The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-21-2022 Board of Adjustments MinutesNovember 21, 2022 Board of Adjustments Minutes 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, l O' 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.l' 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 0 D J November 21, 2022 Board of Adjusbnents Minutes 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 2 November 21, 2022 Board of Adjustments Minutes side setback variances in September in order to keep the front fa~ade, 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. Adiournment Adjourned at 6:09 p.m. &nA',e; k. {/~ Anil Vira, Chairman 4