 3:55 PM A Barking Matter: Reducing Noise In Pet Boarding And Daycare Centers | Pet Boarding and Daycare Magazine https://www.petboardinganddaycare.com/barking-matter-reducing-noise-pet-boarding-daycare-centers/8/8 ← Previous Article Next Article → Current Issue Back Issues About Shows Advertise Media Kit Subscribe Privacy Policy f l t i © 2023 Barkleigh Productions From:John Miller To:planning Subject:Hearing Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 1:45:38 PM This message is regard to Case BOA 23.03, applicant William Wiggins First of all, Mr and Mrs Wiggins are delightful neighbors and an asset to or immediate community. The requested variance is perfectly acceptable to our household at 115 Pier Avenue. The variance will allow for improvements to the subject property and while providing an aesthetic enhancement it will serve to increase our property value. We wholeheartedly support the variance and encourage your positive response as well. It improves the life quality of Fairhope which is good for all of us Thank you Sent from my iPhone From:Robert TarabellaTo:planningSubject:Case BOA 23.06Date:Friday, June 9, 2023 10:49:32 AMDear Board of Adjustments,I am the owner of 93 Partners LLC, which owns the building at 925 Nichols Avenue.Currently, my business Spark Videotrucks occupies that building. We were notified of therequest for a Special Exception to build a dog kennel facility on the vacant lot next door to our property. There’s a very good reason why the current zoning does not allow for indoor kennels at the proposed location — they are a public nuisance. We strongly oppose any such exception to allow that kind of business. This street is a quiet combination of residential, entertainment, professional offices, and in our case light assembly. We have been respectful of the mixed nature of this neighborhood, and we generally cease our operations by 3:30 PM Monday through Friday. The character of the street has changed dramatically for the better over the last twenty years, and the proposed dog kennel, with it’s 24 hour a day noise, would be step in the wrong direction. In addition, the proposed location is a small lot, just over 100 feet wide. Presumably, there would be a need for an outdoor area for the animals, and that outdoor area will back up to a densely populated residential neighborhood of mostly renters, who will be adversely affected by noise from the proposed development, yet as renters will not be advised of what has been proposed. That is discriminatory and unfair. I have personal knowledge of a similar facility in Foley. A friend of mine operates a business located approximately 1500 feet from an indoor kennel and he reports the noise from that facility never stops. We encourage you to decline the applicant’s request for Special Exemption. Respectfully, Robert Tarabella 251-272-0224 From:Randy Niemeyer To:planning Cc:Samuel H. Andrews IV; Stephen Mills; Rebecca Neira Subject:Nichols Avenue Special Exception Date:Friday, June 9, 2023 10:56:41 AM My name is Randy Niemeyer and I live 390' away from the proposed kennel site, but as an officer on the Board of the Hawthorne Glen Property Owners Association, I want to speak on behalf of the ten property owners that are within the 300' perimeter. Ours is a quiet neighborhood, occupied mostly by retirees. We all selected this area for the peaceful nature of the area. Adding 24 hours of multiple barking dogs to this equation is profoundly inconsiderate. I'm sure the prospective kennel operators have said "the barking isn't that bad" or "it's only during the day". ANYONE who has lived near a veterinarian's office or kennel will attest to the fallacy of those statements. Before you vote to approve this special exception, please consider three things. One, if a kennel was considered to be a peaceful and quiet neighbor, they wouldn't need an exception. Kennels would already be allowed in this area. Two, your approval could potentially lead to sleepless nights for our ten property owners, plus the 75 or so families adjacent to the south of this property. Three, there is no magic to the 300' number. Many bedrooms will be subject to the noise if this is approved. Would you approve it if your bedroom was 90' away, as is 200 Hawthorne Circle, a property we manage as a rental? Can you imagine trying to rent this property and as you are showing it to a prospective lessee, you are overwhelmed by the sound of barking dogs? Approval of this exception will effectively ruin this property as a rental, as well as disrupt the neighbors for much farther than 300'. Respectfully, Randy Niemeyer 216 Hawthorne Circle Secretary/ Treasurer Hawthorne Glen POA Ill From:Andy Malone To:planning Subject:Case: BOA 23.06 PPIN# 276903 Date:Friday, June 9, 2023 11:03:30 AM Attachments:image001.png I am familiar with these type of indoor kennels. The noise/barking is non-stop. I am an animal lover, but this area is full of residential property, offices, restaurants, etc. – it is one of the most thriving parts of the city. This is the 20th year we’ve had our office here & I’ve witnessed a ton of growth/improvement around me. I’ve also been presented with multiple zoning type variances/requests & have never objected to a single one. My view is, if you own the property you should be able to do pretty much whatever you want – within reason. However, a kennel just does not make sense in this area. The barking & the potential for smell this would create could drastically hurt the customer experience we are trying to maintain. Plus, the people living in the apartments behind them (who may not be getting this letter because they are not property owners) are going to have to try to sleep with all that noise & their kids are going to have to live with that noise & smell while playing on the grounds which back right up to this property. I would be opposed to this special exception. Thanks Ill From:James Foley To:planning Subject:BOA 23.06 Special Exception Date:Friday, June 9, 2023 12:45:09 PM I am writing on behalf of Fairhope Brewing Company, the tenant located at 914 and 918 Nichols Avenue with respect to the request for a Special Exception to allow for indoor kennels on a property near my facility. I am concerned about the potential for loud, distracting noises coming from a kennel and how those sounds might affect the atmosphere for my customers and employees. I have lived in an apartment next to a dog that was constantly yapping, and I know that it can be a create a very unsettling experience. Cheers! James Foley Managing Member Fairhope Brewing Company