HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-2018 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketKarin Wilson
Atqyor
U)lmci/ M,·mbers
Kevin G. Boone
Roben A. Brown
Jack Burrell, ACMO
Jimmy Conyers
Jay Robinson
Lisa A. Hanks, MM C
Ci01 Clerk
Deborah A. Smith, CPA
Ci,y 7/'casurer
161 i-:onh Section Street
P.O. Drawer 429
Fairhope. Alabama 36533
251 -928-2 136
251 -928 -6776 Fax
w1vw.[airhopeal .g01·
1. Call to Order
City of Fairhope
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
5:00 PM
City Council Chambers
January 18, 2018
2 . Approval of the December 18 , 2017 minutes
3. Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. BOA 17 .20 Public hearing to consider the request of Richard
and Mary Mundy for a variance to the rear setback
requirements for property located at 319 Equ ity
Street.
PPIN #: 29980
B. BOA 18 .01 Public hearing to consider the request of Lance
Hill for a Special Exception to allow St orage at 362
S. Greeno Road .
PPIN #: 5318
4 . Old/New Bus iness
5. Adjourn
October 16, 20 I 7
Board of Adjustment Minutes
The City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments and Appeals met on Monday, October
16, 2017 at 5:00 PM in the Ci ty Council Chambers at the City Administration
Building, located at 161 N . Section Street.
Members Present: Troy Strunk, Vice-Chair; Cathy Slagle Dick Schneider; John
Avent; Christina Stankoski; Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning; Buford King,
Planner; and Emily Boyett, Secretary.
Absent: Chairman Anil Vira and Harry Kohler
The meeting was called to order at 5 :00 PM by Vice Chairman Strunk.
The minutes of the October 18, 2017 meeting were considered. Dick Schneider moved to
accept the minutes as written and was 2 nd by John A vent. Motion carried with one
abstention by Cathy Slagle.
BOA 17 .18 Public hearing to consider the request of Kenneth Lee for a Special
Exception to allow a restaurant at 552 N. Section Street.
Mr. Dyess gave the staff report.
Summary of Request:
The property owner and applicant is Kenneth Lee. He is seeking approval for a special
exception for a restaurant pursuant the Zoning Ordinance, Table 3.1. According to the
use table, a restaurant is in the use category of "service." A restaurant is in the service
category and is only allowed in the B-1 d istrict as a special exception. It should be noted
that this special exception request is for an existing restaurant (Original Ben's Jr. BBQ)
which was given its initial business license in December of 1986. The 2006
Comprehensive Plan recognizes the existing land use in Section 2.2 on page 8. It is
described as "commercial pockets supply the immediate neighborhoods with goods and
services." The subject property is in an area of North Section which falls into the
category of a "commercial pocket." The use is existing and this special exception
application is only for approval of the use. The special exception approval process is
contained within the zoning ordinance and is therefore consistent with standards, goals,
and intent of the zoning ordinance. The subject property and restaurant use is located on
a triangular shaped property, not suitable for any residential use. A pocket of commercial
uses has historically existed in the vicinity. The cunent u se has ex isted at the subject
prope11y for many years and presumably has adequate infrastructure. This application for
special exception does not include new development. Staff is not aware of any issues or
deficiencies with other laws and regulations of the City, or of other jurisdictions. The use
is existing and the special exception app lication does not permit new development. Any
new development must be done in compliance with current setbacks and other applicable
regulations. The use has existed for many years and appears to be a viable use for the
property. The existing u se is in a "commercial pocket" on a property which is irregularly
shaped and not suitable for a residential use or a larger commercial use. This
"commercial pocket" was established many years ago well before the comprehensive
plan. In addition, the current zoning map for this area recognizes the ex isting use as
1
October 16 , 20 I 7
Board of Adjustment Minutes
commercial. Staff is not aware of any additional terms or conditions outside of
applicable standards of the zoning ordinance.
Recommendation:
Cunently, the restaurant use is non-conforming which restricts improvements. After
reviewing the criteria for a vm-iance/special exception staff recommends that the special
exception be APPROVED.
Mr. A vent asked if the business was in operation prior to the zoning and Mr. Dyess
responded he was not sure but he believed so. Mr. Lee stated the restaurant has been in
business for over 40 years.
Mr. Strunk opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Strunk
closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Stankoski asked if a bar could be opened at this location and Mr. Dyess explained
this request would allow a bar as part of a restaurant but not a stand alone business.
Cathy Slagle made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve the Special
Exception to allow a restaurant. Dick Schneider 2nd the motion and the motion canied
with the following vote: A YE -Christina Stankoski, Cathy Slagle, Dick Schneider, Troy
Strunk, John Avent. NAY -none.
BOA 17.19 Public hearing to consider the request of PolySurveying of Mobile,
Inc. for a variance to the side setback requirements for property
located at 233 Divot Loop.
Mrs. Boyett gave the staff report.
Summary of Request:
The applicant is reqt1esting a side setback variance related to Lot 108 of the Quail Creek
Estates, The Villas, Phase VI subdivision. The subject property is located at the south
end of Club Drive, at 233 Divot Loop. The Quail Creek Estates, The Villas, Phase VI
subdivision was approved on September 4 , 2007 , case number SD 07.33. The subject
property is zoned R-3 High Density Single Family Patio/Garden Home Residential
District and was approved with the following setbacks: front -20', rear -15', side -10'
one side only, and side street -1 0'. On October 30 , 2017 a building permit was
submitted for the subject property. The submittal was reviewed for compliance and a
building pennit was issued on September 20, 2017. During a routine sheathing
inspection by the Building Department, the inspector noted the structure appeared to
encroach into the setbacks. Upon further examination, the front northwest comer of the
building was found to be over the setbacks by 2.9'. The applicant is requesting a 2.9 '
side setback variance for the subject property. The subject property is a pie-shaped lot
approximately 15 ,088 sq.ft. in size. The shape of the lot is not particularly uncommon
and the lot is the largest in this phase of the subdivision. The lot has no extraordinary and
exceptional topographical conditions . The subject prope1ty 's setbacks do not prevent the
reasonable use of the property. The pie-shape of the site is not uncommon within the
Fairhope P lanning Jurisdiction and is not necessm-ily peculiar to the subject piece of
2
October 16, 2 0 I 7
Board of Adjustmen t Minutes
property. Staff believes that a setback variance allowing the protrusion is not warranted,
and therefore no relief is recommended.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that this variance be DENIED due to no hardship has been proven as
required by the criteria established by the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article
II.C.3.e.
Brett Orrell of PolySurveying of Mobile, Inc. -He said the 10' setback is not specified as
to which side it has to be and he contended the overall setbacks are more than what is
required. He noted the house is smaller than what is allowed and sits further back from
the front building line . He explained this is an honest mistake and there was no malice
intent. He stated there is 11 ' between the existing stmcture and the house to the west so
the fire code requirements are being met. He stated he is asking fo r relief for himself and
the homeowner.
Mike Hayes of MDH Construction -He stated he has never had something like this
happen before. He said it was caught after the house was under constrnction and they are
asking for leniency.
Mr. Schneider asked what would it hurt to allow this and Mr. Dyess stated the request
does not meet the criteria for a hardship. Mr. Dyess explained this is a self-imposed
hardship and even though he understands the plight, to allow this will diminish the
integrity of the process but he will respect the decision of the Board.
Mr. Strunk opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Strunk
closed the public hearing.
Ms. Slagle asked what will happen if the request is denied. Mr. Orrell said the option
aren't good. He said the comer of the bedroom would have to be cut off or the entire
building will have to be torn down. Mr. Hayes stated the bedroom will be useless if the
comer must be cut off. Mr. A vent said he respects staff and their position but the Board
is here to offer so lutions when the black and white rules don't work. H e said he read the
plat and it is not clear regarding the setbacks. He noted the subject strncture is still 11 '
from the structure to the west and 27' from the structure to the north. Mrs. Boyett stated
if the vari ance is approved it will restrict the adjacent property and cause a hardship for
them. Mrs. Stankoski asked what the neighbor had to say and Richard Good, the
applicant, stated the neighbor has only commented that they like the design of the house.
Mr. Avent acknowledged that approving the variance would be taking a right from the
neighbor but t he Board is looking at the greater good. Mr. Strunk said he is against
tearing down the structure or making it unusable. Mr. Schneider said this is a small
mi stake. Mr. Strunk suggested there be a condition that no future expansion s hall be
allowed. Mr. Hayes added the wall could be fire rated.
Dick Schneider made a motion to approve the variance request to allow a 2 .9' side
setback variance on the west sid e of the subject property with the following condition:
1. The exterior wall on the west side of the property sh all be fire rated.
John Avent 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE -Dick Schneider, Christina Stankoski, John Avent, Troy Strunk, and Cathy Slagle.
NAY-none.
3
October 16, 20 I 7
Board of Adjustme nt Minutes
BOA 17.20 Public hearing to consider the request of Richard and Mary Mundy
for a variance to the rear setback requirements for property located
at 319 Equity Street.
Mr. King gave the staff report.
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a rear setback line adjustment to lot 1 of the McMillins
Subdivision, located approximately 1/3 mile southeast of South Mobile Street at the
convergence of Nichols Avenu e and Equity Street. The subject property is located within
an R-2 medium density single family zoning district, which requires 35' front and rear
setbacks as well as 10 ' side setbacks. The applicant provided supporting documents
depicting the existing survey of the lot as well as a proposed survey requesting treatment
of the 3 5' rear setback on the southeast side of the property as a 10' side setback line.
Lot 1 is generally rectangular, with slightly irregular lo t lines on its northeast side
bordering lot 2 , PPIN 357758 . Lot 1 contains two lot lines that are contiguous with the
right-of-way (ROW) at the convergence of Nichols Avenue and Equity Street. As-
platted, this slight irregularity creates two front lot lines as well as two rear lot lines: the
20' front lot line c01Tesponds to a 15 2.5' rear lot line, and the 118.3' front lot line
conesponds to a 57' rear lot line . Approximate ly 69' of the 118.3' lot line is contiguous
with the ROW at the convergence of Nichols A venue and Equity Street. The variance
request desires to treat the 35' rear setback line along the 152.5' rear lot line into a 1 O'
side setback line along the same 152.5' lot line. The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance
Article IX Section "C" defines a Lot Line, Front as: "The lot line contiguous to the right-
of-way line of the street on which the lot has least dimension." The City of Fairhope
Zoning Ordinance Article IX Section "C" defines a Lot Line, Rear as: "The lot line
opposite to and most distance from the front lot line." By definition the 20' lot line
contiguous with the ROW is a front lot line and the 152.5 ' lot line opposite t o and most
distant from the 20' lot line is a rear lot line. Though only approximately 69' of the
11 8.3' lot line is contiguous to the ROW , the 11 8.3' lot line is not the lot line of the least
dimension contiguous to the ROW. The subject property 's size and buildable area do not
appear to be extraordinary or exceptiona l due to size, shape, or topography with the
existing setbacks in place. Further, the subject property's topography is consistent with
the nearby l ots al on g Nichols Avenue and Equity Street. The subject property's existing
as-platted setbacks do not appear to prevent construction of a reasonably sized residence
without approval of a setback variance. Further, the existing setbacks do not appear to
prevent the reasonable use of the prope1ty for a residence of similar size to nearby
residences. The layout of the ROW at the convergence of Nichols Ave and Equity Street
creates a number of peculiarities that are unique to subject property. The Nichols Ave
ROW increasingly turns to the southeast as it approaches Equity St., cutting across an
existing driveway for the lot with PPIN 2229 1. It is po ssible, but unknown to staff that
this ROW routing was intended to place a large existing oak tree in the ROW. In
addition, the convergence of Nichols Ave and Equity St. occurs as a 90-degree curve
rather than a n intersection, and as a result the ROW at the convergence is irregular in the
manner in which the ROW makes the curve of the two streets at the convergence. The
ROW along Equity St. travels southwest, makes a sharp tum to the west, and then turns
southwe st again to intersect with the Nichols Ave ROW. This inegularity creates two
4
October I 6, 20 17
Board of Adju stment Minute s
lots lines for the subject property that are contiguous to the ROW. The existing survey
for subject property treated both lot lines as front lines and as a result two 35' rear
setback lines were platted to subj ect property. Staff believes that a variance allowing the
setback requested is warranted. The variance requested wishes to treat a rear 35 ' setback
line as 1 O' side setback line. The existing 57' rear lot line does not appear to meet the
City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article IX Section "C·'' definition ofrear lot line, and
therefore relief is recommended to be granted. The requested setback line would add
approximately 648sf to the buildable area of the lot but this relatively small increase in
the buildable area would not cause substantial detriment to the public and impair the
purpose and intent of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendation:
It is• staffs position that the location of the ROW at the convergence of Nichols Avenue
and Equity Street, combined with the slightly irregular shape of the lot creates a
peculiarity unique to subject prope1iy that resulted in additional rear lot line and
c01Tesponding 3 5 ' rear setback to be platted for the lot. Therefore, staff recommends the
variance request be approved to allow the as-platted rear setback along the 57' lot line to
be treated as a side lot line with a 10' setback.
Knox McMurphy of Ashurst Niemeyer -She explained the subject lot was previously
one lot and was subdivided into two lots. She s aid the lot is currently under contract but
the setback will not allow the desired house plan to be constructed on the lot. She stated
the app licant wants to build a one-story home and would like it to match the existing
neighborhood. She stated they would prefer to have the south property line setback
reduced to 10'. Mr. King stated thi s is not the request that was adverti sed and the case
will have to be tabled and re-advertised if the applicant wishes to change their request.
Mr. King explained the regulations are very clear on the definitions of front and rear
property lines. He said staff will not be able to support the proposed change to the
request.
Mr. Strunk opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Strunk
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Avent said h e agrees with staff's interpretation and the definitions but he thinks
geometrically the new request lines up with the adjacent structures and the lot is irregular.
He added the request before the Board is not what the applicant wants and if it is changed
then it will have to be re-adveitise d.
Cathy Slagle made a motion to table the reque st to the next mee ting for re-adv ertisement.
John Avent 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the fo llowing vo te :
A YE -Dick Schneider, Chri stina Stankoski, John Avent, Troy Strunk, and Cathy Slagle .
NAY-none.
BOA 17.21 Public hearing to consider the request of Community Bank Coast for
a variance to the side setback requirements for property located at
200 N. Greeno Road.
Mr. King gave the staff report.
5
October 16, 20 I 7
Board of Adjustment Minutes
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a side setback variance related to lot 1 of the Greeno
Professional Village Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Greeno Professional
Village PUD was approved April 8, 2002, case number ZC 02.01. The subject property
is located at the eastern intersection of Edwards A venue and Greeno Road, located
approx imately 1/4 mile north of Fairhope Avenue. The subject property is currently
under consideration for a site plan review, case number SR 17.03 as well as a PUD
amendment, case number ZC 17 .17. Both the site plan review and PUD amendments
have been approved by the Fairhope Planning Commission and each case is awaiting
review by the Fairhope City Council for final approval. Cases SR 17.03 and ZC 17.17
are related to the construction of a new Community Bank location, an allowable use
within the Greeno Professional Village PUD. The subject request for variance is related
to the driveway side setback on the n01th side of the property and the allowable overhang
of the proposed drive-thru canopy. Lot 1 of the Greeno Professional V illage PUD is
generall y rectangular, with a protrusion fronting upon Edwards Avenue that creates and
"L" shape. The existing private access road traversing Greeno Professional Village
enters the "L" shape, makes a sharp 90-degree turn to the east, another 90 -degree turn to
the north, and then continues through the Greeno Profession Village before intersecting
Gayfer Avenue. The bank building will be situated in the rectangular region of the
subject property with the remaining areas utilized for parking. A bank drive-thru will
connect to the existing access road on the northeast side of Lot 1 and re-connect to the
access road on the southwest side of Lot 1. The variance request desires "relaxation" of
the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article !IL Section C.3. which states: "No part of
a yard or other open space required for any building for the purpose of complying with
the provisions of this ordinance shall be included as part of a yard or other open space
similarly required for another building. Every part of a required yard or court shall be
open to the sky, except for permitted accessory structures and the ordinary projection of
sills, cornices, buttresses, ornamental features, chimneys, flues, and eaves, provided the
projections shall not extend more than two feet beyond the yard area requirements. " The
proposed Community Bank's drive-thn.1 canopy extends beyond the 2'-0" yard area
( across the setback line) allowance for ordinary projection of sills, cornices, buttresses,
ornamental featmes, chimneys, flues, and eaves . A driveway side setback line is created
by the inclusion of a drive-thru for the Community Bank at a length of 15'-0" as specified
in the Greeno Professional V ill age PUD o rdinance. As-submitted, the face of column
distance to edge of canopy is 7'-4 3/8", and then 7'-6 3 /8" from the edge of canopy to the
prope11y line for a total of 14' -10 ¾" ~ 15 '-0" from the face of column to the property line
to comply with the driveway side setback requirement of the PUD. The 7' -4 3/8" canopy
protrusions exceeds the 2 '-0" allowance of City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article
JJL Section C.3. The subject prope1ty's size and buildable area do not appear to be
extraordinary or exception al due to size, shape, or topography with the required setbacks
in place. Fmther, the subject property's topography is consistent with the nearby lots
comprising the Greeno Professional Vill age and the setbacks required by the PUD do not
appear to prevent construction or use of the Community Bank structure without approval
of a setback variance. The subject property's existing setbacks do not appear to prevent
construction or use of the Community Bank structure or its use as a banking faci lity
without approval of a setback variance. Further, the setbacks required by the Greeno
6
October I 6, 20 I 7
Board of Adjustment Minutes
Professional Village PUD do not appear to prevent the reasonable use of the property as a
bank as all three drive-thru lanes will be functional without approval of a setback
variance. The layout of the subject property forms an "L" shape but contains a
rectangular area that accommodates the Community Bank structure without a side
setback variance. The "L" shape of the site is not uncommon within the Fairhope
Planning Jurisdiction and is not necessarily a peculiarity unique to the subject piece of
property. Staff believes that a setback variance allowing the additional drive-thru canopy
protrusion is not warranted, and therefore no relief is recommended that would cause
substantial detriment to the public and impair the purpose and intent of the City of
Fairhope Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendation:
It is staf-f s position that though the requested variance is an understandable and logical request,
no hardship has been proven as required by the criteria established by the City of Fairhope
Zoning Ordinance Article II.C .3 .e. Therefore, staff recommends the variance request be denied.
Mr. Avent asked if the site plan still must go to the City Council and Mr. King answered
yes, but this is a stand alone request and will not affect the site plan request. Mr. Avent
asked if this request will amend the PUD ordinance and Mr. King responded no.
Neil Polen of Dale Paiiners Architect -He explained the entire PUD has not been built as
it was designed. He said the lot has been difficult to design and any relaxation would
help. Mr. Schneider asked if 4' would keep the elements off the customers and Mr. Polen
responded yes anything is better than 2'. Mrs. Slagle asked if they have considered
redesigning the interior of the building and Mr. Polen responded yes, exhaustively. Mrs.
Stankoski asked if there have been any opposition from the adjacent property owner and
Mrs. Boyett stated staff has not received any comments. Mr. Avent asked if the drainage
requirements will be met and Mr. Polen res ponded yes.
Mr. Strunk opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Strunk
closed the public hearing.
John A vent made a motion to approve the request as proposed. Christina Stanko ski 2nd
the motion and the motion failed with the following vote: A YE -Dick Schneider,
Christina Stankoski , and John A vent. NAY -Cathy Slagle and Troy Strunk.
Having no further business, John Avent made a motion to adjourn. Christina Stankoski
2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:29
PM.
7
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a rear setback line variance to lot 1 of the McMillins Subdivision, located
approximately 1/3 mile southeast of South Mobile Street at the convergence of Nichols Avenue and
Equity Street. The subject property is located within an R-2 medium density single family zoning
district, which requires 35' front and rear setbacks as well as 10' side setbacks. The applicant provided
supporting documents depicting the existing survey of the lot as well as a proposed survey requesting
treatment of the 35' rear setback line on the south/southwest side of the property as a 10' side
setback line. The proposed survey is a supporting document that represents the desired setback
request and does not represent a re-plat request for subject property to be considered by the Planning
Commission.
Comments:
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 a variance through Article II.A.d(3) which states
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 request s through the following criteria:
Article 11.C.3.e.
Criteria -(1) An application for a variance shall be granted only on the concurring vote of four
2 BO A 17 .20 319 Equity Street -Jan. 18, 2018
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) Reliet 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 I1.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.
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:
Lot 1 is generally rectangular, with slightly irregular lot lines on its northeast side bordering lot
2, PPIN 357758. Lot 1 contains two lot lines that are contiguous with the right-of-way (ROW) at
the convergence of Nichols Avenue and Equity Street. As-platted, this slight irregularity creates
two front lot lines as well as two rear lot lines: the 20' front lot line corresponds to a 152.5' rear
lot line, and the 118.3' front lot line corresponds to a 57' rear lot line. Approximately 69' of the
118.3' lot line is contiguous with the ROW at the convergence of Nichols Avenue and Equity
Street.
The variance request desires to treat the 35' rear setback line along the 152.5' rear lot line as a
10' side setback line along the same 152.5' lot line. The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance
Article IX Section "C" defines a Lot Line, Front as:
The lot line contiguous to the right-of-way line of the street on which the lot has least
dimension.
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article IX Section "C" defines a Lot Line, Rear as:
The lot line opposite to and most distant from the front lot line .
3 BOA 17.20 319 Equity Street -Jan. 18, 2018
By definition the 20' lot line contiguous with the ROW is a front lot line and the 152.5' lot line
opposite to and most distant from the 20' lot line is a rear lot line. Though only approximately
69' of the 118.3' lot line is contiguous to the ROW, the 118.3' lot line is not the lot line of the
least dimension contiguous to the ROW.
The subject property's size and buildable area do not appear to be extraordinary or exceptional
due to size, shape, or topography with the existing setbacks in place. Further, the subject
property's topography is consistent with the nearby lots along Nichol s Avenue and Equity
Street. The subject property's existing as-platted setbacks do not appear to prevent
construction of a reasonably sized residence without approval of a setback variance.
(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:
As stated above, the subject property's existing setbacks do not appear to prevent construction
of a reasonably sized residence without approval of a setback variance. Further, the existing
setbacks do not appear to prevent the reasonable use of the property for a residence of similar
size to nearby residences.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved.
Response:
The layout of the ROW at the convergence of Nichols Ave and Equity Street creates a number of
peculiarities that are unique to subject property. The Nichols Ave ROW increasingly turns to
the southeast as it approaches Equity St., cutting across the existing driveway servicing the lot
with PPIN 22291. It is possible, but unknown to staff that this ROW routing was intended to
place a large existing oak tree in the ROW. In addition, the convergence of Nichols Ave arid
Equity St. occurs as a 90-degree curve rather than an intersection, and as a result the ROW at
the convergence is irregular in the manner in which the ROW makes the curve of the two
streets at the convergence. The ROW along Equity St. travels southwest, makes a sharp turn to
the west, and then turn s southwest again to intersec t with the Nichols Ave ROW . Thi s
irregularity creates two lots lines for the subject property that are contiguous to the ROW. The
existing survey for subject property treated both lot lines as front lot lines and as a result two
35' rear setback lines were platted for the subject property. The irregularity of the ROW and lot
lines is shown below:
4 BOA 17 .20 319 Equity Street-Jan. 18, 2018
The requested variance wishes to treat the 152.5' rear lot line's 35' rear setback line as a 10'
side se tback line. Though the convergence of Equity Street and Nichols Avenue, as well as the
ROW associated with each street creates the peculiarities described above, the 20' lot lin e
contiguous to the ROW and its corresponding rear lot line of 152.5' in length clearly meets the
definition of "front" and "rear" lot lines.
(d) Reliet 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:
Staff believes that a variance allowing the setback r equeste d is not warranted. The variance
requested wishes to treat a rear 35' setback lin e as 10' side se tback line. The existing 152.5'
rear lot line clearly meets the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article IX Section "C" definition
of a r ea r lot lin e, and therefore the 35' rear se tback lin e is th e correct se tback line for the
5 BOA 17.20 319 Equ ityStreet -Jan.18, 2018
3
Comments:
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinan ce defines a special ex ception as follows :
Special Exception: Permission granted by the Board of Adjustment for a use indicated in this
ordinance as a use limited to a special exception procedure, subject to conditions specified in
this ordinance and any conditions the Board deems necessary to ensure that community
interests are furthered by permission of the use.
The Board of Adju stments is authorized to grant sp ecial exception s through Article II.A.d (2)
which states the followin g:
d. Duties and Powers: The Board shall have the following duties and powers:
{2} Special Exceptions -To hear and decide specia l exceptions to the terms of this ordinance
upon which the board is required to pass under this ordinance.
The Ordinance provid es g uid anc e for special exception request s through the follo w ing criteria:
Article 11.C.3.e .
Criteria -(2) Any other application to the Board shall be reviewed under the following criteria
and relief granted only upon the concurring vote of fou r Board members:
(a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
(b) Compliance with any other approved planning document;
(c) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;
(d) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;
(e) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;
(f) Impacts on natural resources, i ncluding existing conditions and ongoing post-development
conditions;
(g) Compliance w ith other laws and regulations of the City;
(h) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;
(i) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical
impacts, and property values;
(j) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, t r affic, vis i ble intrusions,
potential physical impacts, and property values.
(k) Overall benefit to the community;
(I) Compliance with sound planning principles;
(m) Compliance with the terms and conditions of a ny zoning approval; and
(n) Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
When a sp eci al excepti o n is granted by th e Zo ning Bo ard of Adjustment it has the following
effect:
Article 11.C.3.f.
Effect of Appeal -An appeal to the Board stays all legal proceedings in furtherance of the
application appealed from unless the Director certifies to the Board that a stay would cause
imminent peril to life and property. In such cases , proceedings will not be stayed, unless by
operation of a court of competent jurisdiction. If an appeal fails for any reason, the stay shall
be l i fted.
BO A 18.0 1 362 S. Gree no Road -Jan. 18, 2018