Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-2022 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketNovember 21, 2022 Board of Adjustments Minutes 1 The Board of Adjustments met Monday, November 21, 2022, 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; Ryan Baker; Donna Cook; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Casey Potts, City Planner; Michelle Melton, City Planner; and Allie Knutson, Secretary. Cathy Slagle, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM. Approval of Minutes Ryan Baker made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 17, 2022, meeting. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook, and Ryan Baker. Nay: None. Abstain: Anil Vira. BOA 22.14 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Don De Gutz, for a 2.8’ variance to the front setback requirement for property zoned R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is approximately 0.2 acres and is located at 110 Blakeney Avenue. PPIN #: 14443 Casey Potts, City Planner, presented the case summary, showing a map and aerial of the property. The subject property is located within the R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District, which requires 35’ front and rear setbacks, 10’ side setbacks, and 20’ street side setbacks. The existing home is non-conforming and could be maintained in its existing state (30’ front setback). However, the Applicant is intending to demolish the existing non-conforming building, which creates a self-inflicted hardship. Variances cannot be granted to relieve self-inflicted hardships. The survey provided indicated that the property to the west (108 Blakeney Ave) is 30.1’ from the property line and the property to the east (112 Blakeney Avenue) is 35.5’ from the property line. The Zoning Ordinance Article VII Section D.3 contemplates front setback relief of non- conforming lots. Staff granted an administrative variance of 2.2’, resulting in a front setback for the property of 32.8’. The administrative variance is calculated from the average of adjacent property frontages. As such, the Applicant is currently requesting a 2.8’ front street setback variance to have a 30’ front setback. Although the lot width of approximately 62’ does not meet the dimension standards of the R-2 Zoning District, lot size is not an extraordinary or exceptional condition pertaining to this piece of property. Substandard R-2 lots are very common within the City of Fairhope. Also, front setback relief was already provided to the substandard lot through the administrative variance November 21, 2022 Board of Adjustments Minutes 2 process. The shape of the lot is rectangular, there are no inherent challenges due to shape. There is a total of five feet of topography change over the subject property. The subject property is 145’ deep and at a 3% grade. Topography is not an extraordinary or exceptional condition with this piece of property. The survey, site plan, proposed elevations, and floorplans were shown. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of Case BOA 22.14, the request for a 2.8’ variance to the front setback requirements. Ryan Baker clarified that the existing deck is uncovered and that the setbacks do not apply. Mrs. Potts replied that he was correct. Frank Lamia clarified that 2.2’ is the maximum variance that could be granted administratively, Mrs. Potts confirmed that was correct. Mr. Simmons added that the Zoning Ordinance had once stated that the average for an administrative variance could be taken from properties within 200’, but has since been amended. Currently, it reads that the average of the two adjacent properties can be taken to split the difference, but cannot be more than 5’ over the base setback for that zoning district. Cathy Slagle asked what the current setback is. Mr. Simmons explained that the building is currently built to the 30’ line, but demolishing the home will require the new home to be built to the 35’ front setback line per the current requirements of the R-2 zoning district. The administrative variance granted the Applicant the ability to build to a 32.8’ front setback. Cathy Slagle asked if the Applicant could maintain the 30’ front setback if they were to keep the front of the building. Mr. Simmons stated they could, but they would not have the ability to expand horizontally or vertically. Chairman Vira asked the Applicant to make a presentation. The Applicant, Don De Gutz, presented his own slides. Mr. De Gutz showed the existing conditions and the proposed plans, stating that the reason for the variance request was because they wanted to preserve their view to the bay. He showed photos of nearby homes with bay views versus their existing view from their porch and what their view would be if the requested variance were to be denied. Mr. De Gutz presented photos of the surrounding nonconforming lots, including his. He also showed a plat from 1911 that depicted non-conforming lots and the Blakeney Avenue ROW width being inconsistent with a 25’ width difference between the east to west to allow views of the bay. There is a limit in the Zoning Ordinance that states that the building line may not be more than 5’ less than the setback requirement, which could be granted as an administrative variance. His response to the staff report is that the subject lot is uniquely shaped by the widening ROW, creating a trapezoidal shape favoring views to the bay in addition to the rising topography to the east creating views to the bay. These conditions promote the public health of the residents and general welfare of neighbors and visitors to the bluff. The unnecessary hardship imposed by the excessive setback is loss of the view to the Bluff Park and the bay and is contrary to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Relief would not cause impairment to the public and added that the bay view November 21, 2022 Board of Adjustments Minutes 3 is good for one’s health, will increase property taxes, and that none of the neighbors had objected to the request. Mr. De Gutz cited previous Board of Adjustments cases, such as BOA 21.09, where a street side setback variance was denied, and BOA 22.12, where front and street side setback variances were granted. Cathy Slagle asked if the azaleas on the west side were being removed. Mrs. Colleen De Gutz replied that they were unsure of the health of the plants and who they belong to, but that are towards the front of the property and do not need to be removed. The trees on the west side are not being removed and are not in the way of the view. Chairman Vira brought up the two-story home to the east, suggesting that the owner could see the bay over the De Gutz residence. Mr. De Gutz stated that the owner has a chimney on the west side of the home and had no intention of seeing the bay view as they do not have bay windows and built an 8’ fence on the west side. Cathy Slagle added that there are many properties with fences, not many people have pushed for a bay view. She asked how long they thought they would be able to see the bay with the growing trees in the park. Mr. De Gutz replied that the founders designed the street to provide a view for as long as possible. Currently, they have a view and a breeze. Frank Lamia confirmed that the existing home would be torn down and stated that the Applicants were creating a hardship and needed to adhere to the current regulations. Mrs. De Gutz replied that the home was built in 1955 and modifications had been made to sustain it, not improve it. There is not a good foundation, the kitchen floor is cracking, there is not anything to work with. Mr. De Gutz added that the home looked like it needed to be torn down and that what is being requested aligns with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Simmons stated that many valid points were made, but that the future needed to be considered. A new owner to the east may want a view and would have to request a 25’ front setback variance. A non-conforming structure can be detrimental to the overall goals. Money, such as property tax values, does not qualify for a variance. A variance should be granted in extremely rare cases. A tree variance is a possibility that may allow the 30’ setback, but the tree was not shown on the survey. Mr. De Gutz stated that there is a 16’ oak at the rear of the property, they do not want to build the home any closer to the tree. Ryan Baker confirmed that the tree was not shown on the plans. Mr. De Gutz added that they are not claiming a financial hardship, they are stating that the tax value would increase with a view, referencing the Purpose and Intent of Article VII in the Zoning Ordinance. Ryan Baker stated that the home to the east has a porch that is mostly uncovered. Having an uncovered porch would preserve their view while abiding the 35’ front setback. Mr. De Gutz replied that they had designed the home with a covered porch and expressed concerns about bugs with an uncovered porch. Mrs. De Gutz stated that they would not have requested a variance if their neighbor to the west had not been able to the build to the 30’ setback line. Ryan Baker replied that with the trapezoidal shape of the street, their property line is narrower in. Mr. De Gutz stated that before the Zoning Ordinance was amended, a proposed building was allowed to align with a building on either side. Mrs. De Gutz added that a property on Kiefer Avenue was granted front and street November 21, 2022 Board of Adjustments Minutes 4 side setback variances in September in order to keep the front façade, although there was room in the rear for the front setback variance to not be needed. They would like to keep their front setback in order to accommodate their view. Ryan Baker replied that every case is different. Mr. Simmons added that the Kiefer lot was difficult and the same logic that was applied on the Kiefer request was applied to the current request. Staff does not consider what one person’s view or street appeal is. Cathy Slagle asked if granted the variance would set a precedent. Mr. Simmons replied that it would set a precedent for nonconforming lots and guidelines for what is allowed. Chairman Vira opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Ryan Baker made a motion to deny Case BOA 22.14, the request for a 2.8’ variance to the front setback requirements, per staff’s recommendation. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook, and Ryan Baker. Nay: None. Old/New Business • Allie Knutson, Secretary, stated that there would be one case on the agenda for the December meeting. • Approval of the 2023 Board of Adjustments Schedule and Deadlines. Motion: Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve the 2023 Board of Adjustments Schedule and Deadlines as presented. Ryan Baker seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook, and Ryan Baker. Nay: None. Adjournment Adjourned at 6:09 p.m. ____________________________ ________________________ Anil Vira, Chairman Allie Knutson, Secretary NICHOLS AV LARAWAYLNMERSHON STCAIN LN S SCHOOL ST WINTERHAVEN CT WHITE AV ETTLE STCOLE CT OSWALT STFEL S A V WISTERIA STAZALEA STCity of FairhopeBoard of Adjustment December 19, 2022 ¯WINTERHAVENCT S SCHOOL ST BOA 22.15 - Lots 12 & 14 School Street COF Corp. LimitsB-1 - Local Shopping DistrictB-2 - General Business DistrictP-1 - ParkingR-2 - Medium Density Single-FamilyR-3 - High Density Single-FamilyR-3TH - Townhouse Single FamilyR-4 - Low Density Multi-FamilyR-6 - Mobile Home Park DistrictCOF Planning Jurisdiction : ^ Project Name:Lot 12 & 14 School StreetSite Data:0.48 acresProject Type:5ft driveway side setback vairance3ft lot line seperation varianceJurisdiction:Fairhope Zoning District:R-2PPIN Number:2472General Location:Lot 12 & 14 School StreetSurveyor of Record:N/AEngineer of Record:N/AOwner / Developer:R. Winston SmithSchool District:Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Prepared by: Michelle Melton :Approval with Conditions 1 BOA 22.15 Lots 12 and 14 School St. December 19, 2022 The Applicant, R. Winston Smith, is requesting a 5’ variance to the driveway side setback requirements as well as a variance for the 3’ separation to the side lot line, to allow for a shared driveway on the adjoining lots. The location is Lots 12 and 14 on South School Street. The lots are vacant and the plan for both lots is attached. The property is zoned R-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The Applicant is requesting a variance to the driveway side setback which would result in a 10’ side setback instead of 15’ as is called for when a driveway extends past the front line of the principle structure. The Applicant makes the request due to the smaller than average lot size for R-2 zoning and steep topography. Staff supports both of the variance requests. Figure 1: Baldwin County Parcel Viewer. https://isv.kcgis.com/al.baldwin_revenue/. Last visited on November22,2022. T aib le 3-2: Dimeosii on T aib le -Lots and Princip le Structure Dimemfon Min. Lot Are al Min. Setbacks Mu .. total lot Ma x. District or Al!lowed Unit s Per Lot\Vidth Fro nt Rear Side Street CD VU-gt by au he~t 11S'e Acre {UPA) side strudn~e s RIA 3 acres/-198.' 75' 75 ' 25' 50 ' l!lOUe 30 ' R-l 15 000s.f l -100' 40' 35' l 0"b 20 ' 40% 30' • R-la. 40 000dJ -120' 30 ' 30 ' 10' II 20' 15% 35' R-lb 30 000d l -100' 30 ' 30 ' l 0'b 20' 25% 35' R-l c 20,000 ~-fl -&O ' 30 ' 30 ' 10'11 20 ' 15% 35' R-2, 10 500 ;;_f j j 175' n i;;~ i:!J n-e;~ i:l'J 10 '~ !2 0' 137% !3 0' ~ b. Where a driveway is in th e side , and ex tend s past th e fron t of the principle struct ure, th e sid e setback shall be 15 '. Dri veways shall not be wi thin 3 fee t oflhe side lot line. The are a between the side lot lin e and dri eway shall be vegeta ted an d remain pervious. 2 BOA 22.15 Lots 12 and 14 School St. December 19, 2022 Figure 2: Google Street View off of School Street. Figure 3: City of Fairhope – Viewer (App). (Last visited on November 22, 2022) (Last visited on November 22, 2022) Although Lots 10 (existing house), 12, and 14 appear as one (1) parcel there are actually historic lot lines that divide the property into lots, which is illustrated on the plat from 1926. (See Figure 4). The City acknowledges the historic lot lines, which make up the 911 approved addresses: 309A S. School St. (Lot 10), 309C S. School St. (Lot 12), and 311B S. School St. (Lot 14). This request concerns Lots 12 and 14. Access to the lots is unique in Block 4 of the Central Park Addition (“Addition”) to the Ettle’s Subdivison. The subject lots are not accessable by Fels Avenue as Fels Avenue does not continue past Lot 3 of the Addition. There is an existing ingress/egress/utility easement off of S. School Street that provides access to the existing houses on Lots 9, 10, 11 and 15. (See Figure 2). The Easement Deed for all of the Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 is recorded as Instrument No. 1734097 and is attached as Exhibit A. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 for Block 4 of Central Park Addition in Fairhope, Alabama, (“Declaration”) is recorded as Instrument No. 1734096. (See Exhibit B). The Declaration sets out the maintenance responsibilities of the aforementioned easement by each lot in the Addition. The attached plans for Lots 12 and 14 better depict the ingress/egress/utility easement as the easement turns right between Lots 10 and 12 in order to service Lots 12, 14, and 15. PIN 2472 PID 05-46-03-37 0 0....ncr 309 SOUTH - -008-074.000 Me,lAddl POBOX21:~HOOLLLC Ma,!City FA .RHOP-= M.11,!Stare AL - Ms,\Zip1 36533 NICHOLS AVE 3 BOA 22.15 Lots 12 and 14 School St. December 19, 2022 Figure 4: 1926 Plat of Central Park Addition to Ettel’s Subdivision as recorded in Map Book No. 1 Page 8. 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: Lots 12 and 14 are generally rectangular with widths approximately 50 to 52 feet, respectively. Currently, R-2 minimum width is 75 feet; thus, these lots are smaller than the R-2 minimum requirements. There is not one (1) lot in the Addition that is 75 feet wide when acknowledging the historic lot lines. The topography slopes as well, which makes building on them more of a challenge. The lots are legal and non-conforming. (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. I CENTRAL PARI{ AlJD:!11D'N FA/RNOP~ iil~BA/t'!Ai--' EY!.l ril:; A RC-OIV/{;IQ,V o r -e TTEVS SUB -DN!SlON ..,:;.,,n ·r-o,.-6 ,--=-o.-r..s tW!il ~cf ,rr T G~ R :?"E; A"•~·S£DW..-,P~l'tOJ~q j ~ Lr_a_-,_,.,_,•_--_~---:---'"-"-!.·'.__ J~.__-_~y==...-----d-----1 __ -,~Nd£ ---, 4 BOA 22.15 Lots 12 and 14 School St. December 19, 2022 Response: Staff does believe the driveway side setback and separation requirement create a challenge to building a home on this property due to the smaller lot size. Similar arrangements have been approved previously in the area due to the smaller than average legal lot sizes. (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and Response: All of the historic lots in the Addition are less than 75 feet wide and the majority are not accessible from the unopened ROW of Fels Avenue. (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 not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance. The shared pervious driveway should actually enhance the surrounding area and contribute to eliminating run-off from impervious surfaces in the neighborhood. Comments: Staff recognizes the size of the lots are substandard and unique and that there is only one (1) point of ingress/egress via the easement off of S. School Street. The extent of the variance request is minimal as it only affects the last of the undeveloped lots in the Addition. (Lot 1 is platted as a park). Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of BOA 22.15 with the following conditions: 1. Driveway shall be made from pervious material and approved by the Planning Department. 2. Driveway shall be split along the common lot line 5’ on each side. 3. Driveway shall be a maximum of 10’ wide. 4. Provide a 20’ Ingress/Egress easement between lots 12 and 14. 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 5 BOA 22.15 Lots 12 and 14 School St. December 19, 2022 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: 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. &YIJCJU" STATE OF ALABAMA COUNTY OF BALDWIN BALDWIN COUNTY , ALABAMA TIM ROSSflL PROBATE JUDGE f1Iodlce!I . 12/11/2018 3.1i9 P-M Oeei! Tu S !,DO TOTAL S 20,0C 3 Page.t -__, c....> _.c::,,.. c:::::> C..c:> EASEMENT DEED -..a ll!~!Ml~ltl~J.~~i~tlll lll KNOW A LL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS , that for and in considerat io n of the sum of TEN DOLLARS {$10.00) DOLLARS and other good and va lu able conside ra tioh to the undersigned Grantors, in hand paid by the Grantees herein , the receipt whereof is hereby -acknowledge d, 309 South Schoo l, LLC, an Alabama Limited Liability Company, Isabel M. Espinheira and Benjamin 8 . Montgomery, hereinafter referred to as the Gra ntor, do hereby GIVE AND GRANT unto 309 South School , LLC and Isabel M. Espinheira and Benjamin B. Montgomel')', hereinafter referred to as the Grantees herein 1 a perpetual, non-e.xclusive easement for ingress, egress and Utilities over and across the followlng described property: Beginning at an iron pin marker being the common corner of Lots 9 and 11 lying on the East right•of-way line of South School Street, Brock 4 of Central Park Addition to Fairhope, Alabama as per its plat recorded ih Map Book 1, f:lage 101 in the Judge of Probate's Office, Baldwin County, .Alabama, thence run North 13 deg rees 37 mi nutes 35 seconds West, along said East right-of- wa.y line a distance of 10.38 feet to a point; thence run North 60 degrees 49 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 150.0 feet to a point; thence run South 33 degrees. 11 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 118.68 feet to a point lying on the North line of Lot 16, Block 4; thence run South 67 degrees 40 mi nutes .28 seconds West, along said North line of Lot 15, a distance of 15.27 feet to an Iron p in marker; thence run North 33 degrees 11 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 96.80 feet to a point; thence run South 60 degrees 49 mi nutes 15 seconds West, a distance of 142,00 feet to a po int lying on said East right~of-way line; then ce run North 13 degrees 37 minutes 35 seconds West, along said East right-of-way line a distance of 10.38 feet to the Point of Beginn ing. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD TH.E SAME unto the said Grantees, their successors, heirs and assigns forever. for the mutual benefit of the following properties: LOTS 9 , 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15, BLOCK 4 OF CENTRAL PARK ADDITION TO FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, AS PER ITS PLAT RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 1, PAGE 101, BALDWJN COUNTY, ALABAMA 7 Grantor's Address:. ____________________ _ Grantee's Address: (J\i\4 MMJ5vi\ ~L( {;ytlf~aPJ, ft ¾542 This Instrument was prepared by : Kopesky & Britt, LLC Attorneys at Law 455 Magnolia Avenue, Suite C-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 (251) 928-9900 &YIJCJU# DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR LOTS 9,10,11,12.14 AND 15, BLOCK 4 OF CENTRAL PARK ADDITION TO FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA WHEREAS the undersigned, 309 South School, LLC (hereinafter "Deve loper'') is the owner of certain parcels of real property situated in Baldwi n County, Alabama and being rnore particularly described as follows: and ; LOTS 10, 11. 1·2, 14 and 15, BLOCK 4 OF CENTRAL PARK ADDITION TO FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, AS PER ITS PLAT RECORDEDIN MAP BOO1'< 1, PAGE 101 , BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA WHEREAS the undersigned, Isabel M. Espinheira and Benjamin B. Montgomery (hereinafter "Espinheira and Montgomery") are the owners of a certain parcel of real property situated in Baldwin County, Alabama and being more particularly deiscribed as fo llows.: LOT 9, BLOCK 4 OF CENTRAL PARK ADDITION TO FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, AS PER ITS PLAT RECORDEDIN MAP BOOK 1, PAGE 101 . BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA; (hereinafter all parcels of real property described as "Lots"} and ; WHEREAS Developer intends to sell said Lots and Developer, Espinheira and Montgl:>mery desire that the improvements placed thereon be in accordance with certain architeictural and aesthetic guidelines for the benefit of all future owners; and WHEREAS Developer, Espinheira and Montgomery desire that the use and enjoyment of said Lots be subject to certain standards and guidelines for the bEmefit of all future owners. NOW , THEREFORE, Developer, Espinheira and Montgomery hereby di3cla re that all of tlhe Lots described above shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to tho following easements. restrictions, covenants and conditions , which are for the purpose of protecting the vallue and desirability of, and which shall run with, the real property and be !binding on all parties having any right, title and interest in the described real properties cir any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of e,ach owner thereof: 1. All windows shall be wood, vinyl, or aluminum clad , true divided or simulated true divided light windows. 2. All shingles shall be Timberline 30 year dimensional shingles (cir shingles or comparable design and quality). Metal Roofs are also permitted. BAI.DWIN COUNTY , ALABAMl\ TIM RUSSELL PROBATE JUDGE flled/cerl. 1211112018 3;57 PM 10m s 2.5 .oo 5 Pages ---__. ~ --=--c:::::, ~ c;:s, 1II\ l~t!lk~.~iilm~ti~:II\ \II 3. The following cornices shall be permitted: (1) double facie-board with 3" drip board at the top , (2) Open rafters with a minimum 24" and maximum of 36" overhang or (3) closed rafter with a minimum of 16" and maximum of 18 " overhang. No aluminum or vinyl materials permitted. For soffits , only wood, Hardi or concrete based materials will be permitted. 4. Roof pitches shall be a minimum of 8" in 12n. 5. Siding shall be wood or Hardi/concrete lap, board and batten , brick or true stucco . 6. No natural wood finrshes are permitted except on front door . 7. No sliding glass doors visible from street will be permitted . 8. Interior ceiling heights shall be a minimum of 10 ' on the first level and 9' on Upper levels. 9. Construction of a dwelling upon any Lot must be completed to the point of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit. The City of Fairhope's regulations for permitted hours of construction must be complied with. 10 . To the extent of the interest of the owner of a Lot, no facilities including poles and wires. for the transmission of electricity, television cable or telephone messages and the like shall be placed or maintained above the surface of the ground of any lot and no external or outside antennas, other than satellite dishes limited twenty- four (24 inches) shall be maintained and shall not be visible from and public street. 11 . No boat, boat trailer, motor home or any similar items shall be stored in the open on any Lot for a period of time in excess of seventy-two (72) hours unless such item is not visible from any property owner's access area or any public street. 12 . The total livable area (heated and cooled area) of the main building or structure , exclusive of open porches and garages , shall contain not less than one thousand five hundred (1,500) .square feet on Lots 10, 12, 14, and 15 and one thousand seven hundred (1,700) square feet on lots 9 and 11. 13. No hedge shall be located nearer the front property line of any Lot than the front of the dwelling on such Lot. No fence, wall , ornamental structure or gazebo shall be permitted. No chain link or metal fence may be constructed on any Lot. Only wooden fence material shall be permitted . 14 . Lots and structures shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. No excessive debris or rubbish shall be permitted to remain on any Lot, including during construction of a dwelllng on a Lot or lmprovement thereof. Lawns, plants, and shrubbery shall be maintained , pruned , and mowed and kept in a neat and orderly fashion at all times. 15. The Lots are subject to and together with an easement for ingress , egress and utilities , as evidenced by an Easement Deed from Developer to itself, and recorded of eve n date herewith . Each Lot owner shall be obligated for a fractional share of any and all maintenance and upkeep of said easement as set forth herein , regardless of the location of su ch Lot along the easement , as follows : a. The easement shall be kept usable , passable, tidy and free of potholes , ruts , washouts , debris, vegetation and the like ; b. No parking shall be permitted on the easement ; c. Upon the majority vote of all Lot owners , "bahama stone " shall be added to the easement, and each Lot owner shall be responsib le for their fractional share, as set forth here in. of the cost thereof; d. The driveway portion of the easement shall be approximately 16 ', and the 2' on each si de thereof shall be used for utilities. e . No construction equipment may be parked on the easement. f . In the event that any lot owner, their agents and/or invitees, should damage or leave debris, dirt, construction materials or the like upon the easement, said lot owner shall be responsible for returning the easement to its original state of repair and cleanliness . 15 . Lot owners shall be responsible for a fractional share of maintainance and upkeep of the easement as follows : Lot 9-15% Lot 10-15% Lot 11-15% Lot 12-15% Lot 14-20% Lot 15-20% 16 . Mailboxes for individual homes may be placed at the edge of the intersection of the easement and School Street. The design of the mailbox structure must be consistent with the pre-exist ing structure . 17 . Garbage cans may be placed and removed at the edge of the easement and Schoo l Street within twenty-four (24) hours of pickup by the City of Fairhope sanitation department , and must be removed on the same calendar day as the pickup . 18 . Developer reserves the right to unilaterally amend these Covenants at any time, so long as Developer owns any lot encumbered hereby , and the properties described herein and the owners , heirs and assigns thereof, shall be subject to such amended terms .